20130412 Ver 1_401 Application_20171217

il
c� 0
DEC 2ue
o 2017 Unl �
q.
..- RFS u s Places
December 18, 2017
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: Mr. Andrew Williams
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
$ P
North Carolina Division of Water
Resources
Attention: Mr. Mac Haupt
NC DWR, WBSCP Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Subject: USACE Action ID# SAW -2017-00511, NFWF Project ID #8020.16.054047. Request
for a Nationwide Permits 53 and 27 and corresponding Water Quality Certifications 4091
and 4087 for the removal of the Hoosier Dam on the Rocky River in Chatham County.
Unique Places, LLC on Behalf of Rocky River Hydro, LLC requests the issuance of a NWP
53 and 27 as well as the corresponding DWQ certification for the removal of the Hosier
Dam on the Rocky River. The site (350 38' 08"N, 79° 12' 40"W) is located in Chatham
County, along N.C. Highway 87 approximately six miles south of the of the Town of
Pittsboro, North Carolina. The subject site is located on the Rocky River approximately 5
'/2 miles upstream of its confluence with the Deep River (HUC 03030003). This structure will
be removed by the US Fish and Wildlife through the National Fish Passage Program for
the purpose of Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholos) habitat restoration.
Included with this letter are the Pre -Construction Notification, permit drawings,
and other required information. If you have questions please contact me at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
' 4c&erL 41L'&
Aaron Aho
Project Manager
Unique Places, LLC

Unique
Places
Application Fee (Check)
Pre -Construction Notification including Supplemental Narrative
Agent Authorization
Project Maps:
• Figure 1: Aerial Imagery Map
• Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
• Figure 3: Soils Map
• Figure 4: HUC 8 Vicinity Map
• Figure 5: Dam Removal Impact Map
• Figure 6: Crib Dam Removal Map
• Figure 7: Returning Wetlands Map
Table 1: Wetland Change Table
Construction Plans
JD Maps (previously submitted to USACE)
-- --NINE=
Archeological Report
Dewatering Plan
Sediment Management Plan
Letters of Support
Construction Access Permission for Crib Dam Removal

ot�0F a lr, 9,
oNiii�-<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 53 and 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal (NC)Project — Chatham County, NC; NFWF Project
I D #8020.16.054047
2b.
County:
Chatham
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Pittsboro
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Rocky River Hydro, LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
1660/0903
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
not applicable
3d.
Street address:
3409 Birk Bluff Ct.
3e.
City, state, zip:
Cary, NC 27518
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Aaron Aho
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Unique Places, LLC
5c. Street address:
PO Box 52357
5d. City, state, zip:
Durham, NC 27717
5e. Telephone no.:
919-491-1964
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
66913, 18352
Latitude: 35.635485 Longitude: -
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
79.211584
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c.
Property size:
8.917 and 3.0 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Rocky River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Cape Fear
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
see supplemental narrative.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
5.35 acres
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
6,365 If
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
see supplemental narrative
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
see supplemental narrative
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
®Yes El No El Unknown
Comments: A delineation and evaluation of wetlands present
on the site has been completed and a Preliminary JD request
has been submitted.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Unique Places, LLC
Name (if known): (Jason Payne and Chris Flowers)
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
S.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ® Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number -
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ - non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ❑ T
Hydrologic Loss
(drained)
Lacustrine Fringe
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
EJ DWQ
2.03
W2 ® P [-IT
Functional
Change (reduced
Lacustrine Fringe
® Yes
❑ No
El Corps
[-I DWQ
0.75
hydrology)
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W7 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W8 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2.78
2h. Comments: Impacts listed above are the cumulative totals from the attached wetland change effects spreadsheet that
references wetalnds originally detailed in the JD submittal. Returning wetlands (wetland additions) are also anticipated. See
the supplemental narrative for additional information.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ - non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T
Dam Removal
Rocky River
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
150
56
S2 ❑ P ®T
Sediment
Removal
Rocky River
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
150
711
S3 ®P ❑ T
Bank Stabilization
Rocky River
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
150
235
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
1,002
3i. Comments: Impacts S1 and S2 are depicted on the attached Hoosier Dam Revmoval Impact Plan. S3 is depicted on the
Hoosier Crib Dam Removal Impact Plan
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d,
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑ P ❑ T
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4E Total open water impacts
0
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
N/A
5k. Method of construction:
N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑Tar -Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
F1 Yes
B1 ❑P❑T
❑ No
F1 Yes
B2 ❑P❑T
❑ No
El Yes
B3 ❑P❑T
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
see supplemental narrative
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
see supplemental narrative
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h. Comments: na
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Yes ❑
❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
NA %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will neither influence nearby land uses nor stimulate growth. Therefore, a detailed indirect
and cumulative
effects study will not be necessary.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A - Sewage disposal will not be required as a result of the project's completion.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) map viewer was reviewed as were NHP Elemental Occurrence data (Natural
Heritage Program, 2010). The USFWS was included early on thie origin of this project. A draft BA was submitted to the
USFWS in June 2017.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper [http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/]
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The State Historic Preservation Office early in the process. In response to their commentsan independed Archeolocial
invistagion and report were completed. A copy of the report is attached. Concurrance regarding the report and the
project is expected from the SHPO in the coming weeks.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The Rocky River is mapped as FEMA Zone AE without base flood
elevations on FIRM panel 9628. The effective model for the Rocky River was prepared as a limited detailed study. Due to
the river's modeled status, coordination with the Chatham County floodplain manager began early in the project. It was
determined that the removal of Hoosier Dam would result in a no -rise. Wildlands submitted a technical memorandum and
no -rise certification for the project to Chatham County on March 3, 2017. The County required a floodplain permit
application, which was submitted to the County November 10, 2017. Wildlands will be responsible for submitting a Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR) within six months after construction of the project.The no -rise was approved July 14, 2017.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? flood maps.nc.gov/fmis
Aaron Aho
�f �J�j,�
a'&g
12/18/17
^ T � T �w
Date
Applicant/Agent's Si nature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Unique
Places
December 18, 2017
Subject: Supplemental Narrative to PCN Form.
Project: USACE Action ID# SAW -2017-0051 1, NFWF Project ID #8020.16.054047
Baa. The project site located within the Piedmont physiographic region and the Carolina
Slate Belt, which is characterized by low summertime base flows. The Rocky River
originates in the eastern portion of Forsyth County and flows southeast through Guilford,
Randolph, Chatham, and Lee counties before its confluence with the Deep River. The
Bank has a watershed area of approximately 200 square miles at Hoosier Dam. The Bank
is located within Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-12 (NCDWQ 2005). The population within
the subbasin in Year 2000 was approximately 20,000 residents. Land use within the
subbasin is predominately forest (70 percent) and agriculture (27 percent), with less than
2 percent urban development.
Hoosier Dam is a concrete buttress dam with an attached hydroelectric powerhouse.
The dam was built in 1922, and is constructed of reinforced concrete, with a total length
(including the powerhouse), of 235 feet and an average structural height of 25 feet. The
hydroelectric facility at Hoosier Dam contains three small turbines that were operated by
Hoosier Hydroelectric, Inc., as a small renewable energy producer. In October, 2012, the
renewable energy contract with Progress Energy Carolinas was terminated, and in 2013
a new contract between Rocky River Hydro LLC (the current owner) and Duke Energy
Progress was established. The dam continued to operate as a hydroelectric producer
until 2015.
Land use directly adjacent to the Bank is predominantly undisturbed woodland, with
areas of pasture and pine plantations. The entire Site impoundment is bordered by a
mature riparian buffer that varies in width from 40 feet to over 200 feet.
Hoosier Dam and Reeves Lake are responsible for the loss of natural flow regime and
shallow water habitat to approximately 22,425 linear feet of stream ecosystem (16,060
linear feet within the Rocky River and 6,365 linear feet of perennial tributaries).

B3d. The purpose of the project is the remove Hoosier Dam and a rock crib dam located
approximately 1 mile upstream. Hoosier Dam and Reeves Lake are currently a barrier
between two critical habitat areas for the Cape Fear shiner, a federally -listed
endangered species that only occurs only in North Carolina. The dam currently isolates
two distinct populations of the Cape Fear shiner which impairs the species chances of
long-term survival. The crib dam was formerly under the surface level of Reeves Lake.
Due to the dewatered condition of the lake the crib dam is currently acting as a fish
barrier.
Going from a lentic ecosystem to a lotic ecosystem will manipulate the existing habitat
and its function. However, the lotic ecosystem will develop and enhance habitat and
the habitat function for both aquatic and terrestrial species, serving as a wildlife corridor
upstream, downstream and across, whereas the impoundment and Reeves Lake is
currently an obstacle for wildlife species. The action will create a permanent gain of
habitat and habitat function. The project will develop long-term beneficial impacts by
connecting approximately three miles of improved riverine habitat which will allow for
demographic dispersal, genetic diversity and species richness. Specifically,
characteristics such as higher dissolved oxygen levels, stable water temperatures,
consistent hydrologic and sediment regime will establish microhabitats within and around
run/riffles complexes, shallow pools and woody debris throughout the reach. The
establishment of new vegetation along streambanks, on bars and islands of rock
outcrops will provide refuge from predation for aquatic species, including the Cape Fear
shiner, which is crucial for larval and young to reach their first year of reproductive
maturity. The beneficial cumulative effects such as reducing predation, healthier water
qualities, and extending the upstream riverine habitat downstream to the confluence of
the Deep River and Rocky River would enhance the Cape Fear critical habitat through
the project area and provide grounds for further research and monitoring of Cape Fear
shiner populations.
If any adverse impacts should occur within the critical habitat, they should be short-term
and small in magnitude since controlled measures will be implemented to alleviate any
severe or long-term impacts; therefore, this project and its temporary in -water work
actions should not result in Adverse Modification to designated Cape Fear shiner Critical
Habitat.

The negative effects associated with the dam and its impoundment will be removed with
the demolition of the dam. Construction itself, and potential associated sediment loads,
may cause temporary stress to any Cape Fear shiner in the immediate vicinity of the
dam. However, stress should be temporary in duration. The outcome of this project will
re-establish the primary constituent elements of the designated critical habitat essential
to the conservation of the Cape Fear shiner.
B3e. The dewatering of Reeves Lake was initiated in June 2017 and followed the
attached Dewatering Plan. The construction aspects of the project, dam removal and
channel restoration, will be completed as follows.:
1. Removal of Hoosier Dam and Powerhouse Structure
2. Removal of sediment wedge immediately upstream of the dam
3. Removal of the remnant rock (crib) dam located approximately 1 mile upstream
of Hoosier Dam
4. Stabilization of streambanks post -dam removal and stabilization of stream bed
using grade control structures
5. Implementation of habitat structures within stream bed/banks
6. Re-establishment of a riparian buffer with planting of native woody species along
streambanks.
7. Harperella sp. planting effort
Dam and Power House Removal
The removal of the power house will commence prior to the removal of the dam. A
private contractor will remove the brick structure, exterior steel components, and interior
equipment. This will be accomplished by use of excavator situated on a building pad
created upstream and abutting the portion of the top of Hoosier dam that is anchored
into the south slope. Soil will be borrowed from a nearby site to create the pad which will
be located in the former Reeves lake but outside of the current ordinary high water mark.
The bricks will be removed in clean chunks by use of an excavator with a hydraulic
thumb. The excavator will demolish the structure by pulling the brick back towards the
foundation and upland areas thereby minimizing the amount of brick falling into the
downstream river system.

The removed brick, steel and other salvageable materials will be scrapped. Non-
salvageable materials, if any, will be properly disposed of by a licensed NC demolition
contractor.
The dam itself will be removed by the US Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Program. The
removal will be accomplished by excavators. Causeways will be built up abutting the
dam with on-site soil or concrete allowing the excavators to reach out over the dam with
a ram -hoe attachment. The dam will be "pulled back" to the upstream side as much as
is practical though dam materials are anticipated to fall in the immediate vicinity of the
downstream side of the dam. Concrete rubble will be loaded into an off-road dump
truck and transported to the on-site disposal area. A fleet of two excavator and one or
two off road trucks is anticipated to be necessary. The demolition of Hoosier Dam is
expected to take 3 weeks to accomplish. Disposal of dam material will occur at the
location specified on figures 5.1 and 5.2 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.
Sediment Removal
See the attached Sediment Management Plan
Crib Dam Removal
The rock crib dam will be removed by excavator. Most of the rock will be disposed of in
upland areas outside of the regulated floodplain limits. Wetland areas have been
delineated in the area and will be avoided. Some rock may be left in place or placed
appropriately along the stream bank to encourage stable bank conditions following the
removal of the crib dam.
Streambank and Stream Bed Stabilization
Project work within the Rocky River includes the removal of the sediment wedge created
by the Hoosier Dam within the active channel. The profile for the river is approximate and
based on best available knowledge of the streambed slopes upstream and downstream
and mechanical borings of depth to bedrock. The actual depth to bedrock along the
entire proposed surface may vary greatly from what is proposed. If this is the case, the
sediments should be excavated down to the depth of refusal or presence of coarse bed
material, and banks graded back at a minimum 3(H):1 (V) slope to the tie-in point on the
existing surface.

All graded streambanks will be matted with erosion control matting. Additionally, the
excavated banks will be seeded with the temporary seed and permanent seed mix
specified in the plans. Seeded areas and coir fiber matting areas will be covered with
straw mulch.
Coir fiber matting will be installed according to plans and specifications. The recently
dewatered floodplain will also be seeded with specified temporary and permanent seed
mix and mulch. Live stakes and herbaceous plugs will be installed along the stream
banks along with bare root trees within the floodplain, according to the plans and
specifications.
Habitat Structure implementation
Habitat structures including rocky riffle and lunker logs provide instream and near
streambank habitat for aquatic species including the Cape Fear shiner.
Harperella Planting
The North Carolina Botanical garden will be coordinating a planting of Harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum) across the restored section of the Rocky River. Botanical Garden
staff and volunteers will survey the dewatered/restored reach of the Rocky River to
survey for potential habitat areas. Plant material will be grown in the botanical garden
greenhouses.
DI The project in its very nature will remove substantial "impacts" (impoundment, fish
barriers) to aquatic ecosystems. During the project design phase all project elements
were looked at from an avoidance and minimization perspective. Because the project is
a removal and restoration effort the primary avoidance and minimization measures are
associated with the construction techniques described below in D.1.b.
D1 b The project followed a strict dewatering protocol that included several elements
specifically designed to minimize impacts to ecological resources and preserve water
quality. The protocol included the below elements. Additional detail is provided in the
attached Dewatering Plan.

• A maximum drawdown of 1 vertical foot per day to allow mussels to "walk" to
deeper water.
• Daily turbidity monitoring with a management protocol to adjust for high turbidity
measurements if needed.
A mussel recovery effort managed by NCWRC aided by Unique Places, LLC and
contractors. Mussels were physically relocated to deeper waters or to
downstream or upstream riverine environments.
• A seeding effort was accomplished to stabilize the exposing floodplains and
stream banks. Brown Top Millet was cast by hand several times a week via
canoe.
Additional mussel collection will be completed at the base of the dam to prevent mussel
mortality due to falling debris when the power house and the concrete dam are
demolished.
A NCDEQ approved sediment and erosion control plan will be implemented throughout
the duration of the project.
Given that the net increase in ecological functions and services to the Rocky River and
streams anticipated from this project (which are endorsed by partners like the NC Wildlife
Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service), compensatory mitigation should not be
required. The Hoosier Dam removal is an ecological restoration initiative and the NWP 53,
which covers the primary activity associated with the project (dam removal), directs that
compensatory mitigation is not required, unless the district engineer determines that the
dam removal, as outlined in this proposal, would result in more than minimal adverse
environmental effects. More specifically, the NWP 53 states:
"Because the removal of the low -head dam will result in a net increase in ecological
functions and services provided by the stream, as a general rule compensatory
mitigation is not required for activities authorized by this NWP. However, the district
engineer may determine for a particular low -head dam removal activity that
compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure the authorized activity results in no more
than minimal adverse environmental effects. "

Not only will the riverine and stream habitat improve significantly, it is estimated that
wetlands that return as a result of the dewatering and dam removal will be comparable
to, and ecologically and functionally superior to, the man-made wetlands that were
created by the unnatural water impoundment caused by the Hoosier Dam.
The removal of Hoosier Dam will restore 16,000 linear feet of critical habitat for Cape Fear
Shiner and state listed mussel species. The net functional uplift of the project will
undoubtedly be positive. Wetlands created by the impoundment will be lost however
an unknown amount of "returning" wetlands will be restored by the removal of the dam.
Some of these "returning" wetlands are already easily identifiable in the field and on
recent aerial imagery. The attached Figure 8 depicts the existing wetlands as identified
in the JD submittal and the wetlands that have returned as a result of the draining of
Hoosier dam. The attached Table 1 lists the existing wetlands and assigns each a
predicted long-term result from the hydrologic effect of removing the dam. The results
are categorized into three groups as follows:
• No Change
• Functional/Hydrologic Change (remains jurisdictional)
• Likely Removed from Jurisdiction
Qualified environmental scientists based the assignments on a field analysis of each
individual wetland area and a review of the topographic and elevation characteristics
of the wetlands during the spring and summer of 2017. Following are some key
quantification of wetlands and their predicted effects as a result of the project.
Pre -Dewatering Wetland Totals: 232,964.9 sf (5.35 ac)
Wetlands expected to have no change: 27,304.1 sf (0.63 ac)
Wetlands expected to have function change (remain jurisdictional): 32,612.6 sf (0.75 ac)
Wetlands expected to be removed from jurisdiction: 88,268.6 sf (2.03 ac)
Returning Wetlands as of December 2017 (formerly impounded): 92,347.2 sf (2.12 ac)
The above estimates suggest that the actual square footage of wetland loss will be
comparable to the wetland that returns as a result of the dewatering and dam removal,
resulting in an overall functional improvement of wetlands and aquatic habitat in the
project area. Additionally, it is expected that additional returning wetlands will form over
the next several years following the dam removal. Given the exceptional river function

uplift and the resulting habitat increases for aquatic species, notably the Cape Fear
shiner, the project will undeniably have a significant net benefit to the ecosystem.
Sincerely,
Aaron Aho
Project Manager
Unique Places, LLC

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD3CDEIC-594D-4BD1-A828-7C8BFB48AD48
Unique
Places
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks to Be Filled in by the Current Landowner or Municipal Official
Name: Mr. Tim Sweeney — 130 of Chatham
Address: 3409 Birk Bluff Court
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Rocky River Woody Dam Removal (NC)
Date:
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: Mr. Andrew Williams
Field Office: Raleilah
Re: Wetlands and Streams Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, The current landowner or municipal official, hereby designate and authorize Unique Places,
LLC to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon
request supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. The
day of
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Notice: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by Unique Places, LLC staff.
BY: Tim Sweene
Print Name of Landowner's or Municipal
Official's Name
CDoocuSigneed by::
BY. 11-L,
igna a of Landowner or Municipal

kzW I L D L A N D S 0 750 1,500 Feet Chatham Count NC
E N G I N E E R I NG I I I I I Yi
Figure 1

{{y
i
` ✓� -+ •
77
x
IN
ole
6Y
-432
Hist am
♦ h
3
�.-•�,r SCS t'S` /'�/ �°� al
Woody Darn Road - Frei
.
100
37
v
a <.
Hoosier Dam ----�.
Pittsboro 7.5' Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle
Location Map
W I L Ill L A N D S 0 750 1,500 Feet Hoosier Dam
ENGINEERING I i i i I Chatham County, NC
Figure 2

Soils Map Hoosier Dam
W I L D L A N D S 0 500 1,000 Feet
E N G I N E E R, N G I I I 1 I
Chatham County, NC
Figure 3

NATIONAL REGISTER
ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION OF
THE ROCKY RIVER POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY (RRP&L)
DAM AND POWERHOUSE
(HOOSIER DAM)
Chatham County, North Carolina
-
„A

Intentionally Left Blank

National Register Eligibility Evaluation of the
Rocky River Power and Light Company (RRP&L) Dam
and Powerhouse (Hoosier Dam)
Chatham County, North Carolina
Report submitted to:
Wildlands Engineering • 167-B Haywood Road • Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Report prepared by:
New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083
Ellen Turco — Principal Investigator
Ellen Turco — Historian and Co -Author
Colin Bean — Archaeologist and Co -Author
December 6, 2017 • Revised Report
New South Associates Technical Report 2744

Intentionally Left Blank

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY i
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
ABSTRACT
130 of Chatham, LLC proposes to establish the Hoosier Dam Umbrella Mitigation Bank to
provide compensatory stream bank mitigation credits to offset unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional streams authorized under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbor Act. The
proposed Bank site is located on the Rocky River in Chatham County approximately 5.5 miles
upstream of its confluence with the Deep River. The Bank shall be planned and designed by
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. The Hoosier Dam represents a significant blockage to the migration
of the Cape Fear Shiner, a federally -listed endangered species. A number of measures are
proposed to create the mitigation bank including the dewatering of Reaves Lake, the removal of
the Hoosier Dam, the implementation of a sediment management plan, the stabilizing of stream
banks, and other activities. This project is subject to review under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
In June 2017, 130 of Chatham, LLC requested New South Associates, Inc. (New South) assess
the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) eligibility of the Rocky River Power and Light
Company (RRP&L) Dam and Powerhouse (CH 836) and provide this report. In response to a
request from the North Carolina Office of State Historic Preservation (SHPO), additional
archaeological work was conducted in November 2017 and is included in this report.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
New South Associates wishes to thank David Hinton, Operator of the Hoosier Dam, for orienting
staff to the project area and for providing recent background history of the site. Joseph Ellen,
who owned the dam from 1978-1994, agreed to an interview and generously provided additional
background history and an overview of how hydroelectric plants work. Copies of North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) survey files and reports were provided by
Chandrea Burch, HPO file clerk.

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY I iii
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ II
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................III
LISTOF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ V
LISTOF TABLES..........................................................................................................................
V
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
II. METHODS.................................................................................................................................3
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY....................................................................................................3
ARCHAEOLOGICALSURVEY................................................................................................4
III. HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT.................................................................7
HISTORY.....................................................................................................................................
7
HISTORICAL AND ARCHITETURAL CONTEXT...............................................................13
IV. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................19
SETTING...................................................................................................................................19
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................19
NRHPEVALUATION..............................................................................................................23
Integrity...................................................................................................................................
23
Evaluation...............................................................................................................................28
REFERENCESCITED.................................................................................................................31

iv
Intentionally Left Blank

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY v
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the RRP&L Plant (CH 836).......................................................................2
Figure 2.
Representative Photographs of the Survey Area...........................................................5
Figure 3.
Portion of the "Map of the Coal Fields of Chatham and the Mineral Region of
N.C. 1874" Showing the Deep River Coal Field.........................................................8
Figure 4.
Portion of the "Map of Chatham County, N.C. 1870" Showing the Water -Powered
Mills Along the Rocky River.......................................................................................9
Figure 5.
Soil Map, North Carolina, Chatham County Sheet, 1933 ...........................................10
Figure 6.
Waterwheel In Situ Circa 1990...................................................................................14
Figure 7.
Downstream Side of Lockville Dam Looking West, 1982 .........................................16
Figure8.
Similar Dam Sites.......................................................................................................17
Figure 9.
Aerial Photograph of the Hoosier Dam (CH 836) ......................................................20
Figure 10.
Downstream Photographs of the Hoosier Dam...........................................................21
Figure 11.
Historic Photograph Showing Upstream Sides of the Circa 1925 and the
1944 Dam Sections....................................................................................................22
Figure 12.
Photographs of the Powerhouse..................................................................................24
Figure 13.
Photographs of the Powerhouse Interior, 1 of 3 ..........................................................25
Figure 14.
Photographs of the Powerhouse Interior, 2 of 3 ..........................................................26
Figure 15.
Photographs of the Powerhouse Interior, 3 of 3 ..........................................................27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NRHP Recommendation.................................................................................................1
Table 2. Summary of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 1.5 Miles of the
StudyArea.......................................................................................................................4

V1
Intentionally Left Blank

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 1
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
I. INTRODUCTION
In June 2017, 130 of Chatham LLC requested New South Associates, Inc. (New South) assess
the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) eligibility of the Rocky River Power and Light
Company Dam and Powerhouse (CH 836). In response to a request from the North Carolina
Office of State Historic Preservation (SHPO), additional archaeological work was conducted in
November 2017 and is included in this report. 130 of Chatham, LLC proposes to establish the
Hoosier Dam Umbrella Mitigation Bank to provide compensatory stream bank mitigation credits
to offset unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streams authorized under Sections 401 and 404 of
the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act. This project is subject to
review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). To establish the
mitigation bank, 130 of Chatham, LLC proposes to remove the historic Rocky River Power and
Light Company (RRP&L) Dam and Powerhouse (also referred to in this report as the RRP&L
Plant; sometimes known locally as the Woody Dam, and more recently known as the Hoosier
Dam), and its appurtenant features such as Reeves Lake, the dam embankment, and spillway in
order to restore the flow of the Rocky River and the surrounding natural habitat.
The former RRP&L Plant is located in Chatham County, six miles south of the Town of
Pittsboro, North Carolina (Figure 1). The site is accessed by Woody Dam Road (SR 2156) west
of N.C. Highway 87. The dam is located on the Rocky River approximately 5.5 miles upstream
of its confluence with the Deep River.
As a result of this study, for the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as
amended, New South recommends the RRP&L Dam and Powerhouse as eligible for the NRHP
(Table 1).
Table]. NRNP Recommendation
Resource Name
Rocky River Power and Light Company (RRP&L) Dam And Powerhouse (historic);
Hoosier Dam and Powerhouse (current);
HPO Survey Site #
CH 836
Location
590 Woody Dam Road, Oakland Township
PIN
9638 00 66 0000
Parcel ID
0018352
Date of Construction
Circa 1925; 1945
Recommendation
Eligible for NRHP Under Criteria A and C

2
Figure 1.
Location of the RRP&L Plant (CH 836)
v
..Il ? ✓ + `
Historic Dam
w-
r -
`..� A�
4
RRP&L Plant (CH 836)'
_r ��.- �``• �` i of
;t
_
s s r
0 0.5 1 Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 Miles N
Source: USGS Topographic Maps Quadrangle, Pittsboro, North Carolina (1982)

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 3
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
II. METHOD S
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
As part of the due diligence for the project, Wildlands Engineering, Inc., on behalf of 130 of
Chatham, LLC, conducted a search of the records of the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NC HPO). This search identified no known National Register of Historic
Places (NRNP) listed or eligible architectural or archaeological resources in the project area.
However, Wildlands Engineering anticipated an NRHP evaluation for the RRP&L Plant
identified in the Mitigation Bank Prospectus by its most recent name, the Hoosier Dam, would
be required since the resource was over 50 years of age. In June of 2017, Wildlands
Engineering, Inc., retained New South Associates, Inc. (New South) to intensively survey the
RRP&L Plant and prepare a report assessing the property's eligibility for the NRHP. The HPO
assigned survey site number CH 836 to this resource.
New South senior architectural historian Ellen Turco and architectural assistant Debra Bevin
visited the Hoosier Dam on June 8, 2017. Mr. David Hinton, the dam operator, met Ms. Turco
and Ms. Bevin on site. Hinton described how the dam operated and provided a recent history of
the resource. The dam and powerhouse were visually inspected and the interior, exterior,
associated features, and setting were documented through written notes and digital photographs.
On June 30, 2017, Ms. Turco interviewed Mr. Joseph Ellen at his residence in Raleigh. Mr.
Ellen owned the dam property between 1979 and 1994.
The statewide architectural survey records of the HPO were reviewed to identify other
hydroelectric facilities within North Carolina. Reports and files were collected and consulted to
develop the historic context that follows in this report. Historic topographic maps and aerial
photographs were viewed at historicaerials.com, nationalmap.gov, and the U.S. Geological
Survey's historical topographic map collection. U.S. Census records were reviewed at
Ancestry.com. Chatham County real estate records were examined online at the Chatham
County Register of Deeds (2017). Other sources consulted are listed in the References Cited at
the end of this report.
The historical development, architecture, and cultural significance of the RRP&L Plant was
assessed and evaluated within its respective context according to the established NRHP criteria.
The results of this NRHP evaluation are presented in the following chapters. This report
complies with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended; and HPO's
Report Standards for Historic Structure Survey Reports/Determinations of Eligibility/ Section
106/110 Compliance Reports in North Carolina.

41
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Background research for archaeological resources was conducted at the Office of State
Archaeology in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 28, 2017. Seven pre -contact sites were
located within 1.5 miles of the survey (Table 2). No site forms or reports were available for any
of the sites. The distribution of pre -contact sites is typical for many areas of the Piedmont. No
previously recorded historic sites such as mills, dams, houses, or cemeteries were noted in or
near the study area.
Table 2. Summary of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 1.5 Miles of the Study
Area
Site No.
Temporal
Site Type
NRHP
31 CH742
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
31 CH743
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
31 CH744
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
31CH745
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
31CH746
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
31 CH747
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
31CH796
Unknown Pre -Contact
Unknown
Not Assessed
A systematic pedestrian survey of the area surrounding the dam and adjacent structures was
conducted on November 28, 2017. Methods consisted of surface inspection for any possible
dam -related or other historic features, as well as judgmental shovel testing to assess subsurface
deposits and the likelihood for archaeological resources. Hoosier Dam and its associated
features figure are prominent in the study area (Figure 2). Shovel testing indicated an active
depositional environment that is typical of stream settings and indicates a low probability for the
presence of intact precontact or historic archaeological resources. No new features or cultural
material were observed during this survey.

NOW
ol-
TO
FA
. 4
a

a
Intentionally Left Blank

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 7
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
III. HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL
CONTEXT
HISTORY
Natural resource extraction and waterpower have played an important role in Chatham County's
history. Numerous tributaries and five rivers drain the county: the Haw River, the New Hope
River, the Rocky River, the Deep River, and the Cape Fear River. Timber was abundant, as was
the case in many parts of the state, yet the county also had deposits of coal, iron, gold and
sandstone. The Deep River coal field, situated in the southwestern half of the Triassic Basin,
was the state's only commercially significant deposit of the mineral (Fletcher 2005) (Figure 3).
Between the 1850s and the 1920s, a number of mining concerns were established, but despite
intensive investment they were never successful (Osborn and Selden-Sturgill 1991:3). In 1922,
Thomas Clarkson (T.C.) Woody, the son of a local textile mill owner, incorporated the RRP&L
to provide hydroelectric power to the coal mines south of the Rocky River (Marshall 2017).
Although the county's rivers and creeks had powered saw and grist mills since its settlement, Mr.
Woody sought to harness the river's flow for a modern use --to generate saleable electrical
power.
Maps, deeds, and other historical records strongly suggest that a dam and mill were in place at or
near the dam site many years prior to Woody's establishment of the RRP&L Company. Seven
water -powered mills appear along the Rocky River on the 1870 Ramsey Map of Chatham
County (Figure 4). Two of these mills were in Oakland Township; "Tyser's Mill" near the
present day RRP&L Dam on the southwest bank of the river northeast of its confluence with
Bear Creek, and Henley's Mill, on the south bank of the river east of Bear Creek. A rock dam
across the Rocky River north of the RRP&L Dam was inundated when Reeves Lake was
impounded around 1925 (Joseph Ellen, personal communication 2017; David Hinton, personal
communication 2017; Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014:1). This may be the Tysor family mill
dam shown on the 1870 Rumsey map. The Tysor family was among the county's early settlers;
they appear in eighteenth -century county court records and three early nineteenth-century Tysor
family houses have been recorded by the statewide historic architecture survey.' The 1933
Chatham County Soil Map is also labeled with "Tyser's Mill" and shows a dam spanning the
river, although by this time it was owned by T.C. Woody under the auspices of RRP&L (Figure
5).
1 The name is spelled both Tysor and Tyser in historical records. Tysor is the more common spelling.

8
Figure 3.
Portion of the "Map of the Coal Fields of Chatham and the Mineral Region of
N.C. 1874" Showing the Deep River Coal Field
Source: Chatham County Historical Association

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 19
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Figure 4.
Portion of the "Map of Chatham County, N.C. 1870" Showing the
Water -Powered Mills Along the Rocky River
• �./�.
- ;.L'/iwr/tur/rian- .SirowYfrx
/rM �.1nMXq • Q7ir a rQ1IxJ•. pnrbrr//%/ -i
rxA/rrsi� rryS,.
V IR
1 1/n:lYnrvt.
.�'•V.,1te+! :
880R0
.idilL• � � torr' �_. _ ls.. .lrfi}rrr/ //4r �.V.
.. ,..
x
..._
\!t
.`i
.�r.-.
Fi,w•
)DWI ISurns jIA ."L'1 9N
j/.HNirrinvr
= '� -
i, 1 • +f� ',j 1 °
,.
� ../ n/r � .t
i � Cr ,•
�nMe ' ir,
- _
fr
1
N' ill c'V
/rryHr• ris'�'" .e-M..nv. �
�r �mfLrur•V Q✓ryii •�/'. Nierridlr xu
f— �' T.r..e/usr.v �
r�MSr.Thn/Fnr ..i2ltrlrrlrrY!'
�(. N:/rN.
�.
Mw. F+r
�•'-- �..__ eallliieyhr l� 't � }iru/rnro I
rsrr fr .� �• �'c'1,�
/� �.
. �.�- •..
O r.nx/4r.• r#Tha/nru•
� M.& tv - �
,�fi'
1/,en .�,i
� •�� •rr .Tnvin�
'. ilnr $.
i
•'i'
r� !!u�y/'
.�ba•. F. Rirrr � Q harr�r�
�% err•/ e/.
-
litm.ra
_ rYbila6
_- ur.rr.>
'1ii R
_-
`�•'••=}jjjj,,,ceu.r<i. -
•r✓.Ca/rr n
„v.i-awrt4 lOC t
,arxrli.Ilcrrnrt�� - i
- •'��•� lfnrn'/e f
It p
G
TT
C
.rr
rrdaf
r
P
� r /rvirrii r t 4
PrbW ,11111
'd9 !'n"/`t
T
h'I/xJr /l F• �'
,�, r irninr�A•
Source: North Carolina State Archives

w
Figure 5.
Soil Map, North Carolina, Chatham County Sheet, 1933
GC
Chatham
• 4'. Go
t.
ris'`"
—=` Ay •�� 11 �Ch
C1ur
T
r
E •� A�
T Y
T �N£s4 gF �aL rpt
�Ma
1
y.�nn j /tJ 4
pe
V- `Mile
Source: North Carolina State Archives

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY I 11
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
The Woodys were a prominent Quaker family from Guilford County. The family was engaged
in a number of industrial enterprises throughout Chatham, Guilford and Moore counties in the
nineteenth century. In 1897, Newton Dixon Woody and his sons William E. and Thomas N.
Woody organized the High Falls Mills Manufacturing Company on the Deep River in Moore
County, approximately 22 miles southwest of the Hoosier Dam site (Rubenstein Library 2014).
High Falls was a water -powered textile mill with a company -owed "model mill village"
(Greensboro Daily News 1919). T.C. Woody, president of RRP&L, was the son of William E.
Woody. The Woody family's industrial expertise enabled T.C. Woody to build the RRP&L
Plant at the young age of 21.
Woody and his RRP&L Company spent the first half of 1922 obtaining land and rights for the
hydroelectric facility he planned to build. A deed made on August 5, 1922, recorded the sale of
150 acres of land from W.H. and Olivia Hill to the RRP&L Company (Chatham County
Courthouse (CCH) 1922, Deed Book [DB] FY.264). The tract included "the mill site" and gave
RRP&L: "the full right ... to erect thereupon dams, pond and impound water, construct buildings,
machinery and do all things necessary to properly develop and utilize the entire available
waterpower on said Rocky River." An earlier deed made in May 1922 conveyed 9.4 acres from
W.D. and Lena Burns to RRP&L. The deed referred to the Hills' property as the "Tyser Mill
property" (CCH 1922: DB FY.263).2 This deed allowed RRP&L to "cut and open roads" for the
erection of "poles, wires, and towers for transmitting electrical power." However, the deed
stipulated that the roads could not interfere with Mr. Burns' "cultivated and growing crops."
T.C. Woody chose Mees and Mees Consulting Engineers and Industrial Architects of Charlotte
to design a state-of-the-art dam, a version of the slab -and -buttress design patented by civil
engineer Nils Frederick Ambersen in 1903 (Martens et al. 2016:E-16). Ohio -born brothers
Curtis Adolphus and Erich Mees had established a civil engineering firm in Charlotte by 1916
(Leonard 1922:1:861). The firm specialized in "hydro electric development, power plants,
factories and industrial plants" and other infrastructure -type projects (Advertisement 1922:32).
Curtis Mees marketed himself as an expert -for -hire in the design and business operations of
hydroelectric facilities and published and spoke widely on the topic in industry journals and at
meetings. Around the same time they were working on T.C. Woody's dam, the Mees' were
designing the arch -and -buttress type hydroelectric dam at Lake Lure in Rutherford County (RF
605; DOE).
Woody established the RRP&L Company to supply electric power to the Deep River Coal Fields
where there were several coal mining communities in the early 1920s: Cumnock (formerly
2 Neither deed was recorded until September 2, 1922.

121
known as the Egypt mine), Gulf, and Coal Glen (earlier known as Farmville).3 The industry
ultimately realized little profit and was extremely dangerous, resulting in the deaths of over 100
local miners. The most famous and lethal incident was the 1925 explosion at Coal Glen in which
53 miners were killed. Local residents recall that Woody's primary power customer was to be
the Cumnock Mine, but the mine flooded and was closed, ruining his plan (Joseph Ellen,
personal communication 2017).4 Left with a hefty bank loan and without a customer, Woody
pivoted, and obtained a second loan to extend power lines to private homes on the south side of
the Rocky River.
Available company annual reports suggest that RRP&L was never a highly lucrative endeavor
for the Woodys (Joseph Ellen, personal communication 2017; David Hinton, personal
communicaton 2017). The facility had a maximum production capacity of 168 kilowatts. The
company operated at a loss in both 1944 and 1945. The 1944 annual report documented that
power was sold to 18 residential customers and one public utility (CP&L). Energy sales that
year were $3,193, equal to about $41,000 today. By 1945, the number of residential customers
had increased to 32, but energy sales decreased slightly to $3,061. Joseph Ellen, who owned the
plant in the 1980s, estimates there were about 75 residential customers in the 1950s, most of
them located in the area southwest of the dam; however, no annual reports were found to confirm
his estimate. The 1945 annual report reflects a $10,000 expense attributed to "flood damage to
dam." A flood that year caused the river to bypass the dam with a new channel on the west side,
and Woody was forced to quickly extend the dam another 75 feet. To supplement his income,
Woody also used the electricity generated at the dam to power the adjacent gristmill, now gone,
that he built 1930. This income was not reflected in his company's annual reports.
By the mid -twentieth century, hydropower was falling out of favor to be replaced by coal-fired
utilities, which were not dependent on water levels. In 1957, CP&L purchased RRP&L's dam
property, equipment, and 18 miles of power lines for $36,297 (CCH 1957: DB 248.318). To
consolidate their market share, CP&L began acquiring and decommissioning small hydroelectric
plants in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In addition to RRP&L's, Sandhill Power Company's
plant at Carbonton (CH 677; DOE 2004) and the Moncure Manufacturing Company's plant at
Lockville (CH18; NRNP 1984) were also acquired (Thomas and Glass 1983). CP&L shuttered
the RRP&L Plant in 1962 and removed the generator and turbines shortly thereafter.
Joseph Ellen acquired the non -operational mill from CP&L in 1979 (Joseph Ellen, personal
communication 2017). Ellen, a U.S. Navy trained electrical engineer, worked for private
electrical engineering and contracting companies across the southeast before founding the firm of
3 The names of the mines were often changed by new owners after an explosion or business failure.
Secondary sources note that the Cumnock mine flooded multiple times between the 1870s and the 1920s, before closing for good in 1929.

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 13
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Ellen, Larson, and Kirkpatrick in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1962. Ellen repaired the
deteriorated roof, updated the electrical controls, and installed a new generator he obtained from
a textile mill in Gaston County. By 1982, the hydroelectric plant was operable and Ellen was
selling power to CP&L. In 1985, the Cape Fear Shiner, an endangered species of fish, was
identified in the Rocky River near the dam. To protect this fish, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service mandated that the river must flow continuously. Until this time, water flow was
restricted to allow the upstream level above the dam to build up and then be released through the
sluice gates though the intake in a controlled manner. The new endangered species requirements
disallowed this practice. To create a mechanism for a controlled, yet continuous water flow,
Ellen designed and hand built a water wheel that he installed in 1985 (Figure 6). The wheel
currently is detached from it axis and lies covered in debris at the bottom of the channel.
Ellen sold the property to Luther Allen of Burlington in 1994 (CCH 1994: DB 640.1025). Allen
did not make significant changes to the structure but did upgrade the electric control panels and
boxes. Hoosier Hydro, LLC, a small renewable energy producer, purchased the property from
Allen in 2005 (CCH 2005: DB 1153.297). The current owner, Rocky River Hydro, LLC,
purchased the property from Hoosier Hydro in 2012 (CCH 2005: DB 1153.297). The facility is
not currently in use.
HISTORICAL AND ARCHITETURAL CONTEXT
Rural electrification in North Carolina's rural areas was not widespread until after 1935, when
the legislature created the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority. However, this modern
convenience came to rural Chatham County in the early 1900s via the county's two large-scale
textile mills, the Odell Manufacturing Company at Bynum and the Hadley -Peoples Mill in Siler
City. Excess electrical power generated by these mills was distributed to nearby company-
owned villages of worker housing. By the 1920s, industrialists were building hydroelectric
plants to generate both industrial and residential power. By 1924 there were 19 hydroelectric
facilities providing residential power statewide, as opposed to facilities dedicated primarily to
powering mills and factories (Brown 2004:9). Three of these were located in Chatham County.
On the Lee -Chatham County border, the Sandhill Power Company erected the Carbonton
hydroelectric dam across the Deep River in 1921. The company provided residential power to
communities in Lee, Chatham (including Siler City), and Moore counties (Brown 2004:9). In
1922, the Moncure Manufacturing Company purchased the lock and canal works at Lockville,
which had been built in the 1850s, to improve river transportation along the Deep River and built
a modern dam and hydroelectric powerhouse to supply residences in Pittsboro (Barnett 1987:8-
9; Thomas and Glass 1983:8.6). The hydroelectric plants at both Lockville and Carbonton were
similar in size, scale, and type to the RRP&L Plant.

141
Figure 6.
Waterwheel In Situ Circa 1990
Photograph Provided by Wetlands Engineering

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 1 15
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
The 1922 dam at Lockville is a poured concrete gravity dam with wing walls and six arched gate
openings (Figure 7). This type of solid construction dam was a tried-and-true design, but lacked
the innovative hollow bay buttress construction used at the RRP&L dam. This dam also differs
from RRP&L in that it utilized a 2,300 -foot diversion canal to increase water pressure. The
diversion canal was repurposed from the 1850s granite lock and canal system built to bypass the
falls just upstream from the dam. The natural fall of the Rocky River makes a canal unnecessary
at the RRP&L site. The 1924 Lockville powerhouse is similar to that of RRP&L, a shed -roofed
utilitarian brick building with metal casement windows on a concrete base (Figure 8A). After a
period of abandonment, the Lockville Dam is currently owned by Dean Brooks, who sells power
to CP&L.
The dam at Carbonton was removed as part of a stream restoration around 2005. Documentation
on file at the HPO identifies it as a "gravity dam ... a functional, unadorned concrete structure"
(Brown 2004:10) (Figure 8B). The 1921 powerhouse is a rectangular shed -roofed brick building
with parapet walls on three sides and deteriorating metal casement windows. The water level has
receded to its natural state since the dam's removal, leaving the substantial six -sluice concrete
foundation, previously obscured, now visible. The generator and turbines have been removed.

a
Figure 7.
Downstream Side of Lockville Dam Looking West, 1982
Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 117
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Figure 8.
Similar Dam Sites
A. View of Lockville Powerhouse Looking North from Old US I Bridge Over the Deep River
Source: Google Earth, 2017
B. View of Carbonton Powerhouse Looking Southeast from NC 42 Bridge Over the Deep River
Source: Google Earth, 2017

Intentionally Left Blank

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY I 19
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
IV. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SETTING
The Rocky River enters northwestern Chatham County and flows southeast in a serpentine
manner to its confluence with the Deep River, which is approximately five miles southeast of the
Hoosier Dam. Above and below the RRP&L Dam and Powerhouse, or plant, the river runs
almost due south, with a slight eastward bearing. Bear Creek empties into the Rocky River
approximately 4,000 feet south of the dam. The Rocky River curves back to the northeast just
downstream of Bear Creek. The landscape surrounding the dam is wooded and the area is
sparsely populated. The 2010 U.S. Census recorded 1,250 people in Oakland Township, the
smallest of Chatham County's 12 townships (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).
The plant consists of a brick hydroelectric powerhouse and a concrete dam built in two stages by
the RRP&L in 1925 and 1945 (Figure 9). The plant is situated on the east bank of the Rocky
River in central Chatham County approximately six miles south of the county seat of Pittsboro
(see Figure 1). Woody Dam Road accesses the 1.38 -acre parcel containing the powerhouse. The
approximately 210 -foot concrete dam spans the river creating a reservoir known as Reeves Lake.
South of the powerhouse on the west bank of the Rocky River are the ruins of a circa 1930
gristmill. The ruins consist of a poured -in-place concrete foundation.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The RRP&L constructed the plant around 1925. The dam is a concrete structure, measuring
approximately 210 feet in total length and 25 feet in height (Figure 10). The dam was built in
two phases using two construction techniques. The circa 1925 slab -and -buttress section of the
west side employs an innovative early twentieth-century construction technique with eight open
bays delineated by seven triangular buttresses spanned by an inclined upstream face. This
hollow type of construction minimized needed building materials and lessened the chance of
failure. Anchored to the river's east bank is an approximately 75 -foot section built in 1945 using
traditional solid design, where the mass of the construction materials resists the pressure of water
pushing against the upstream side (Figure 11). The 1945 section is built of concrete aggregate
with a nearly vertical downstream face. The concrete retaining wall on the east riverbank
immediately upstream and downstream of dam was built in the 1980s.

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 121
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Figure 10.
Downstream Photographs of the Hoosier Dam
A. Downstream Side of Dam Looking Northeast from South of Powerhouse
100
t
s.
B. Downstream Side of Dam Looking Northeast from South of Powerhouse
1
Photograph by Chris Flowers
C. Downstream Side Dam Looking
Northwest from East Bank of Rocky River
Photograph by Chris Flowers
t=
1
«
NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 121
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Figure 10.
Downstream Photographs of the Hoosier Dam
A. Downstream Side of Dam Looking Northeast from South of Powerhouse
100
t
s.
B. Downstream Side of Dam Looking Northeast from South of Powerhouse
1
Photograph by Chris Flowers
C. Downstream Side Dam Looking
Northwest from East Bank of Rocky River
Photograph by Chris Flowers

22
Figure 11.
Historic Photograph Showing Upstream Sides of the Circa 1925 and the 1944 Dam Sections

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 123
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
The circa 1925 powerhouse is accessed by a concrete catwalk anchored to the west riverbank
(Figure 12A). The powerhouse is an utilitarian building measuring approximately 25 square feet
and constructed of five -to -one brick bond walls and a poured concrete base (Figures 1213-C).
The rectangular brick upper section rests on a massive poured -in-place concrete foundation with
two open bays. Imprints of the wood forms are prominently visible on the face of the concrete.
An entry with solid double doors is on the west wall. These doors consist of an exterior face of
diagonal boards sandwiched with vertical boards on the interior side (Figure 13A). Above the
doors is a brick soldier course. There are four courses corbelling at the cornice above the entry.
The decorative corbelling pattern is repeated on the north and west exterior walls (Figure 1313).
Pairs of metal sash windows pierce the north, east and south walls of the powerhouse (Figure
14A). All windows have concrete headers. The windows consist of 25 panes with two
rectangular hopper sashes and fixed rectangular sash (Figure 14A). The windows of the north
side are covered with plywood. The metal -covered shed roof slopes downstream but is obscured
from ground view by a brick parapet wall on the north, east and south sides. The parapet is
capped with a steel band. The ends of the roof rafters are exposed on the south side.
The interior of the powerhouse is a single room with a concrete slab floor, exposed brick walls,
and exposed wood rafters and roof decking (Figure 1413). The roof dates to circa 1980. The
powerhouse was in use until 2014; and therefore, its electricity generating equipment is still in
place. Situated in the southeast corner of the powerhouse is a General Electric AC direct drive
generator, which was relocated from a textile mill north of Gastonia in Gaston County around
1980. It is similar to the generator originally installed by the RRP&L Company (Joseph Ellen,
personal communication 2017). On the floor of the southeast corner is a circular metal grate that
covers a pit for a second generator, which was never installed (Figure 15A). On the south wall
are two metal control panel boxes that date from around 2000 (David Hinton, personal
communication 2017). On the floor at the north end of the building are two rectangular floor
openings for water regulating sluice gates (Figure 1513). Since a second generator was never
installed, the west opening is covered with a metal grate and there is no gate. However, the east
gate remains in place under the plywood. It is suspended from a chain and pulley system secured
to a frame of steel I -beams.
NRHP EVALUATION
INTEGRITY
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance though its physical
characteristics. A property must possess historic significance and retain integrity in order to be
eligible for the NRNP. The seven aspects of integrity are: location, design, setting, feeling
materials, workmanship and association (Joeckel 2001:44).

9r v Y
s�
' ♦ . .'.
A. Powerhouse Looking East
Photograph by Chris Flowers
�x
t. i f( - tr�a.� _ i�`, ,a ;v•
D.
ii f �J
t
owerhouse Looking Upstream/North ''" �'�W ti •►
3

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 125
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Figure 13.
Photographs of the Powerhouse Interior, 1 of 3
A. Doors, Interior Looking West
B. North Wall of Powerhouse

26
Figure 14.
Photographs of the Powerhouse Interior, 2 of 3
A. Interior Window Detail
B. Interior of Powerhouse Looking Southwest

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 127
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Figure 15.
Photographs of the Powerhouse Interior, 3 of 3
A. Circa 2000 Control Panel Boxes
B. Interior of Powerhouse Looking North

The four primary historic components of RRP&L property are the brick hydroelectric
powerhouse, the concrete dam, the Rocky River, and the impounded water body (Reeves Lake)
above the dam. These components have remained substantially intact since 1925. The
resource's historic location, setting and feeling are evident and the property's association with
1920's residential hydroelectric power generation in the North Carolina Piedmont remains
strong. Mees and Mees' innovative dam design, as well as the construction materials and
workmanship of the dam and powerhouse are clearly evident. All are without major alterations
or additions that would detract from their historic character. The 1945 extension of the dam was
a necessary repair due to flood damage, and the "new" section of the dam is visually and
structurally distinct from the circa 1925 slab -and -buttress section. As a result of the 1960s
consolidation movement undertaken by the large public utilities, all three of the surviving small-
scale hydroelectric plants in Chatham County have lost their original power generating
equipment.
The RRP&L compares well with the Lockville Dam and Powerhouse and the Carbonton
Powerhouse, both Chatham County resources that are either listed or determined eligible for
listing in the NRNP.
EVALUATION
Properties can be eligible for the NRHP if they are associated with a significant event or pattern
of events that have made contributions to history at the local, state, or national level. The
RRP&L Company Dam and Powerhouse is recommended eligible as an intact example of a
1920s -era small-scale hydroelectric power generating facility that served rural residents, rather
than industrial customers. RRP&L is the most intact of the two other similar facilities that
survive in Chatham County. The property is significant at the local level. The period of
significance is circa 1925, when the plant was placed into service, through 1962, when CP&L
shuttered it. Therefore, the RAP&L Company Dam and Powerhouse is recommended eligible for
the NRHP under Criterion A.
Properties can be eligible for the NRHP if they are associated with persons significant within
community, state, or national historic contexts. Properties are not eligible simply for their links
to members of an identifiable profession, class or social or ethnic group. The RRP&L Plant is
associated with the Woody family, and specifically T.C. Woody who built the plant and
managed it until 1962. While T.C. Woody was a member of prominent family of industrialists,
research did not show that he had gained special importance within his profession. Therefore,
RRP&L Company Dam and Powerhouse is recommended not eligible under Criterion B.

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 29
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
Properties may be eligible under Criterion C if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic
value. The RRP&L Company Dam and Powerhouse possess the distinctive characteristics of an
early twentieth-century small-scale hydroelectric power plant. Only one other of these plants,
the Lockville Dam, remains fully intact in Chatham County and it differs from the RRP&L in
two important ways: its use of a diversion channel and its traditionally designed gravity dam.
Designed by the Charlotte civil engineering firm of Mees and Mees, RRP&L's innovative design
utilized a state-of-the-art dam type --the material saving slab -and -buttress design. Only one other
power plant in North Carolina has been confirmed to have been designed by Mees and Mees (the
Lake Lure Dam and Hydroelectric Plant [RF 657; DOE 2016]). For these reasons, RRP&L
Company Dam and Powerhouse is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C.
It is unlikely that additional study of this property would yield any unretrieved data not
discoverable through informant interviews and documentary sources. Archaeological
background research and pedestrian archaeological survey of the area surrounding Hoosier Dam
did not locate or identify any associated dam or power -related features. No previously recorded
archaeological resources were located within the survey area and none were identified as a result
of this survey. All of the dam features were identified by the historic architectural survey.
Therefore, the RRP&L Company Dam and Powerhouse is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion D.

30 1
Intentionally Left Blank

REFERENCES CITED
Barnett, Angela
1987 Lockville Hydroeelctric Plant
Documentation. U.S. Department
Washington D.C.
Brown, Marvin
NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 13 1
EVALUATION OF THE HOOSIER DAM
(Dam Canal and Powerhouse). HAER
of the Interior, National Park Service,
2004 National Register Evaluation of the Sandhill Power Company Dam and
Powerhouse. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington
D.C.
Chatham County Register of Deeds
2017 Register of Deeds, Chatham County, North Carolina. Electronic document,
http://www.chathamnc.org/services/register-of-deeds, accessed June 30, 2017.
Fletcher, Stephen
2005 The Carolina Coal Company Mine Explosion - North Carolina Digital History.
Learn NC. Electronic document, http://www.leamnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-
newcentury/6008, accessed July 11, 2017.
Greensboro Daily News
1919 Thomas N. Woody Buried at High Falls. Greensboro Daily News, May.
Joeckel, Jeff
2001 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register of
Historic Places Bulletin (NRB 15). December. Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb 15/, accessed August 8, 2014.
Leonard, John William
1922 Who's Who in Engineering, 1922-1923. John W. Leonard Corporation, New
York, New York.
Marshall, Elaine F.
2017 Corporations Division. North Carolina Secretary of State. July. Electronic
document, https://www.sosnc.gov/search/profcorp/4768055, accessed July 5,
2017.

32
Martens, Andra K., Kathleen Collett, Phil Thomasen, and Rebecca Hightower
2016 Historic Resources of The Tennessee Valley, Authority Hydroelectric System,
1933-1979. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property
Documentation Form. February.
Osborn, Rachel and Ruth Selden-Sturgill
1991 The Architectural Heritage of Chatham County, North Carolina. The Chatham
County Historic Architecture Committee, Pittsboro, North Carolina.
Rubenstein Library
2014 Guide to the Woody Family Papers, 1784-1939. Duke University Libraries.
March. Electronic document,
http://library. duke. edu/rubenstein/findingaids/woodyfamily/#collectionoverview,
accessed July 5, 2017.
Thomas, Beth and Brent D. Glass
1983 Lockville Dam, Canal and Powerhouse. National Register Nomination. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Census Bureau
2010 Population Finder. Electronic document, http://www.census.gov/popfinder/,
accessed March 8, 2011.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
2014 Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank. Chatham County, NC: Prospectus. Prospectus.
February.

Unique
Places
Dewatering Plan for Reeves Lake
Hoosier/Woody Dam, Rocky River
Chatham Co, North Carolina
USACE Action ID# SAW -2017-00511
NFWF Project ID #8020.16.054047
Prepared for:
USACE
NCDWR
USFWS
NCWRC
Submitted by:
Unique Places, LLC
Chris Flowers
PO Box 52357
Durham, NC 27717
919.724.0676 (cell)
[e-mail]
uniqueplacesllc.com
May 31, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section1: Purpose.............................................................................................................................................1
Section: 2 Site Description...............................................................................................................................1
2.1 Site Location.............................................................................................................................1
2.2 History .........................................................................................................................................1
Section3: Methods...........................................................................................................................................2
3.1 Procedure.................................................................................................................................2
3.2 Environmental Measures........................................................................................................3
3.3 Mussel Salvage Plan................................................................................................................4
Section4: Timing................................................................................................................................................4
Section5: Regulatory ......................................................................................................................................5
Section6: Next Steps........................................................................................................................................5
SitePhotos........................................................................................................................................................Al
Memorandums................................................................................................................................................B1

SECTION 1
PURPOSE
1 Purpose
On behalf of the dam property owner, Rocky River Hydro LLC, we request concurrence with the
proposed drawdown procedure described herein for lowering Reeves Lake. The purpose of the
drawdown is to facilitate a sampling of the accumulated sediment wedge upstream of the dam
and to stabilize streambanks upstream of the dam prior to demolition. Longer term plans are
being made to remove the dam and power house entirely and the drawdown/sediment sampling
is the next step in the critical path to completing the necessary engineering and design associated
with the dam removal. Sediment sampling and removal will be accomplished following the
completion of the drawdown. Following the drawdown, it is our intention to leave the lake in the
dewatered state until the time of dam removal, which is expected to occur in late summer 2017.
SECTION 2
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location
Dam location: The site (35° 38' 08"N, 79° 12' 40"W) is located in Chatham County, along N.C.
Highway 87 approximately six miles south of the of the Town of Pittsboro, North Carolina. The
subject site is located on the Rocky River approximately 5'/2 miles upstream of its confluence with
the Deep River (HUC 03030003). To access the site from Raleigh, drive south on US -1S for
approximately 31 miles. Exit onto NC-87N/US-15N/US-501 N/Hawkins Ave and drive north for
approximately 6.1 miles. Turn left onto Walter Bright Road and proceed west for approximately
0.5 miles. Turn right to stay on Walter Bright Road and proceed west for another 0.6 miles. Turn
right onto Asbury Church Road and proceed north for approximately 0.6 miles. Turn left onto Mays
Chapel Road and proceed north for approximately 1.0 mile. Turn right onto Woody Dam road
and proceed for approximately 0.5 miles to the dam site on the right.
2.2 History
Dam History: Hoosier Dam is a concrete buttress dam with an attached hydroelectric powerhouse.
The dam was built in 1922, and is constructed of reinforced concrete, with a total length (including
the powerhouse), of 235 feet and an average structural height of 25 feet. The hydroelectric facility

at Hoosier Dam contains three turbines that were operated by Hoosier Hydroelectric, Inc. as a
small renewable energy producer. In October, 2012, the renewable energy contract with Progress
Energy Carolinas was terminated, and in 2013 a new contract between Rocky River Hydro LLC
(the current owner) and Duke Energy Progress was established. The dam can continue to be
operated as a hydroelectric facility until removal.
SECTION 3
METHODS
3.1 Procedure
Dewatering of Reeves Lake will follow the same process used when the lake was dewatered 20
years ago. It will be completed by locking the turbine in place and opening the existing turbine
control gates, also known as wicket gates, within the brick power generation facility of the dam.
Water flows will discharge through the gates directly into the Rocky River at the base of the facility.
Gate opening dimensions have been measured to facilitate the calculation of a target flow rate
that will draw down the lake at a rate of approximately one foot of elevation per day. This
translates to approximately 50cfs above normal baseflow. Refer to pg. 2 of attached Lake
Drawdown Memorandum for extrapolated monthly baseflows at Hoosier Dam (Schnabel
Engineering, February 8, 2017). The wicket gates will be opened incrementally to achieve the
targeted flow rate. Given the depth of the lake, drawdown will be completed over 25 to 40 days,
allowing for variability in flow volumes coming to the gate openings. An existing water level gauge
located in the power house will be utilized to measure the rate of drawdown. The gauge will be
checked daily and flow will be adjusted as necessary achieve the targeted drawdown rate of
V/day. Existing gauge date, such as the USGS gauge in Siler City, will be referenced to anticipate
flows. Operators, through the manipulation of the wicket and flap gates, will attempt to mimic
natural flow patterns (rising and falling flows) during the dewatering process. Once the drawdown
is complete all of the operable gates will be opened to allow inflows to pass through the dam.
The right chamber floor drain has not been opened in 20+ years so the mechanical functionality
of this gate is unknown. There is a possibility that it is inoperable. If gates break it is likely that gravity
will cause the flap style gates to close flush against the floor of the chambers. In the unlikely
scenario that gates break in the open position, and there is a need to stop flow during dewatering,

the turbine casings can be manually plugged. More detailed information regarding the
dewatering process can be found in the attached Lake Drawdown memorandum (Schnabel
Engineering, February 8, 2017). Additionally, a description of the power facility turbine and gates
can be found in the attached Gate Functions memorandum (Schnabel Engineering, March 20,
2017).
3.2 Environmental Measures
During drawdown, the dewatered land will be seeded with millet on a weekly basis. It will also be
inspected for major erosional areas which will be managed on a case by case basis using soft
stabilization measures (silt fencing, coir matting, coir logs, plantings, additional seeding, etc.). A
more robust planting regime will be implemented during the river restoration effort post -dam
removal.
Turbidity monitoring will be conducted daily during the drawdown period and will commence two
weeks before drawdown and extend two weeks following the completion of the dewatering. The
turbidity sampling point will be located approximately 100' downstream of the power facility on
the right bank. An additional turbidity measurement within the lake will also be taken on a weekly
interval, which will be sampled from the catwalk attached to the power house. Based on
feedback from NCWRC and USFWS a maximum threshold of 50 NTUs will be adhered to during the
dewatering process. It is understood that mussels can tolerate short term spikes in turbidity and
that it may be advisable in a high turbidity event to maintain open flow conditions (i.e. not
mechanically reduce flow). If turbidity approaches the 50 NTU threshold UP staff will immediately
contact the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) staff to discuss the situation. An action plan will be developed with NCWRC and USFWS
and formalized based upon current river conditions, expected rain falls, gauge station data, etc.
The prescribed actions to adjust flow (if any) will be implemented immediately by UP staff.
Generally, if turbidity levels are similar upstream and downstream, flow through Hoosier Dam will
be maintained at a steady rate. If turbidity downstream of Hoosier Dam is significantly higher than
turbidity upstream of the dam, suggesting a mobilization of sediment, flow through the dam will
be gradually reduced (up to 50%) by manipulating the wicket gates and or closing flap gates.
On March 27th, 2017, UP staff pumped accumulated sediments out of the right turbine chamber
in preparation for an inspection of the gates within the chamber. Utilizing a 3" trash pump running
continually for several hours, accumulated sediments within the right chamber were greatly
reduced. Sediments were pumped to a 2 stage check dam which clarified the returning water
3

which was routed back into Reeves Lake. Sediments were seeded in with annual rye and the
check dams were allowed to remain in place to maximize sediment stability. The cleanout of the
right turbine chamber will eliminate unnecessary sediment from entering the river when the right
chamber gates are opened during the dewatering process (if they are needed).
3.3 Mussel Salvage Plan
During drawdown, there is a possibility that the currently inundated side slopes of the valley will be
dewatered too rapidly for mussels within the reservoir to retreat into the lowered water levels. To
ensure that the dewatering does not strand sensitive mussel species a mussel salvage plan has
been created in association with the NCWRC. The NCWRC will accompany UP staff during the
initial stages of dewatering to observe the changing habitat conditions and assess mussel
quantities in the impoundment. The salvage plan in general includes walking the exposed land
and collecting stranded mussels by hand and quickly relocating them back into the Rocky River
in an area upstream or downstream of the lake. The relocation area(s) will be specified by the
NCWRC in the field. Necessary collection permits including a Scientific Collection Permit and a
State Endangered Species Permit, specific to this project, will be obtained by UP staff prior to
mussel salvage.
SECTION 4
TIMING
4 Schedule
Dewatering would ideally commence within the first two weeks of June 2017 which will maximize
the effectiveness of the drawdown from a watershed hydrology perspective. The lowest monthly
baseflows are in June, July, and August with extrapolated flow volumes of 90.6 cfs, 88.1 cfs, and
66.1 cfs, respectively. Refer to pg. 2 of attached Lake Drawdown Memorandum for extrapolated
monthly baseflows at Hoosier Dam (Schnabel Engineering, February 8, 2017). This time frame is
also ideal for aquatic species including mussels and Cape Fear Shiner by avoiding spawning and
reproductive windows.
4

SECTION 5
REGULATORY
5 Regulatory Concurrence
Confirmation of regulatory requirements, or lack thereof, to dewater Reeves Lake per the above
procedure will be obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) prior to initiating dewatering. Additionally, concurrence will also be obtained
from USFWS, NCWRC, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). All the above
agencies are aware of the project, its objectives, and have provided feedback that has shaped
the process described in this document.
SECTION 6
NEXT STEPS
6 Next Steps
Prior to initiating dewatering by the methods described herein, we desire concurrence regarding
the dewatering process from the regulatory agencies listed in Section 5. Following regulatory
concurrence, UP will propose a dewatering start date to these regulatory agencies. Dewatering
will be initiated in the field on the approved start date by UP staff, NCWRC representatives, and
likely others.
5

tvo
IV

Power House
Turbine, wheel operates wicket gates
A-2

WARNING
07
et
-lE Cz,
*4

APPENDIX B
MEMORANDUMS
a

Schnabel SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
11A Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
E N G! N P E 1 N G T/ 336-274-9456
F/ 336-274-9486
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Angela Allen, PE DATE: February 8, 2016
COMPANY: Wildlands Engineering, Inc SUBJECT: Lake Drawdown At Rocky River Dam
ADDRESS: 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 PROJECT 17C21002.00
Raleigh, NC 27609 NAME/NO.: Rocky River Dam Removal
FROM: Maridee Romero -Graves, PE CC: John Hutton
INTRODUCTION
In support of an initial drawdown of the reservoir impounded by Rocky River Dam (also known as Hoosier Dam), a
hydrology and hydraulic analysis was performed to determine reservoir drawdown rates for lowering pool elevations as a
first phase for removal of the dam. The analysis was completed using the US Army Corps Hydrologic Model system
(HEC -HMS). The HEC -HMS model was developed to estimate the hydraulic capacity of the dam hydraulic components
and their ability to lower the pool elevation of the lake. It included a tailwater rating curve based upon a Rocky River HEC -
RAS model obtained from Angela Allen with Wildlands Engineering, Inc. on January 16, 2017. The goal is to lower the
lake at approximately 1 ft per day.
This memorandum summarizes the results of the estimated drawdown capacity for the existing powerhouse gates and
turbines at Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam (Hoosier Dam) to support the removal of the concrete dam structure.
Limited data was used for the hydrology and hydraulic analysis presented in this memo. Some of the
limitation/assumptions encounter during the analysis includes:
■ The bathymetry for Rocky River did not extend upstream enough to have a more accurate stage storage curve.
■ LiDAR data was not able to be use for stage storage since the contours near the water line were affected by the
water pool of the reservoir.
■ USGS topography was used to manually estimate the stage storage above normal pool.
■ There was very limited information available for the turbine located in one of the bays of the powerhouse. A rating
curve for the turbine was developed by using the dimensions of the wicket gates provided by the dam operator
and field measurements. According to the calculations, it appears as the opening of the turbine funnel (-r24-
inches in diameter) controls the dewatering flow through the turbine.
■ It was assumed that the two 12 -inch orifices in the powerhouse bay were round, with the same invert elevation
and location as the 24 -inch orifice. In other words, the two 12 -inch orifices were assumed round, horizontal and
with
■ A stream gage upstream of Rocky River Dam was used to determine the baseflow at the dam by using a ratio of
the watersheds. The stream gage upstream of the dam presented twenty seven years of data.
■ No curve number and lag time was determined since at this point in the project, no runoff analysis for various
storm scenarios is required.
SENT VIA: ❑ First Class Mail ❑ Overnight Service ® Email ❑ Other
G:\2017\GREENSBORO\17C21002 00 ROCKY RIVER DAM REMOVAL\03-SE PRODUCTS\03-REPORTS\02-FINAL\HYDRAULIC MEMORANDUM\RR HH FEB20 2017.DOCX

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
■ The HEC -RAS model provided by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. was used to generate a tailwater curve.
HYDROLOGY
Watershed
The watershed drainage area for Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam was delineated in Arc -GIS using USGS Topography
Maps. Based on this delineation, the contributing drainage area is approximately 181.6 square miles. The watershed
delineation map is attached to this document.
Base Flows
The nearest stream gage that could be used to estimate base flows to Rocky River at the dam location is located 31
stream miles upstream of the dam (USGS 0210166029 Rocky River at SR 1300). This stream gage covers a watershed
area of 7.42 square miles with a data record from 1988 to 2015. The mean monthly discharge for each month was
estimated from this record, and then adjusted to mean monthly baseflows at Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam by using a
watershed ratio. The table below shows the mean monthly discharges at the USGS stream gage number 0210166029
and the adjusted mean monthly discharges estimated for Rocky River Dam.
Table 1: Mean Monthly Flows at Gage Number 0210166029 and the Extrapolated Values at Rocky River
Hydroelectric Dam
Location
USGS Gage
0210166029
Rocky River
Dam
Watershed
Area (sq.mi)
7.42
181.6
Monthly
Mean
Flows
(cfs)
January
10
244.7
February
11
269.2
March
15
367.1
April
9.1
222.7
May
4.5
110.1
June
3.7
90.6
July
3.6
88.1
August
2.7
66.1
September
4.2
102.8
October
4.3
105.2
November
6.1
149.3
December
7.7
188.5
Baseflows are estimated to be highest during the months of January through April, with the mean peak occurring in
March. The lowest base flow values are estimated to occur in summer, with lowest mean flows occurring in August. (See
USGS stream gage data attached to this document).
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
Stage Storage
The stage storage curve for Rocky River Lake was estimated from a bathymetric survey performed by Infinite Land
Design, P.C. on June 19, 2015. This survey does not include the entire Lake. Stage -storage information above normal
pool was estimated using USGS Topographic Maps. However, due to incomplete topographic information, this is a
preliminary stage -storage curve with some uncertainty, and may merit refinement as this projects moves forward.
HYDRAULICS
Hydraulic Components
The run -of -river spillway is 216 feet long with the crest at EI 302.4. The powerhouse is located near the dam right
abutment and contains two bays, one with a turbine (reportedly 1.55MW) and the other is empty where a second turbine
could have been installed. Currently, we do not have information about the turbine except that it has fourteen wicket
gates that could be operated for the lake drawdown operations. According to the dam operator, the wicket gates are 13.5
inches tall with 8 inches in between wicket gates when fully opened. The funnel diameter of the turbine appears to be 24 -
inches in diameter. According to the dam operator, the opening in the floor of the second bay is 24 -inches in diameter
and each bay has also a 12 -inch opening.
No manufacturer information was provided for the turbine, including hydraulic rating curves. A preliminary rating curve for
the openings of the wicket gates/ 24" diameter funnel exit, for the 24 -inch power house bay orifice and the two 12 -inch
orifices was developed in excel. We estimate that the hydraulic control of the turbine system is at the 24 -inch funnel
immediately downstream of the turbine. No hydraulic information (invert elevation, location, shape, etc) was provided for
the two 12 -inch openings located in each of the bays. For hydraulic calculation purposes, it was assumed that the two 12 -
inch orifice are circular located at the same crest of the 24 -inch orifice (EI. 288). The rating curves for both bays were
added to the HEC -HMS model to estimate drawdown.
Tailwater Curve
The presence of tailwater could potentially reduce discharge capacity of the turbine and orifice in the empty bay. A
tailwater rating curve was estimated using the HEC -RAS model for the portion of the Rocky River, downstream of the dam
(obtained from Wildlands Engineering, Inc). The HEC -RAS model includes three scenarios, one for the existing
conditions, one corresponding to the corrected conditions, and one for proposed conditions (dam removed). The
corrected conditions model was used as the basis for the tailwater computations for the reservoir drawdown. The
tailwater model was analyzed as a steady state flow analysis based upon a range of peak flows. The water surface
elevation at the cross section immediately downstream of the dam (XS 30802.4) for the different flows was used as the
tailwater curve for the HEC -HMS model described below. Table 2 shows the tailwater curve generated in HEC -RAS and
included in the HEC -HMS model.
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
Table 2: Spillway Outflow Vs Tailwater Elevation
Flow
(CFS)
Tailwater Elevation
(ft)
5
271.98
25
272.04
30
272.15
40
272.44
50
272.58
60
272.72
70
272.81
80
272.9
90
272.97
100
273.04
150
273.36
200
273.52
230
273.6
240
273.63
250273.66
5000
282.13
HEC -HMS Model
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -HMS computer program, version 4.0, was used to estimate the hydrology and
hydraulics of Rocky River Dam and watershed. The watershed area, mean monthly base flows and the stage storage
previously described were included in the model. The lag time and curve number would need to be estimated if
precipitation analysis is necessary for future design.
The existing overflow spillway and water conveyance through the power house was modeled in HEC -HMS. The overflow
spillway section was modeled as a broad -crested spillway with the crest at EI 302.4, wNr length of 216 feet and weir
coefficient of 2.68 ft^0.5/s. The turbine, 24 -in orifice and the two 12 -inch orifices in the power house were included as the
rating curves previously mentioned. The model was then use to determine the rate at which the reservoir will drain by
using the turbine or the 24 -inch orifice or the combination of these two plus the two -12 -inch orifices. Other scenarios
evaluated included enlarging the 24 -inch orifice to 48 -inches or 60 -inches and possible using it in combination with the
turbine.
HEC -HMS results indicate that the 24 -inch opening has the capacity to pass a maximum flow of about 78 cfs, with
discharges slowly decreasing as the lake is lowered. As shown, drawdown is influenced by the estimated mean monthly
baseflow; it may be difficult to lower the pool when baseflows are high. Tables 3 show the rate at which drawdown occurs
depending on the month when operating the 24 -inch orifice only.
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
Table 3: Maximum Drawdown Using the Existing 24 -inch Orifice
Drawdown During
the month of:
Mean Baseflow
(cfs)
Max. Water
Elevation
(ft)
Min. Water
Elevation'
(ft)
Drawdown
Rate
(ft/day)
Time to reach
the Minimum
Elevation
(Days:Hours)
January
244.7
302.8
302.4
inflow>outflow
February
269.2
302.9
302.4
inflow>outflow
March
367.1
303
302.4
inflow>outflow
April
222.7
302.8
302.4
inflow>outflow
May
110.1
302.5
302.4
inflow>outflow
June
90.6
302.5
302.4
inflow>outflow
July
88.1
302.5
302.4
inflow>outflow
August
66.1
302.4
299
-0.2
28D:8H
September
102.8
302.5
302.4
inflow>outflow
October
105.2
302.5
302.4
inflow>outflow
November
149.3
302.6
303.4
inflow>outflow
December
188.5
302.7
304.4
inflow>outflow
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
HEC -HMS results also indicate that the 24 -inch opening and the turbine has the capacity to pass a combined maximum
flow of 160 cfs, with discharges slowly decreasing as the lake is lowered. As shown, drawdown is influenced by the
estimated mean monthly baseflow; it may be difficult to lower the pool when baseflows are high. Tables 4 and 5 shows
the rate at which drawdown occurs depending on the month.
Table 4: Maximum Drawdown Using the Existing Turbine and 24 -inch Orifice
Drawdown
During the
month of:
Mean
Baseflow
(cfs)
Max. Water
Elevation
(ft)
Min. Water
Elevation'
(ft)
Drawdown
Rate
(ft/day)
Time to reach
the Minimum
Elevation
(Days:Hours
January
244.7
302.7
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
77.3
February
269.2
302.7
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
77.4
March
367.1
302.9
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
211.4
April
222.7
302.6
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
222.7
May
110.1
302.4
295.5
-0.7
10D:17H
June
90.6
302.4
293.1
-1.2
5D:12H
July
88.1
302.4
292.8
-1.3
5D:7H
August
66.1
302.4
290.7
-1.7
3D:19H
September
102.8
302.4
294.5
-1.0
7D:17H
October
105.2
302.4
294.8
-0.9
8D:10H
November
149.3
302.4
301.7
-0.1
22D:10H
December
188.5
302.6
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
November 1
'until flow capacity of turbine plus 24" orifice = baseflow
Table 5: Maximum Outflows During the Drawdown at Rocky River
Drawdown
During the
month of:
Mean
Monthly
Baseflow
(cfs)
Max.
Overflow
Spillway
(cfs)
Max.
Turbine
Outflow
(cfs)
Max. 24"
Orifice
Outflow
(cfs)
Total Max.
Peak
Outflow
(cfs)
Drawdown
Rate (ft/day)
January 1
244.7
90.1
77.3
77.3
244.7
Inflow=Outflow
February
269.2
114.4
77.4
77.4
269.2
Inflow>Outflow
March
367.1
211.4
77.9
77.9
367.1
Inflow>Outflow
April
222.7
68.4
77.2
77.2
222.7
Inflow>Outflow
May
110.1
0
76.5
76.5
153.8
-0.7
June 1
90.6
0
76.5
76.5
153.0
-1.2
July
88.1
0
76.5
76.5
153.0
-1.3
August
66.1
0
76.5
76.5
153.0
-1.7
September
102.8
0
76.5
76.5
153.0
-1.0
October
105.2
0
76.5
76.5
153.0
-0.9
November 1
149.3
0
76.5
76.5
153.0
-0.1
December 1
188.5
34.6
76.9
76.9
188.5
Inflow>Outflow
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
HEC -HMS results also indicate that the 24 -inch opening, turbine and the two 12 -inch openings has the capacity to pass a
combined maximum flow of approximately 191 cfs, with discharges slowly decreasing as the lake is lowered. As shown,
drawdown is influenced by the estimated mean monthly baseflow; it may be difficult to lower the pool when baseflows are
high. Tables 6 and 7 shows the rate at which drawdown occurs depending on the month.
Table 6: Maximum Drawdown Using the Existing Turbine, 24 -inch Orifice and the two 12 -inch Orifices
Drawdown
During the
month of:
Mean
Baseflow
(cfs)
Max. Water
Elevation
(ft)
Min. Water
Elevation'
(ft)
Drawdown
Rate
(ft/day)
Time to reach
the Minimum
Elevation
(Days:Hours
January
244.7
302.6
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
77.2
February
269.2
302.7
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
269.2
March
367.1
302.9
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
Inflow>Outflow
April
222.7
302.5
302.4
Inflow>Outflow
38.9
May
110.1
302.4
292.8
-1.5
4D:6H
June
90.6
302.4
291.2
-1.9
3D:12H
July
88.1
302.4
291.1
-2.0
3DAH
August
66.1
302.4
289.7
-2.4
2D:16H
September
102.8
302.4
292.2
-1.7
3D:19H
October
105.2
302.4
292.4
-1.6
3D:22H
November
149.3
302.4
296.8
-0.8
13D:11 H
December
188.5
302.4
302
1 -0.1
1213:51-1
`until flow capacity of turbine plus 24" orifice = baseflow
Table 7: Maximum Outflows During the Drawdown at Rocky River
Drawdown
During the
month of:
Mean
Monthly
Baseflow
(cfs)
Max.
Overflow
Spillway
(cfs)
Max.
Turbine
Outflow
(cfs)
Max. 24"
Orifice
Outflow
(cfs)
Max. 2-12"
Orifice
Outflow
(cfs)
Total Max.
Peak
Outflow
(cfs)
Drawdown
Rate (ft/day)
January
244.7
52
77.2
77.2
38.6
244.7
Inflow=Outflow
February
269.2
76.1
77.2
77.2
38.6
269.2
Inflow>Outflow
March
367.1
172.8
77.7
77.7
38.9
367.1
Inflow>Outflow
April
222.7
30.4
76.5
76.5
38.5
222.7
Inflow>Outflow
May
110.1
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
4D:6H
June
90.6
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
3D:12H
July
88.1
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
3DAH
August
66.1
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
2D:16H
September
102.8
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
3D:19H
October
105.2 1
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
3D:22H
November
149.3
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
13D:11 H
December
188.5
0
76.5
76.5
38.3
191.3
12D:5H
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
The third scenario was also modeled in HEC -HMS. In this scenario we increased the diameter of the 24 -inch orifice to 48 -
inches. Outputs from HEC -HMS shows that the maximum outflow from the 48 -inches orifice is about 300 cfs. Table 8
summarizes drawdown for this scenario.
Table 8: Maximum Drawdown Using a 48 -inch Orifice Only
Drawdown
During the
month of:
Mean
Baseflow
(cfs)
Max. Water
Elevation
(ft)
Min. Water
Elevation
(ft)
Drawdown
Rate
(ft/day)
Flow (cfs)
Time to reach
the Minimum
Elevation
(Days:Hours
January
244.7
302.4
297.2
-1.1
306.1
9D:12H
February
269.2
302.4
299.1
-0.7
306.1
1313:21-1
March
367.1
302.6
302.4
inflow>outflow
367.1
April
222.7
302.4
295.6
-1.5
306.1
6D:2H
May
110.1
302.4
290
-4.8
306.1
1 D:15H
June
90.6
302.4
289.7
-5.5
306.1
1 D:10H
July
88.1
302.4
289.7
-5.6
306.1
1 D:9H
August
66.1
302.4
289.4
-6.4
306.1
1 D:5H
September
102.8
302.4
289.9
-5.1
306.1
1 D:12H
October
105.2
302.4
289.9
-5.0
306.1
1 D:13H
November
149.3
302.4
291.4
-3.4
306.1
2D:5H
December
188.5
302.4
293.5
-2.2
306.1
3D:OH
The fourth scenario was also modeled in HEC -HMS. In this scenario we increased the diameter of the 24 -inch orifice to
48 -inches and used it in combination to the turbine for drawdown. Outputs from HEC -HMS shows that the maximum
outflow from the turbine during drawdown is about 77 cfs while the 48 -inches orifice may pass about 300 cfs. Using this
combination for drawdown we increased the flow capacity to a total of about 380 cfs. Table 9 summarizes drawdown for
this scenario.
Project 17C21002.00/ February 8, 2017 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
Table 9: Maximum Drawdown Using the Existing Turbine and a 48 -inch Orifice
Drawdown
During the
month of:
Mean
Baseflow
(cfs)
Max. Water
Elevation
(ft)
Min. Water
Elevation'
(ft)
Drawdown
Rate
(ft/day)
Time to reach
the Minimum
Elevation
(D: H)
January
244.7
302.4
293.9
--2.6
2D:16H
February
269.2
302.4
295.1
-2.0
3D:21 H
March
367.1
302.4
301.3
-0.3
8D:16H:
April
222.7
302.4
292.9
-3.3
2D:5H
May
110.1
302.4
289.7
-11.6
1 D:3H
June
90.6
302.4
289.4
-12.9
1 D:1 H
July
88.1
302.4
289.4
-13.0
1 D:OH
August
66.1
302.4
289.1
-13.3
OD:22H
September
102.8
302.4
289.6
-12.8
1 D:1 H
October
105.2
302.4
289.6
-12.4
1 D:2H
November
149.3
302.4
290.3
--12.1
1 D:8H
December
188.5
302.4
291.5
-10.9
1 D:1 8H
Lastly, a scenario was modeled in HEC -HMS where there is no baseflow. In this scenario, an orifice was sized so the rate
of drawdown is 1 -foot per day. It was estimated that the orifice to allow a drawdown of 1-foot/day needs to be
approximately 19 -inches in diameter and release a flow of approximately 50 cfs.
SUMMARY
The results of our analysis indicated that without accounting for baseflow, the required flow rate necessary to drawdown
the lake at 1 -foot per day is about 50 cfs. The 24 -inch orifice and the turbine has a maximum flow capacity of about 80 cfs
each. However, this flow corresponds to a reservoir elevation at normal pool and would decrease as the pool lowers.
Using the 24 -inch orifice, turbine and the two 12 -inch orifices, the maximum flow capacity is 191 cfs.
The drawdown of the reservoir is impacted by the baseflow which fluctuates depending on the month of the year. We
recommend to perform drawdown operations during the month of May through September. However, it is possible that
drawdown operations can be performed during April by increasing the 24 -inch orifice flow capacity. For example,
drawdown during April might be accomplish by increasing the 24 -inch orifice diameter to 48 -inches or inclusive 60 -inches.
In order to drawdown the reservoir at a rate of 1-foot/day (by using the turbine, 24 -inch orifice, 48 -inch orifice or any
combination), we recommend controlling flows by operating the upstream gates.
SIGNED:
Maridee omero-Graves, E
Project 17C21002.001 February 8, 2017 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Turbine -Left Bav
Turbine in left bay.
Wicket gates allow flow
into turbine.
Right bay has a 24" DIA
orifice with a flap gate in
the same location as the
turbine.
Wicket gate operator
stem.
Headgate.
Used for dewatering the bay for
maintenance of components
downstream of headgate.
Headgate in right bay is similar;
however is deteriorated to point
it is no longer functional as a
gate.
Flap gate operating
stem. Stem is raised or
lowered to operate gate.
12" DIA Floor drain with
flap gate.
Left Bay Gates
(view is from the powerhouse floor
looking down through the access
hatch into the dewatered bay)
12 Schnabel
ENGINEEPING
Flar) Valve for 12" DIA
Floor Drain -Left Bay
(Flap Valves for 24" DIA orifice and
12" DIA floor drain located in right
bay are similar)
FLOW
Rocky River Dam
Chatham County, NC
PROJECT NO. 17C21002.00
Rock River Dam Gates
0 Schnabel Engineenng 2017 All Rights Reserved

Schnabel SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
11A Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
E N G I N E E R I N G T/ 336-274-9456
F/ 336-274-9486
Rocky River Gates Functions
Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam (Hoosier Dam) is a low hazard (according to NC Dam Safety), run of the river dam with a
structural height of approximately 25 feet and a total length of 435 feet. The North Carolina ID number is CHATH-010 and
the National Inventory of Dams number is NC00623. The dam is located approximately five miles south of Pittsboro, NC
on the Rocky River. The majority of the dam structure consists of an un -controlled (no gates) concrete spillway. In
addition to the concrete spillway, there is a powerhouse located near the right abutment of the dam. The powerhouse has
two turbine bays, separated by a concrete wall. The left side turbine bay houses a Francis turbine. The right side turbine
bay is configured similar to the left side turbine bay except a turbine was never installed.
Left Side Turbine Bay Gates:
The left side turbine bay contains three gates:
• 12 -feet wide by 14 -feet tall vertical lift head gate;
• 12 -inch -diameter floor drain with flap gate; and,
• Wicket gates on the turbine.
A 12 -feet wide by 14 -feet tall vertical -lift head gate is located on the upstream side of the left turbine bay just downstream
of the trashrack. The function of the head gate is to allow de -watering of the turbine bay for maintenance of the turbine
and associated items located in the turbine bay downstream of the head gate. A 12 -inch -diameter floor drain with a flap
valve (see Figure 1 for an example of a flap gate) is located downstream of the head gate. Its function is to drain leakage
into the turbine bay while the bay is de -watered. The wicket gates are located on the turbine assembly (see Figure 2 for
an example of wicket gates for a Kaplan Turbine). The function of the wicket gates is to allow water into the turbine to
generate electricity. The wicket gates can also be used to drain the turbine bay when the head gate is closed.
SENT VIA: ❑ First Class Mail ❑ Overnight Service ❑ Email ❑ Other
DOCUMENT2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ms. Angela Allen, PE
DATE:
March 20, 2016
COMPANY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
SUBJECT:
Rocky River Gates Functions
ADDRESS:
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite
225 Raleigh, NC 27609
PROJECT
NAME/NO.:
17C21002.00
Rocky River Dam Removal
FROM:
Robert Indri, PE
CC:
Rocky River Gates Functions
Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam (Hoosier Dam) is a low hazard (according to NC Dam Safety), run of the river dam with a
structural height of approximately 25 feet and a total length of 435 feet. The North Carolina ID number is CHATH-010 and
the National Inventory of Dams number is NC00623. The dam is located approximately five miles south of Pittsboro, NC
on the Rocky River. The majority of the dam structure consists of an un -controlled (no gates) concrete spillway. In
addition to the concrete spillway, there is a powerhouse located near the right abutment of the dam. The powerhouse has
two turbine bays, separated by a concrete wall. The left side turbine bay houses a Francis turbine. The right side turbine
bay is configured similar to the left side turbine bay except a turbine was never installed.
Left Side Turbine Bay Gates:
The left side turbine bay contains three gates:
• 12 -feet wide by 14 -feet tall vertical lift head gate;
• 12 -inch -diameter floor drain with flap gate; and,
• Wicket gates on the turbine.
A 12 -feet wide by 14 -feet tall vertical -lift head gate is located on the upstream side of the left turbine bay just downstream
of the trashrack. The function of the head gate is to allow de -watering of the turbine bay for maintenance of the turbine
and associated items located in the turbine bay downstream of the head gate. A 12 -inch -diameter floor drain with a flap
valve (see Figure 1 for an example of a flap gate) is located downstream of the head gate. Its function is to drain leakage
into the turbine bay while the bay is de -watered. The wicket gates are located on the turbine assembly (see Figure 2 for
an example of wicket gates for a Kaplan Turbine). The function of the wicket gates is to allow water into the turbine to
generate electricity. The wicket gates can also be used to drain the turbine bay when the head gate is closed.
SENT VIA: ❑ First Class Mail ❑ Overnight Service ❑ Email ❑ Other
DOCUMENT2

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
7
Stator
Rotor
Wicket
gate
Blades
Generator
I
Shaft
Turbine
Water
flow
Figure 1: Example of a flap gate. The flap gates
at Hoosier Dam are installed on a horizontal
surface. With the flap gates installed in the
horizontal position both gravity and water
pressure will want to force the gate closed.
Figure 2: Example of wicket gates for a Kaplan
Turbine. Function and layout for a Francis
Turbine (installed at Hoosier Dam) is similar
Project 17C21002.00/ March 20, 2017 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Rocky River Dam Removal
Right Side Turbine Bay Gates:
The right side turbine bay contains three gates:
• 12 -feet wide by 14 -feet tall head gate;
• 12 -inch -diameter floor drain with flap gate; and,
• 24 -inch diameter floor opening for installation of a turbine with a flap gate.
A 12 -feet wide by 14 -feet tall vertical -lift head gate is located on the upstream side of the right turbine bay just
downstream of the trashrack. The function of the head gate is to allow de -watering of the turbine bay for maintenance of
the turbine (if one was installed) and associated items located in the turbine bay downstream of the head gate. Since the
turbine in the right bay was never installed, the head gate serves no operational function. The head gate has not been
maintained and has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer functional as the gate i.e. it cannot hold back water.
Similar to the left bay, a 12 -inch -diameter floor drain with a flap valve is located downstream of the head gate. Its intended
function is to drain leakage into the turbine bay while the bay is de -watered. A 24 -inch -diameter orifice with a flap gate is
located on the floor of the right turbine bay. The function of the orifice is for installation of a second turbine and the flap
gate prevents water from flowing through the orifice without a turbine installed.
In the past, the gates through the powerhouse have been used as a low level outlet to drain the reservoir for maintenance
activities. Since the discharge capacity of the gates through the powerhouse are small compared to inflows, draining the
reservoir through the powerhouse can only be accomplished during the dry months of the year. The gates have not been
used as part of the spillway system for passing inflows into the reservoir, and their capacity when compared to the
capacity of the uncontrolled spillway is negligible.
Gates
Project 17C21002.00/ March 20, 2017 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Sediment Management Plan
October 2017
Prepared By:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
312 W. Millbrook Rd., Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Chatham County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
Prepared For:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
551 Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: [phone]

Contents
Section1: Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
Section 2: Characterization of Sediment Wedge.......................................................................................2
Section 3: Potential Channel Response to Dam Removal: Review of Literature.......................................3
3.1 Dispersion vs. Translation............................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Channel Evolution Model..............................................................................................................3
Section4: Conclusions...............................................................................................................................4
Section 5: Sediment Management Protocol 1: Removal...........................................................................4
Section 6: Sediment Management Protocol 2: Sediment Pulsing.............................................................5
Section7: Works Cited...............................................................................................................................6
FIGURES
Pebble Count Locations
Sediment Wedge Profile
Sediment Wedge Cross -Section
APPENDIX
Sediment Samples
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
W Tier 1 Sediment Evaluation

Section 1: Introduction
The Hoosier Dam is a 94 -year-old hydroelectric dam located on the Rocky River 5 % miles upstream of its
confluence with the Deep River in Chatham County, North Carolina. The dam is being proposed for
removal as part of a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant to restore the Rocky River from its
currently impounded state back to a free flowing (lotic) state. The removal of the Hoosier Dam will open
up 18,138 linear feet of habitat between two critical habitat areas for the endangered Cape Fear shiner.
The impounded reach behind the Hoosier Dam, referred to as Reeves Lake, backwaters 16,060 linear
feet within the Rocky River and 2,078 linear feet within its six perennial tributaries. There is a sediment
wedge located in the impoundment spanning approximately 1,030 linear feet upstream of the dam and
across the width of the channel with an approximate volume of 15,250 CY.
A Tier 1 evaluation was performed to identify potential sources of pollution in and around Reeves Lake
and determine the likelihood of contamination in the sediments stored behind the dam. The perimeter
of evaluation was set at 1 -mile surrounding the Reeves Lake impoundment and extended upstream to
Siler City in regards to direct discharge. The evaluation yielded no potential sources of contaminants
within the 1 -mile radius of Reeves Lake. The only potential source beyond that is the wastewater
treatment plant in Siler City, 18.3 miles upstream. There have been no reports of violations or spills from
the treatment plant on record. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that, based on the
results of the Teir 1 evaluation, there is little to no potential of contamination of the sediment behind
the dam (see attached correspondence). However, due to the volume of sediment within the wedge and
the volume of highly mobile sediment, a detailed sediment management plan is necessary.
Unique Places (project manager), and Wildlands Engineering (project engineer) met with USFWS on
October 5, 2017, in consultation with the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC). It was USFWS
preference for Unique Places to submit this sediment management plan with two management options:
(1) mechanical removal of the sediment wedge, and (2) allowing natural sediment pulsing downstream
post removal. Final management decisions will be made based on health and lifecycle considerations of
the Cape Fear shiner and several sensitive mussels within the trail race of the dam.
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
W Tier 1 Sediment Evaluation

Section 2: Characterization of Sediment Wedge
The Tier 1 Sediment Evaluation described in Section 1 explained the detailed methods used to
determine the quantity and location of the sediment wedge upstream of the Hoosier Dam. The
sediment wedge starts approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the dam (elevation 283 ft), peaking at 500
feet upstream of the dam (elevation 288 ft.) and gradually decreasing in the downstream direction (tail
elevation 280 ft.). The crest of the sediment wedge is at the approximate elevation of the outlet
structure. This shape indicates that stormflows create a back eddy against the dam, churning up
sediment within the wedge at the base of the dam, entraining it in the water column, and flushing it
from the system. The approximate volume of sediment in the wedge is 15,250 CY.
Several methods were used in attempts to sample and characterize the texture of material in the
sediment wedge prior to dewatering the impoundment (See Tier 1 Evaluation). However, no method
could penetrate more than a foot into the wedge. The impoundment was dewatered between June and
August 2017 to expose the top of the sediment wedge and to provide equipment access for mechanical
sampling. On September 15, 2017, an excavator was used to sample the wedge until the depth of refusal
at three locations (Figure 1). The depth to refusal was used to estimate the future bed elevation post
dam removal. Samples were collected and sent to a laboratory to be analyzed to determine the
percentages of fine material (clay and silt) within the highly mobile material of the wedge (excluding
large cobbles). Large cobbles were recovered during mechanical sampling, however they were not
included in the laboratory analysis. Cobbles are considered inert, part of the native bed material, and
not a threat to downstream fish and mussel habitats during transport. Results, summarized in the table
below, show that between 38 and 66 percent of the material in the wedge is fine consolidated
sediment.
Sample #
% Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
Wedge —1
7.4
26.1
38.9
27.5
Wedge — 2
25.9
35.3
22.4
16.3
Wedge — 3
22.9
28.9
24.3
24.0
Sediment samples were also collected upstream and downstream of the impoundment to characterize
the native bed material within the Rocky River and determine if bed composition changed upstream
and/or downstream of the dam as a result of the dam impounding bedload (Figure 1). Pebble counts
were used to characterize the top layer of riffle material at each sampling location. It was determined
that, though the spread of size classes is similar, there is a component of gravel and cobble that is
lacking downstream of the dam. This indicates the dam had been acting as a barrier to sediment
transport of larger gravels and cobbles. In comparing the pebble counts to the bulk sampling of the
sediment wedge, the mean particle sizes in the sediment wedge are less than those sampled in the
upstream and downstream riffles. (sediment sample and pebble count data is located in the Appendix).
WHoosier Dam Removal Project
Sediment Management Plan

Section 3: Potential Channel Response to Dam Removal: Review of
Literature
3.1 Dispersion vs. Translation
There are two primary mechanisms explaining the pulse behavior of a sediment wedge after the
removal of a dam: dispersion and translation. For dispersive pulses, the sediment from the wedge is
mobilized and travels downstream both with baseflow and flow events, gradually decreasing the size of
the wedge over time (Pace et al., 2017). For translational pulses, the entire wedge gradually moves
downstream with the apex and each edge moving downstream at uniform rates (Lisle et al., 2001). The
greatest predictor of pulse mechanics as described by Pace et. al. (2017) is the Froude number within
the channel. If the Froude number is greater than 0.4, dispersion will be the primary mechanism.
A HEC -RAS model was developed for the Hoosier Dam removal proposed conditions and run at various
flowrates. Results of Froude number analysis indicated that dispersion will be process by which
sediment is moved from the wedge. At flowrates approximating winter baseflows (approximately 370
cfs, six times higher than summer flows), the Froude number is at 0.5. This indicates that dispersion of
the sediment wedge may occur seasonally (during high winter flows), and during storm events
throughout the year. The results of the sediment sampling, discussed in the previous section, also
indicate the composition of the sediment wedge is finer than that of the native bed material, which is a
secondary indicator that dispersion will be the primary transport mechanism (Pace et. al., 2017).
3.2 Channel Evolution Model
The most prevalent theory of sediment mobilization, dispersion, and channel adjustment following dam
removal, is one that follows Simon and Hupp's (1996) channel evolution model (CEM) (Doyle et al.,
2002, Cantelli et.al., 2004). After dam removal, on rivers where the wedge is comprised predominantly
of fine consolidated sediment, a pilot channel forms creating a thalweg through the old reservoir. This
thalweg will incise to the elevation of the old river bed (Cantelli et. al., 2004). The channel will eventually
widen to dimensions similar to those upstream and downstream of the dam, aggradation may occur to
form new streambanks, and the channel will settle into a quasi -equilibrium (Doyle et. al., 2002). The
erosion rates are generally two -phased: (1) rapid initial erosion driven by dam removal (approximately
50% wedge volume), and (2) erosion over time dependent on flood events (approximately 50% wedge
volume (Pearson et. al., 2011, Collins et.al., 2017). The initial incision often occurs within several days to
months; however, the continued adjustments are gradual over a 5+ year process with levels of head -
cutting having slowed by year four (Wildman and Macbroom 2005, Pearson et.al. 2011, Collins et.al.,
2017). Any deposition downstream of dispersed sediments is generally temporary and tends to be along
streambanks and channel margins (Doyle et.al., 2003, Wildman and Macbroom 2005, Collins et.al.,
2017). In a study of the Elwha Dam removal in Washington, 90% of sediment that eroded from the
sediment wedge passed through the downstream river reaches without aggradation (Warrick et.al.
2015). Sediment left within old reservoirs tends to form terraces that maintain their stability after the
new channel is formed (Doyle et. al., 2002, Doyle et.al., 2003, Wildman and Macbroom, 2005, Randle
et.al., 2015).
WHoosier Dam Removal Project
Sediment Management Plan

Section 4: Conclusions
Based on the data collected, current site conditions post -dewatering of the impoundment, HEC -RAS
modeling of proposed conditions, and a review of the literature, Wildlands concludes the likeliest form
of channel adjustment for the Rocky River post -dam removal (with no mechanical removal) would be an
initial pulse of sediment dispersed downstream of the fine sediment in the top -most layer
(approximately one foot thick) of the sediment wedge, followed by a gradual incision and widening of
the channel to dimensions similar to upstream and downstream sections (Wildman and Macbroom,
2005). The degree to which the initial incision occurs may depend on the baseflow at the time of
removal (Pace et.al., 2017). There may be temporary aggradation along channel margins downstream
post-removal, but they would flush with episodic events.
There is little in the literature about the temporary effects on downstream reaches resulting from
mechanical removal of sediment. While the coarse sediment would mostly be removed, a portion of the
fine sediment would be mobilized during mechanical removal and would move downstream, similar to
dispersive pulses described in Section 3. The volume or percentage of the wedge material that would be
mobilized is unknown.
As the impoundment drew down, floodplain terraces have formed on the Rocky River out of sediment
deposited in the valley over time. Some areas of the terraces are forming into new flood fringe
wetlands. These terraces are stable, and are unlikely to contribute erosive sediment downstream.
Wildlands recommends disturbing these as little as possible.
Whether the sediment is mechanically removed or allowed to stabilize itself overtime, the system is
likely to recover within a few years, providing new extensive habitat areas for the Cape Fear shiner and
various sensitive mussel species. The decision on which approach to take should not significantly affect
the final channel stability or geomorphology. The decision should be based on the temporary stress that
can be withstood by local fauna. The following sections present two protocols for sediment
management on site. Protocol 1 is for mechanical removal of the sediment wedge within the active
channel, and Protocol 2 is for natural sediment pulsing. The final protocol used during removal will be
that chosen by USFWS as part of their Biological Opinion for the project.
Section 5: Sediment Management Protocol 1: Removal
If USFWS determines that sediment must be removed from the impoundment prior to dam removal,
mechanical equipment will be used from the project banks to remove sediment from the channel. A
proposed longitudinal profile has been created for the river bed underneath the sediment wedge and
through the dam cross-section. This elevation will be at the estimated historic bed elevation. Sediment
will be removed until the proposed bed elevation is reached, or stable bedforms comprised of bedrock,
cobble, and gravel are exposed.
WHoosier Dam Removal Project 4
Sediment Management Plan

Sediment removed from the channel will be placed in an upland area on the project site outside of the
limits of the regulated floodplain and any jurisdictional wetland features. Sediment deposited in upland
areas will be stabilized according to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division
of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NCDEQ-DEMLR) Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual guidelines and in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control permit for the
project.
The river banks and bed will be stabilized where sediment is removed using a combination of grade
control structures, habitat structures, and bioengineering. River banks will be seeded with temporary
and permanent seeding. During the dormant season, banks will be planted with livestakes and other
riparian species to improve bank stability and overall stream habitat conditions.
The site will be monitored throughout the construction process with the same protocols as those
followed in the dewatering plan. Based on input from The NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) a maximum threshold of 50 NTUs for turbidity will be
adhered to during the construction process. Turbidity monitoring will occur daily during construction
and extend two weeks following the completion of construction. The turbidity sampling point will be
located approximately 100 feet downstream of the power facility on the right bank of the river. If
turbidity approaches the 50 NTU threshold, active sediment removal will cease and Unique Places, LLC
(UP) and/or Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) staff will immediately contact the NCWRC and
USFWS staff to discuss the situation. An action plan will be developed with NCWRC and USFWS and
formalized based upon current river conditions, expected rain falls, gauge station data, etc. The
prescribed actions will be implemented immediately by the Contractor.
Section 6: Sediment Management Protocol 2: Sediment Pulsing
If FWS determines that mechanical removal of sediment is not required, material from the sediment
wedge will be pulsed downstream during and after construction. During dam removal, the dam will first
be removed down to the elevation of the powerhouse's wicket gate invert (approximately 14.5 vertical
feet removed). This is the current elevation of the crest of the sediment wedge, and the elevation to
which the impoundment was dewatered prior to dam removal. Then it will be gradually removed below
that in vertical sections over the course of a month.
The turbidity monitoring protocol will be the same as discussed in Section 5. Adaptive management will
be used, in consultation with USFWS and NCWRC, to determine if alterations in the dam removal
sequence need to be made to maintain turbidity levels under 50 NTUs, such as a gradual notching of the
dam to allow the system to stabilize. Episodic events during construction temporarily increasing the
turbidity is not a concern during this project, however sustained levels of increase turbidity would
trigger adaptive management protocols.
WHoosier Dam Removal Project
Sediment Management Plan

Section 7: Works Cited
Cantelli, Allessandro, Paola, Chris, and Gary Parker. 2004. Experiments on upstream -migrating erosional
narrowing and widening of an incisional channel caused by dam removal. Water Resources
Research. 40: W03304.
Collins, M.J. et al. 2017. Channel response to sediment release: insights from a paired analysis of dam
removal. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 42: 11, pp 1636-1651.
Doyle, Martin W., Stanley, Emily H., and Jon M. Harbor. 2002. Geomorphic Analogies for Assessing
Probably Channel Response to Dam Removal. American Water Resources Association. 38:6, pp 1567-
1579.
Doyle, Martin W., Stanley, Emily H., and John M. Harbor. 2003. Channel adjustments following two dam
removals in Wisconsin. Water Resources Research. 39:1, pp 1011.
Lisle TE TE, Cui Y, Parker G, Pizzuto JE, Dodd AM. 2001. The dominance of dispersion in the evolution of
bed material waves in gravel -bed rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26, pp. 1409-1420.
Pace, Kylie Marie et. al. 2017. Sediment Pulse Behaviour Following Dam Removal in Gravel -Bed Rivers.
River Research and Applications. 33, pp 102-117.
Pearson, A.J., Snyder, N.P., and Collins, M.J., 2011. Rates and processes of channel response to dam
removal with sand -filled impoundment. Water Resources Research. 47:8.
Randle, Timothy J. et. al. 2015. Large -Scale dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA: Erosion
of reservoir sediment. Geomorphology. 246, pp. 709-728.
Warrick, Jonathan A., et. al. 2015. Large -Scale dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA:
Source -to -sink sediment budget and synthesis. Geomorphology. 246, pp 729-750.
Wildman, Laura A.S., and James G. MacBroom. 2005. The evolution of gravel bed channels after dam
removal: Case study of the Anaconda and Union City Dam removals. Geomorphology. 71, pp 245-
262.
WHoosier Dam Removal Project 6
Sediment Management Plan

2011 Aerial Photography
W I L D L A N D S 075Q500 Feet
ENGINEERING i l l l l
XS2
_ Limits of Reeves Lake
Q Pebble Count Locations
XS4
Hoosier Dam O
tee' ,r
�U
XS50
O
XS6
Pebble Count Locations
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Sediment Management Plan
Chatham County, NC
r
crs
Pebble Count Locations
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Sediment Management Plan
Chatham County, NC

I—._rl
r 7i --rl :1
r rrl
r
,
r
I
_
r
r
sao
r
.l11, Cr �JJ1L{-L
i I
. L. ..J,I 11-.
....
I I
I
I 1
I
L
T
t I
1xs TI T r
EXISTING _
T T
r -T T
fro+
GROUND .I
xpp LJ '. -L-__L
_LI_L.JJJ_
LL
I
r
r 7
�r i
ry
�, ��-rrrrn-n�vrrn
n�T
r rrl
n -.
e.so e.� e.
x.ee x.so
r
lae l -I J_.11LLLIJJ
.l11, Cr �JJ1L{-L
-Ull
. L. ..J,I 11-.
....
RESTRICTED LAYER - y �
r
i
r
SAND/GRAVEL/COBBLE
1xs TI T r
T 1 -
T T
r -T T
fro+
L- 4 1+
r
I
F
r
les I
Ob0 bee ,be
1.e0 xbe 2✓A
G a
e.ee
r I T
eHe ♦MO ,�Jp 5.00
r u�l s r T T r : E I
I
I I ;
I ,
..
SEDIMENT W EDGE
r r MOBILE I
LAYER 1 r
L J. i
'
.I t
i
I
T -I
- I
I
r T
.DAM-
e.so e.� e.
x.ee x.so
_ WEDGE SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
� I
I ,
r ESTIMATED HISTORIC , r
CHANNEL BOTTOM
e.00 e.so c.ao wso ,owo ,aso ,,.ao ,,.so ,x.ao
I.. - 1
T T 17310
.DAM-
LI -I -IJ 4 41-
�
r
1 I
11 LLIJ L
II �
,II -I
I I—I i
4 I-
fY ns
12— 13—
ee 14-
DAM
i
V ti
k
SEDIMENT WEDGE
CROSS-SECTION--'
SEE FIGURE 3
r.

WILDLANDS
1111-1
W. Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleieh NC 27609
Tel: 19.
851.9986
Firm license No. F-0831
0' 5' 10' 15'
(VERTICAL)
0' S0' 100' 150'
(HORIZONTAL)
300x---------------------1300
I
1
I
I
295' 1 - ----------------- -295
III II
I I
EXISTING I I I
GROUND
290L - l --k1 ------ L J290
111111 111111
111111 111111
I �
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
MOBILE
LAYER I I
1111111 LIIIIII
285F T- T 1 T 7 7 u, 1 T** X285
1111111 "'1111111
I RESTRICTED LAYER - I I 1 1 I I I 1 I
I SAND/GRAVEL/COBBLE I I I
280-4-+*-F_t-i�� �rfi++-1-*-J280
EST111111111 111111111
1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
CHANNEL BOTTOM
MATED IC I
1111111111111111' I
111111111111111111111
275L.L1.111_LJJJ—I—LL_LLLLL11J275
-100-90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Date:
10-18-2017
job Number:
005-14005
Project Engineer.
ANA
Drawn By:
CLM
She: H:1"=50' V:1"=5'
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Project
Chatham County, North Carolina
Figure 3 - Modeled Bathymetry and
SedimentWedee - Cross-section

Appendix
WHoosier Dam Removal Project
Sediment Management Plan

SINGE
nro Fr oehl ing & Robertson, Inc.
1861
Project No: 66T-0132
Client: Wildlands
Project: Hoosier Dam
City/State: Chatam County, NC
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
100
95
90
85
80
75
m
70
65
C° 60
v
LL 55
Y
50
v
a 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
TT05
1 1 1 111:111 1 1119 111 1 1 Ti -i
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0
Grain Size (mm)
Sample No.
COBBLES
GRAVEL
I SAND
SILT OR CLAY
Classification
coarse fine
coarse I medium fine
PI Cc
Sample No.
Depth
Classification
LL
PL I
PI Cc
Cu
• #1
at
0.0
X #2
at
0.0
a
A #3
at
0.0
Y
Sample No.
V
Depth
D100
D60
D30
D10 %Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
• #1
at
0.0
64
0.05
0.006
7.4
26.1
38.9
27.5
a m #2
at
0.0
64
0.339
0.037
25.9
35.3
22.4
16.3
71 A #3
at
0.0
64
0.201
0.01
22.9
28.9
24.3
24.0

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Project: Hoosier Dam
Client: Wildlands Engineeri
Sample #1
Weight
Retained
Percent
Retained
Percent
Passing
5" - 128mm
0
0.0
100.0
2.5" - 64mm
0
0.0
100.0
1.0" - 25.4 mm
88.59
3.4
96.6
5/8" - 15 mm
111.14
4.2
95.8
3/8" - 9 mm
145.48
5.5
94.5
#5 - 4 mm
206.12
7.8
92.2
#10 - 2 mm
279.53
10.6
89.4
#20 -.85 mm
1.63
13.8
86.2
#40 -.425 mm
3.71
17.8
82.2
#60 -.25 mm
5.73
21.6
78.4
#100 -.15 mm
7.95
25.9
74.1
#200 -.075 mm
11.91
33.5
66.5
Sample #2
Weight Percent
Retained Retained
Percent
Passing
5" - 128mm
0.00
100.0
2.5" - 64mm
0.00
100.0
1.0" - 25.4 mm
192.10
92.7
5/8" - 15 mm
381.00
85.6
3/8" - 9 mm
554.97
79.0
#5 - 4 mm
715.37
72.9
#10 - 2 mm
816.21
69.1
#20 -.85 mm
1.62
66.9
#40 -.425 mm
4.58
62.9
#60 -.25 mm
9.54
56.2
#100 -.15 mm
15.55
48.0
#200 -.075 mm
22.41
38.7
Project No: 66T-0132
Date: 9/25/2017
Sample #1
Largest Particle (2) mm
Pan #
P-01
Wet soil + tare (G)
386.75
Dry soil + tare
320.9E
Wt. of Water
65.77
Tare wt.
110.63
Dry wt. of Soil
210.35
Moisture %
31.3
Largest Particle (1) mm 33.07
Largest Particle (2) mm
32.60
Largest Particle (1) Wt. Grams
60.48
Largest Particle (2) Wt. Grams
28.13
Sample #2
Largest Particle (2) mm
Pan #
K-01
Wet soil + tare (G)
284.94
Dry soil + tare
246.77
Wt. of Water
38.17
Tare wt.
109.78
Dry wt. of Soil
136.99
Moisture %
27.9
Largest Particle (1) mm 39.91
Largest Particle (2) mm
30.43
Largest Particle (1) Wt. Grams
60.25
Largest Particle (2) Wt. Grams
52.99
Performed By: Cory Adams Date: 10/4/2017

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Project: Hoosier Dam
Client: Wildlands Engineerin
Sample #3
Weight
Retained
Percent
Retained
Percent
Passing
5" - 128mm
0
0.0
100.0
2.5" - 64mm
0
0.0
100.0
1.0" - 25.4 mm
213.67
7.9
92.1
5/8" - 15 mm
438.91
16.3
83.7
3/8" - 9 mm
547.95
20.3
79.7
#5 - 4 mm
636.54
23.6
76.4
#10 - 2 mm
731.47
27.1
72.9
#20 -.85 mm
1.35
29.1
70.9
#40 -.425 mm
3.43
32.2
67.8
#60 -.25 mm
6.79
37.2
62.8
#100 -.15 mm
11.22
43.8
56.2
.075 mm
16.62
51.8
48.2
Project No: 66T-0132
Date: 9/25/2017
Sample #3
Largest Particle (2) mm
Pan #
H-06
Wet soil + tare (G)
342.06
Dry soil + tare
272.90
Wt. of Water
69.16
Tare wt.
110.39
Dry wt. of Soil
162.51
Moisture %
42.6
Largest Particle (1) mm 42.85
Largest Particle (2) mm
44.16
Largest Particle (1) Wt. Grams
64.05
Largest Particle (2) Wt. Grams
51.58
Performed By: Cory Adams Date: 10/4/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Project Name (Hoosier Dam)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D50 =
91.8
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
D100 =
>2048
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
SPl�O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
5
5
5
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
2.8
4.0
5.6
4.0
5.6
8.0
3
4
3
4
5
8
11
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
17
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
21
Coarse
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22.6
32
9
5
9
5
30
34
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
39
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
43
Small
64
90
7
7
50
Small Large
90
28
180
128
180
256
9
9
6
9
9
6
6 i
72
0Large
Small
Small
Medium
256
362
512
362
512
1024
12
6
3
11
6
3
84
90
92
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
7
7
99
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
1
1
100
Totall
105
100
100
RockyRiver, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay Fill 01,
avel
bble a popYlar
so a ro
70
j 60
A 50
E
Um 40 - —
y 30
a 20ell
10
0 1 Lill -
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-09/2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80 -
c 70
w
60
d
a 50
m 40
u
m 30
0
20
c 10
0
b'L .tih .yh Oh 'y ti ,L0 A hb 0 1~ .y0 0 .5'L Ph lob' �O .yO �O hp 0ti titi ,yP pO 01p '..
p0 p1 p-
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-09/2016
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
10.32
D35 =
33.68
D50 =
91.8
D84 =
366.2
D95 =
1344.5
D100 =
>2048
RockyRiver, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay Fill 01,
avel
bble a popYlar
so a ro
70
j 60
A 50
E
Um 40 - —
y 30
a 20ell
10
0 1 Lill -
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-09/2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80 -
c 70
w
60
d
a 50
m 40
u
m 30
0
20
c 10
0
b'L .tih .yh Oh 'y ti ,L0 A hb 0 1~ .y0 0 .5'L Ph lob' �O .yO �O hp 0ti titi ,yP pO 01p '..
p0 p1 p-
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Project Name (Hoosier Dam)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 2
Summary
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
RockyRiver, Cross Section 2
min max
Percentage
Cumulative
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
sur/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
Very fine
0.062 0.125
0
100
0.125 0.250 1
1
1
90
SandFine Vol
avel bble
Sp$� Medium
0.25 0.50 3
3
4
80
r aro
Coarse
0.5 1.0 6
6
10
70
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0 9
9
19
2 60
00
Very Fine
2.0 2.8 5
5
24
50
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 5
1 5
29
E
Fine
4.0 5.6 8
8
37
40
Fine
5.6 8.0 3
3
40
w 30
A
Medium
8.0 11.0 8
8
48
a 20
Medium
11.0 16.0 5
5
54
10
Coarse
16.0 22.6 1 4
4
58
Coarse
22.6 32 3
3
61
0
It
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45 2
2
63
Very Coarse
45 64 7
7
70
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
64 90 6
6
76
MYO-09/2016
Small
90 128 3
3
79-
,, Large
128 180
79
—
Large
180 256 5
5
84
RockyRiver, Cross Section 2
Small
256 1 362 6
6
90
Individual Class Percent
Small
362 512 1
1
91
100
Medium
512 1024 3
3
94
90
Large/Very Large
1024 2048
94
8o
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048 >2048 6
6
100
70
Totall 99
100
100
60
v
- 50
Cross Section 2
f0 40
Channel materials (mm)
V
D16 = 1.57
v 30
D35 - 5.07
20
D50 = 12.3
c 10
D80. = 258.4
0
D95 = 2312.1
Dy ti
ti ti� a ;b 0 titi ti0 3ti ah o� �o
op0'LO�p otih
�y� �tiq two ryy� roti yyLyoya�ob4 ��o
D100 = >2048
Particle Class Size (mm)
.MYO-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Project Name (Hoosier Dam)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 3
Summary
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
RockyRiver, Cross Section 3
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
sur/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
90
Silt/Clay
avel
ble
or
�IO Medium
0.25
0.50
0
80
aro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
70
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
1 8
8
9
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
5
14
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
10
24
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
5
29
i? 40
-
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
34
y 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
38
au 20
Medium
1 11.0 1
16.0
1 6
6
44
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
52
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
56
0
It
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
59
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
66
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
64
90
9
9
75
MYM9/2016
Small
90
128
12
12
87
Large
128
180
8
8
95
Large
180
256
95
RockyRiver, Cross Section 3
Small
256
362
1
95
Individual Class Percent
Small
362
5125
5
100
100
Medium
512
1024
100
90
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
70
Totall
100
100
100
60
`w
a 50
Cross Section 3
"
m 40
Channel materials
(mm)
D36 =
3.01
30
D35 =
8.66
V 20
D50 =
20.7
c 10
D84 =
117.2
0
D95 =
180.0
Doti 1yh by oy ti
ti �� a 5� 'b " do tib 3ti a11 oQ �o ,y� oo ho
'ti ti ti
oti h titi ,yo-
3 Il .y0 a0
D100 =
512.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Project Name (Hoosier Dam)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 4
- -
Diameter (mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle
Class
Class
Percent
Count
RockyRiver, Cross Section 4
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
sur/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
1
90
80
slittay
Sand
avel
bbl r
aro
O
Medium 0.25
Spt, 0.50 0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
4
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
7
u' 40
d 30
a 20
-
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 8
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 10
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
18
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
24
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
32
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Mvao9/ Alb
Very Coarse 32 45 10 10 42
Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 57
Small 64 90 12 12 69
.V� Small 90 128 7 7 76
��.
Large 128 180 9 9 85
Large
180
256
1
1
86
l00
90
RockyRiver, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
-
Small 256 362 3 3 89
Small 362 512 89
Medium
512
1024
89
80
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
5
5
94
70
BEDROCK 113edrock 2048 1 >2048 1 6 6 100
Total
100
100
100
60
`w
a 50
m 40
Cross Section
4
30
Channel materials (mm)
Dlfi =
14.57
20
Das =
35.45
�, c to
D50 =
54.3
D84 =
173.3
0
D95 =
2298.8
OOti 115 tih Oh 1
O'
L ti0 b y6 0 yti 1�O Lo yL ph oC c§' 10 00 h6 �ti 1ti lb b$ A6
ti '�- 1 ti '� ,10 �O
D100 =
>2048
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-09/1016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Project Name (Hoosier Dam)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 5
Diameter (mm) Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle
Class
Class
Percent
=
512.0
Count
RockyRiver, Cross Section 5
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
min max
0.000 0.062
Percentage
Cumulative
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
yfine
VerTi
0.062 0.125
0
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
0
Silt/Clay
90
oval bb
SQ�O
Medium
0.25 0.50 1
1
1
80
r e r
Coarse
0.5 1.0 1
1
2
70
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
2
j 60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
2
50
Very Fine
2.8 4.0
2
E
Fine
4.0 5.6 4
4
6
u 40
Fine
5.6 8.0 6
6
12
30
Medium
8.0 11.0 6
6
18
u
CL 20
Medium
11.0 16.0 8
8
26
10
Coarse
16.0 22.6 10
10
36
Coarse
22.6 32 5
5
41
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45 9
9
50
Very Coarse
45 64 10
10
60
SII
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
64 90 11
11
71
—*—MVO-09/2016
Small
90 128 9
9
80
Large
128 180 6
6
86
Large
180 256 2
2
88
RockyRiver, Cross Section 5
Small
256 362 10
10
98
Individual Class Percent
Small
362 512 2
2
100
100
Medium
512 1024
100
90
Large/Very Large
1024 2048
100
80
—
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 >2048
100
70
Total 100
100
100
d
� 60
a
50
–
Cross Section 5
N
40
Channel materials (mm)
'Fa
DI6 = 9.89
30
-03
Das = 21.83
y. 20
Dso = 45.0
E 10
D6a = 160.7
0
Des = 326.3
OO6'LO�,Ih O.lh Oh 'ti
ti ,y0 P yb 0 ,y:, .tib ' 'h1'y'ti1'ti�ryA
D100
I'�
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-09/2016
=
512.0

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Project Name (Hoosier Dam)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
RockyRiver, Cross Section 6
Summary
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
RockyRiver, Cross Section 6
sur/CLAY
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
0
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
'
ltlC
90 Silay
oval iL
b ie r
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
80
a ro
I I
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
70
AIIII
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
6
� 60 -
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
1 3
9
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
5
13
50
E
Fine
4.0
5.6
7
7
20
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
12
12
32
w 30
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
39
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
45
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
49
10
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
53
0
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
57
0.01 0.1
1 SO 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
63
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
64
90
14
13
76
-MYM9/2016
Small
90
128
7
7
83
Large
128
180
4
4
87
-- -- --._.- ----------
Large
180
256
1
1
88
RockyRiver, Cross Section 6
Small
256
362
9
9
96
Individual Class Percent
Small
362
512
96
100
Medium
512
1024
4
4
100
90
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
80
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
100
70
Totall
104
100
100
°+ 60
w
a 50
Cross Section 6
a0
Channel materials (mm)
u
D16 =
4.54
30
Das =
9.16
20
Dso =
24.7
c 10
D84 =
143.7
0
D9s =
345.7
ra'L by by ,- O
00 01 0
'ti- ,y0 b h� % .,- tib 0 Mti p5 6A -p' ..O h6 M0"n,'til' ,lA a'b 9b
titi' � ti ti 5 .tio ,yo ao
D100
1024.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
.MYO-09/2016

11/20/2017 Unique Places LLC Mail - Hoosier Sediment Management Plan - USFWS comments
Gm -
Aaron
Aho <[e-mail]>
Hoosier Sediment Management Plan - USFWS comments
McRae, Sarah <[e-mail]> Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:59 AM
To: [e-mail], Chris Flowers <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tom Augspurger <[e-mail]>, Emily Wells <[e-mail]>
Good morning,
Thank you for sending the October 2017 Sediment Management Plan for the Hoosier Dam Removal Project. The plan
provides valuable follow-up to the October 5th site visit in its summary of the sediment composition, estimates of
volume, and evaluation and discussion of anticipated post -dam -removal sediment behavior under two sediment
management options. Those two options are mechanical removal of the sediment wedge before removal, or allowing
natural sediment pulsing downstream after removal.
We favor the natural pulsing alternative through the following rationale from the field visit and the follow-up report:
Section 2 indicates the shape and small volume of the sediment wedge reflect that storms flows churn up sediment
and flush it from the system (The volume of sediments in the area proposed for dredging appears small compared to
what the system is routinely processing).
Section 4 indicates fine materials are expected to move either way and to continue moving through the system with
storm flows.
• It's uncertain whether the existing channel where dredging would occur under the removal option will remain the
active channel upon dam removal. That area contains tree trunks which were likely outside the historic channel.
Therefore the path of water now may be an artifact of sedimentation since impoundment. We're concerned that
disturbance of the consolidated sediments at that location (including access, dredging, and stump and root removal) will
make the area less stable and therefore more erodible after dam removal. It is also possible that the thalweg may shift
upon dam removal to a path without the tree stumps making disturbance of this area unnecessary.
The anticipated recovery time under either option is estimated at a few years. We've anticipated that there may be
short term physical impacts to gain the longer term biological uplift of the removal.
Pulsing versus dredging expedites the next steps in the project which has this far befitted from an efficient draw
down.
There is of course uncertainty in the extent of sediment movement downstream and through the system. We encourage
some consideration of the potential to remove accumulated sediment in high quality habitats that may become areas of
accumulation instead of areas where sediments pass further downstream. One consideration is that sediment removal
at the base of the dam, if deemed valuable after dam removal, would have the benefit of work in an area of active
deconstruction (the former dam footprint) rather than undisturbed upstream habitat. There may be additional high
quality habitats that could benefit from some sediment removal post dam removal - this is just a contingency to consider
to remove sediments if they cause a concern of accumulation in high quality habitat.
Please give us a call or email if there are any questions about our response. We have coordinated internally with
contaminant biologists and species experts, and we have also discussed the plan with the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission. We would be glad to meet with you and other stakeholders again on-site if that helps.
Thanks,
Sarah McRae
Sarah McRae
https://mail.google.comlmail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f3f97a788e&jsver—CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&msg=15fc4cabb5fcdb46&search=inbox&siml=15fc4eabb5fcdb46 1/2

11/20/2017 Unique Places LLC Mail - Hoosier Sediment Management Plan - USFWS comments
Aquatic Endangered Species Biologist
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
office phone: [phone]x16 (Mon, Thurs)
telework phone: [phone] (Tues, Wed, Fri)
fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
web: fws.gov/raleigh
NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.
https://mail.google.comlmail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f3f97a788e&jsvet=CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&msg=15fc4eabb5fcdb46&search=inbox&siml=15fc4eabb5fcdb46 2/2

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mail Code: PJ 12.5
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
FROM: Vann Stancil
Research Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: August 29, 2017
SUBJECT: Hoosier Dam Removal
Unique Places seeks to end hydroelectric power generation and remove Hoosier Dam located on the
Rocky River in Chatham County, North Carolina. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with this dam removal project and the aquatic resources of the Rocky
River.
There are populations of the federally listed (Endangered) Cape Fear Shiner, Notropis mekistocholas, in
the Rocky River upstream and downstream of Hoosier Dam. The Rocky River also has robust
populations of freshwater mussels upstream and downstream of Hoosier Dam. Removing Hoosier Dam
will return the impounded river to a riverine environment, reconnect aquatic communities that are
currently separated by Hoosier Dam, and reconnect two currently disparate sections of Critical Habitat.
NCWRC biologists have been involved in plans to dewater the impoundment, assess sediment deposition
within the impoundment, and ultimately remove the powerhouse and dam to return the site to a riverine
condition. The NCWRC supports removing Hoosier Dam and the powerhouse in accordance with
applicable federal and state permits.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this dam removal project. If I can be of further
assistance, please contact me at [phone] or vann.stancilkncwildlife.org.
cc: Peter Yarrington, FERC
Chris Flowers, Unique Places
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 30, 2017
Secretary Kimberly D. Bose
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mail Code: PJ 12.5
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Support for the Hoosier Dam Removal Project on the Rocky River, in Chatham County, North
Carolina
Dear Secretary Bose,
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office has been an active
participant alongside the applicant and many other federal and state agencies in coordinating the proposed
removal of Hoosier Dam and associated powerhouse structure (formerly known as Woody's Mill Dam),
on the Rocky River in Chatham County, North Carolina. The Service is supportive of the applicant's
conservation -minded proposal for restoring this reach of the Rocky River to its naturally flowing, un -
impounded state through well -studied actions and the appropriate permitting processes, which will
ultimately result in an environment conducive for state and federally important species.
The Service has focused our comments and suggestions during this process on topics pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. This reach of the Rocky River is very important to the federally endangered
fish, the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropi.s tnekistacholas), and actions that restore natural, rocky, free flowing
conditions will benefit this fish and its designated critical habitat. The Service has been involved in
reviewing the project to ensure that impacts to the Cape Fear Shiner are avoided where possible, and then
minimized appropriately at every step of the project to date and will continue to do so through the
permitting process. The removal of the dam and powerhouse structure will benefit the integrity and
function of the Rocky River, and the removal is well aligned with the overarching goal of enhancing the
recovery of the Cape Fear Shiner.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide support for projects that benefit federally listed or
proposed species. The proposed project benefits a federally listed species, and the degree of applicant -
agency coordination lends confidence to its success. If you have further questions please do not hesitate
to contact Emily Wells of our office by e-mail at [e-mail], or by phone at 919-8564520 x
25.
Sincerelv
ir./ Pete �enjaMin �
/Field Supervisor

CC:
B. Peter Yarrington, FERC
Chris Flowers, Unique Places

M Gmail
Christopher Flowers <[e-mail]>
Fwd: Access to property for removal of crib dam
Aaron Aho <[e-mail]> Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:05 PM
To: Chris Flowers <[e-mail]>
Chris,
Here is the permission from Shayna.
Aaron Aho
Land and Resource Associate
Unique Places LLC
PO Box 52357
Durham, NC 27717
p 919.491.1964
uniqueplacesllc.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hill, Shayna <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: Access to property for removal of crib dam
To: Shayna Hill <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Hi Aaron,
You have my permission to access the road to remove the dam. Please let me know how else I can help.
Best,
Shayna
From: Shayna Hill [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 7:00 AM
To: Hill, Shayna <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Access to property for removal of crib dam
From: Aaron Aho <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:40 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Access to property for removal of crib dam
Shayna,
It was great talking to you just now. As I said we are attempting to remove the small rock and earth crib dam that is in the
Rocky River just below your property at 418 THOMAS MILL DR.

The easiest access to this dam would be through your property. I walked the property with Dominick Treadwell and there
is already an old road from the driveway cutting through the trees to the river shore so no trees will have to be
removed. At the river banks we might have to remove one or two small trees but we would keep that impact minimal.
We would need to drive an excavator down the driveway and down this old road to access the river. There should not
be any impact to your property but if there should be we would restore it to a current or improved state.
The work is expected to take 1 or 2 days. Attached is a plan of what we are proposing.
What I need from you as the property owner is approval in writing to access your property for these purposes.
Thanks for taking the time to work with us.
Kind Regards,
Aaron Aho
Land and Resource Associate
Unique Places LLC
PO Box 52357
Durham, NC 27717
p919.491.1964
uniqueplacesllc.com

r
P
• t
Xv-
` +
�^ CF = 02
� •� �. fir;°` =s `.�`-'�' ,,�rn`"
-
,
i Q
4S. r
�; ='�• .. ,.� ,�,i '�.,". ., •. -..._ ,.J 1i�: `V .ate Cii~r�i' �4>.'�'.�
,
.r
:7)-
- ` -_. �. - •-moi_ -- }
r
ti
l /Upper,Rocky River
f � -
Rocky Rivet:
re
,
f SNHA r
Y
- EmpTj
oundment -� K17
�•,, = ;, , 1
7 •
J'r
t
` Bear,Creek r -
am ocation
� = -
\ +fY'
DL
-mss
,
w"
R
t
W"F
� l
n ,
Lower'Rokv River
�; ; SNHA
+ Q
t /
y
t
White Pines ^
Preserve
•
l
i
-
few .�•. L .J $�-'•
v
•
t
V J/j
u
/x 1 -
_- -
F 03:'
C:' % c
FF 0
,
'
` + r.
Rocky River/ State Natural Endangered - Cape Fear Shiner /� 8 -Digit HUC
Heritage Area
Bear Creek e Elements of Federal Species Of Concern -
Occurance Brook Floater
Unique
Places
Corservauon Driven Real Estate
I&TV ' t
Figure 4
October 25, 2012
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

JIV
310
A� w
z
a miq.
305
i 8t
a mmd
r�z �¢rE
►r "' 3 ,�
300
m
305
TOP OF
DAM ELEV.
302.4
300
}
n
N
N m
m co
N
>
co
u
EXISTING
DAM STRUCTURE
295
STA
=0+00.86
vii
w
F J
ELEV
= 283.614
R5 W
EXISTING
GRADE
rin
290
Al
-
-
N
-�
---
285
-
'
PROPOSED
GRADE
280
275
270
265
-
-
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
r �i
��
LEI�`►���,�� meq` ���� ��•',•! ;�•
F4W,
IN
4 IR 4_�' ♦ .. a a►♦ i 4% ,{ /�' a •� ��� . �♦
NOMA
. ��� � � � s �� �1��-C��� ��� � .� � � � � �► �►. O' i • ate. � I . ♦ ♦.�►
� _ rte. i i ♦ ♦ a � �� c:.-
� � ►�• ��� \� ♦ � �� �•r•---- �� .fit• �: / ��� , .�• ��
�`� � 1 �f� ��w. ��► . , � �,__ �.. �i !moi I��♦ � =�-
M F- Lo
i
cm
sg'
310
A� w
z
a miq.
305
i 8t
a mmd
r�z �¢rE
►r "' 3 ,�
300
m
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
r �i
��
LEI�`►���,�� meq` ���� ��•',•! ;�•
F4W,
IN
4 IR 4_�' ♦ .. a a►♦ i 4% ,{ /�' a •� ��� . �♦
NOMA
. ��� � � � s �� �1��-C��� ��� � .� � � � � �► �►. O' i • ate. � I . ♦ ♦.�►
� _ rte. i i ♦ ♦ a � �� c:.-
� � ►�• ��� \� ♦ � �� �•r•---- �� .fit• �: / ��� , .�• ��
�`� � 1 �f� ��w. ��► . , � �,__ �.. �i !moi I��♦ � =�-
M F- Lo
i
cm
sg'

, qD
E)
RUSK ) UL, ) U tst bFU)LtU UU ) b)Ut
OF FLOODPLAIN
7
NOTES:
1. SITE TO BE ACCESSED FROM THOMAS MILL DRIVE AS PRIMARY ACCESS AND WOODY DAM ROAD AS
SECONDARY ACCESS IF NECESSARY.
--- 2. THOMAS MILL DR AND ACCESS ROUTES TO BE LEFT IN AS GOOD OR BETTER CONDITION THAN
PRE -CONSTRUCTION.
3. MATERIAL FROM CRIB DAM TO BE RE -USED AS ROCK TOE PROTECTION ON SURROUNDING STREAM
BANKS.
4. ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIALTO BE STOCKPILED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROCKY RIVER ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY 130 OF CHATHAM. ALL MATERIAL MUST BE STOCKPILED OUTSIDE OF THE 100 -YEAR FEMA
FLOODPLAIN (SEE SHEET 5.2).
HILL, SHAYNA
418 THOMAS MILL DR
PIN: 9639-60-2899
I l�
)0 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
EXISTING DAM CRIB WALL REMNANTS -
(TO BE REMOVED)
—OC
001 -0
DOI
001i t' — — LOD ��- LOD
001 _
°O,y, �_ 1- _ —LOO
—aO, -'` LOO
O,Lot)
001 LOD
_001—___r', LOO
__-- �L°—_--------------
LOU PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
- r
-
PROPOSED LOD ----
----
kTION AREAS FOR -- --
)AM DEMOLITION --------------------
'
AS TOE STABILIZATION ,--
PERMANENT IMPACT (7,296 SQ FT)
29Q
_________ -
ti~ � 04�ti0
44���gti4�G
LOQ
C)
z~
P- cz
I U
4
O O
Q U
un tt
O 4,
xu
0
cz
� Q
u
-1<<�
L
E
1!
�p

Existing and Probable Returning Wetlands
WILD LANDS 0 750 1,500 Feet Hoosier Dam Removal Project
ENGINEERING
I 1 I 1 I
Chatham County, NC
Figure 7

Function Function
Likely Hydraulic Change from
Estimated amount of aquatic
Open Water
Wetland
Change Change No
Site Number
Dewatering of Reeves Lake
Lat
Long
resource in review area (sq ft)
length (ft) Loss (sf)
Loss (sf)
(If) (sf) Change
Reeves Lake/Rocky River
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.6355
-79.2116
2,712,500
16000 657360
16000
Tributary 1
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.6558
-79.233
680
50
Tributary 2
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.65017
-79.2304
1,345
355
Tributary 3
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.64754
-79.2246
1,130
450
Tributary 4
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.65164
-79.2296
1,375
755
Tributary 5
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.69989
-79.2197
1,230
786
Tributary 6
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.6392
-79.2096
605
309
WL A
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.63853
-79.211
67603
67603
WL B
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.63672
-79.2111
31
31
WL C
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.63643
-79.2111
782
782
WL D
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.63612
-79.211
565
565
WL E
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.63962
-79.2091
171
171
WL F
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.63965
-79.209
79
79
WL G
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.6402
-79.2145
1511
1511
WL H
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.6405
-79.2112
16
16
WL I
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64088
-79.2129
3171
3171
WLJ
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64104
-79.2138
2666
2666
WL K
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.6412
-79.2134
667
667
WL L
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64135
-79.2133
358
358
WL M
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64156
-79.2143
1380
1380
WL N
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64168
-79.2142
268
268
WL O
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64204
-79.2156
2781
2781
WL P
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.6424
-79.216
586
586
WL Q
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.6428
-79.2174
1162
1162
WLR
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64284
-79.2164
2279
2279
WL S
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64315
-79.2173
881
881
WLT
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64361
-79.2175
2035
2035
WL U
Likely removed from Jurisdiction
35.64364
-79.2167
1952
1952
WL V
No Change
35.64489
-79.2177
2787
2787
WL W
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.64516
-79.2168
855
855
WL X
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.64562
-79.2166
7686
7686
WLY
No Change
35.64593
-79.2174
10639
10639
WL Z
No Change
35.64672
-79.2164
6109
6109
WL AA
Functional/Hydrologic Change
35.64706
-79.2166
21399
21399
WL AB
No Change
35.64829
-79.2161
4645
4645
WL AC
No Change
35.64899
-79.2169
3124
3124
2,860,685
22365 657360
88268.6
18705 32612.59 27304.09

Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, North Carolina
for
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
p THOMAS MILL �p
ROAD `�Qq
GO�OS
3
7, CRIB DAM
i
7,
O p0 HOOSIER DAM
0
p
N WOODY DAM RD
V
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 11.55 ACRES
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
ISSUED OCTOBER 30, 2017
Issued for Permitting
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Project Overview 0.2
General Notes and Symbols 0.3
Hoosier Dam Demolition 1.1-1.4
Rocky River Plan & Profile 2.1
Crib Dam Demolition 3.1-3.2
Planting Plan 4.1-4.2
Erosion and Sediment Control 5.1-5.2
Details 6.1-6.3
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Angela N Allen, PE
919-851-9986
Surveying:
Infinite Land Design, P.C.
117 North Chatham Avenue
Siler City, NC 27344
Charles O. Eliason, PLS
919-663-2708
Owner:
130 of Chatham, LLC
3409 Birk Bluff Court
Cary, NC 27518
Tim Sweeney
919-632-0161
USACE Action ID SAW -2017-00511
NFWF Project ID # 8020.16.054047
I
+r
� O
P-4 U
C
> s -
O O
z
O
Q U
i�
O
O
U
G1
v
M
r
azzx
0 8
a a
a
E
� �
v ?
o
I

130 CHATHAM LLC
DEED BOOK 1699, PAGE 1035
BARRY BURNS AND"-, ^ M
PHYLLIS BURNS
DEED BOOK 436, PAGE 86 �� Q o c
F
r. LL
3 N
JACK L. MILLER AND
MATTIE B. MILLER
DEED BOOK 731, PAGE 61
ANGELA THOMAS PARKER AND
AUSTIN LYNN PARKER
DEED BOOK 1397, PAGE 277
10 G'
130 CHATHAM LLC
DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 767
130 CHATHAM LLC
DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 7
PAUL LUBY, CAROLE LUBY,
MOLLY C. LUBY, AND JEFFREY D.
DEED BOOK 1245, PAGE 782
130 CHATHAM LLC
DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 767
1.1 HOOSIER DEMO OVERVIEW DONALD CHEEK
1.2 STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL DEED BOOK 1042, PAGE 38
1.3 STAGE 2 DAM REMOVAL
1.4 STAGE 3 DAM REMOVAL ACCESS ROUTE
2.1 ROCKY RIVER PLAN PROFILE
4.2 PLANTING PLAN
5.1- 5.2 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
z~
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC / 0Q
DEED BOOK 1660
PAGE 903 / z\ D
130 CHATHAM LLC 4� O
/ DEED BOOK 1745 a)
PAGE 707 (�
130 CHATHAM LLC Q
DEED BOOK 1745 U
JOSEPH R. ELLEN 1R. AND PAGE 707
ANNA S. ELLEN
DEED BOOK 474, PAGE 788 O
ANDREW G. SIEGNER III AND
Q� HOOSIER DAM BONNIE E. SIEGNER
DEED BOOK 663, PAGE 509
DAVID LOUIS HINTON
DEED BOOK 698, PAGE 153
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796
PAGE 352
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796, PAGE 352
N
s
a
2
0
•
0' zsa soo Iso "
E Q A 8

Stream grading; channel grading and material spoiling will follow the general notes below in addition to directions
outlined in the specifications.
General Construction Notes for All Reaches
1. All erosion and sediment control practices shall comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
2. No material excavated from the Rocky River may be spoiled within the regulated floodplain area.
3. In grading the Rocky River, Contractor shall disturb only as much channel bank as can be stabilized with
temporary seeding, mulch, and a sod mat or erosion control matting by the end of each work day.
4. Clearing and grubbing activities shall not extend more than 150 linear feet ahead of in -stream work.
5. All graded areas with slopes steeper than 3:1 will be stabilized within seven (7) working days. All other areas
will be stabilized within 14 working days.
6. Locations for staging and stockpile areas and temporary stream crossings have been provided on the Plans.
Additional or alternative staging and/or stockpile areas and stream crossings may be used by the Contractor
provided that all practices comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual and that the areas are approved by the Engineer prior to implementation.
7. Contractor is to make every effort to avoid damaging or removing existing trees.
8. Under no circumstances will the Contractor exceed the limits of disturbance as shown on the Plans.
Initial Site Preparation
1. Contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Contact Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (919-791-4200) before any work begins on the
project and notify them of the start date.
3. Mobilize equipment and materials to the Site.
4. Identify and establish construction entrance, staging and stockpile areas, haul roads, silt fence, tree
protection fencing, and temporary stream crossings as indicated on the Plans for work areas.
5. All haul roads shall be monitored for sediment loss daily. In the event of sediment loss, silt fence or other
acceptable sediment and erosion control practices shall be installed. Silt fence outlets shall be located at
points of low elevation or a minimum spacing of 150 ft.
6. Set up temporary facilities, locate equipment within the staging area, and stockpile materials needed for the
initial stages of construction within the stockpile area(s).
7. Install and maintain an onsite rain gauge and log book to record the rainfall amounts and dates. Complete
the self -inspection as required by NCDEQ permit.
HOOSIER DAM REMOVAL
For instructions on the removal of Hoosier Dam, please see Sheets 1.1-1.4 and corresponding specifications.
Existing Features
ROCKY RIVER CHANNEL GRADING
8. Grading along the Rocky River includes the removal of the sediment wedge created by the Hoosier Dam
within the active channel. The profile for the river is approximate and based on best available knowledge of
the streambed slopes upstream and downstream and mechanical borings of depth to bedrock. The actual
depth to bedrock along the entire proposed surface may vary greatly from what is proposed. If this is the
case, the sediments should be excavated down to the depth of refusal or presence of coarse bed material,
and banks graded back at a minimum 3(H):1(V) slope to the tie-in point on the existing surface.
9. All graded streambanks will be matted with erosion control matting per detail.
10. Seed (with specified temporary seed and permanent seed mix) and straw mulch areas where the coir fiber
matting is to be installed.
11. Install coir fiber matting according to plans and specifications.
12. Seed floodplain with specified temporary and permanent seed mix and mulch.
13. Install livestakes and herbaceous plugs along the stream banks and bare root trees within the floodplain,
according to the plans and specifications.
Crib Dam Removal:
14. Remove rocks from crib dam according to design on plan sheets.
15. Rocks may be used as toe stabilization along streambanks within the limits of disturbance.
16. No material may be spoiled within the regulated floodplain limits.
Construction Demobilization
17. Remove temporary stream crossings.
18. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of
equipment from the site.
19. Complete the removal of any additional stockpiled material from the site.
20. Demobilize grading equipment from the site.
21. All areas outside the grading areas shall be returned to pre -project conditions or better.
22. Seed, mulch, and stabilize staging areas, stockpile areas, haul roads, and construction entrances.
Proposed Features
- - - Existing Property Boundary
IRON PIPE SET 3/4"
- - Proposed Stream Alignment
--- - -- - - Existing 5' Major Contour
IRON PIPE FOUND
Proposed 5' Major Contour
Existing 1' Minor Contour
RAIL ROAD SPIKE SET
Proposed 1' Minor Contour
Existing Thalweg
RAIL ROAD SPIKE FOUND
EXISTING
Erosion Control Features
Existing Utility Easement
CONCRETE MONUMENT
COMPUTED POINT
Proposed Construction Entrance
Existing Wetlands
FENCING
%` See Detail 1, Sheet 6.2
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
Existing Treeline
NCDOT EASEMENT LINE
_�,i Proposed Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.2
UTILITY POLE W/ OVERHEAD LINES®
Proposed Stone Outlet
i Existing Tree
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.3
_
WATER SUPPLY WELL
r
PERK SITE
I -71 Proposed Haul Road
® Proposed Stockpile/ Staging Area
Proposed Limits Of Disturbance
SAF Proposed Tree Protection Fencing
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.1
U
O
■■
1
s`
zZ eegLL
u�Z
aZ t~d
a mm
�Z E
V
i
I;

PARCEL ID: 0073197
DONALD CHEEK
DEED BOOK 1042 PAGE 38
PLAT BOOK 97 PAGE 113
PARCEL ID: 0018083
JACK L. MILLER AND
MATTIE B. MILLER
DEED BOOK 731 PAGE 61
PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 54
C
J
EDGE OF WATER - -
\ i EDGE OF WATER
�0 - A
U (�� ROCKY RIVER
1 \
ROCK OUTCROP
U
TREE LINE
NAIL IN CENTER OF BRIDGE
NORTHING: 686060.3180
FASTING: 1938984.8600
OLD FOUNDATION RUINS
— TREE LINE
POWERHOUSE
FIFE EL 312.57
CONCRETE LANDING
EL 306.37
_ CONCRETE LANDING
EL 300.53
— CONCRETE SIDEWALK
— FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 0.94 ACRES–� ROCK OUTCROP
J
PARCEL ID: 0018352
�1 ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
- CONCRETE SPILLWAY �V/ i DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
DAM CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686442.1374
EASTING: 1937482.0502
IRON PIN
PARCEL ID: 0018233
81
NORTHING: 685981.1724
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
FASTING: 19859254 3522
DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 352
�
GRAVEL DRIVE
PLAT BOOK 98 PAGE 183
\
I
PARCEL ID: 0018261
U
ANDREW G. SIEGNER AND i
Z
BONNIE E. SIEGNER
DEED BOOK 863 PAGE 609
\
\
/
PARCEL ID: 0060266
DAVID LOUIS HINTON
DEED BOOK 698 PAGE 153
PARCEL ID: 0066913
X MARK ON ROCK
\' i'
PLAT BOOK 30 PAGE 58
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
NORTHING: 886068.3256
/
U
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
FASTING: 1937349.7532
-
C
J
EDGE OF WATER - -
\ i EDGE OF WATER
�0 - A
U (�� ROCKY RIVER
1 \
ROCK OUTCROP
U
TREE LINE
NAIL IN CENTER OF BRIDGE
NORTHING: 686060.3180
FASTING: 1938984.8600
OLD FOUNDATION RUINS
— TREE LINE
POWERHOUSE
FIFE EL 312.57
CONCRETE LANDING
EL 306.37
_ CONCRETE LANDING
EL 300.53
— CONCRETE SIDEWALK
— FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 0.94 ACRES–� ROCK OUTCROP
J
PARCEL ID: 0018352
�1 ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
- CONCRETE SPILLWAY �V/ i DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
DAM CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686442.1374
EASTING: 1937482.0502
TOP EL 302.85
1
1
I
1
1
1
x00 \ \
CONCRETE SIDEWALL
PARCEL ID: 0066913
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
TOP EL 302A,
TRANSFORMER PAD
EDGE OF WATER
_ X MARK ON CONCRETE
/i NORTHING: 686294.3548
_ I EASTING: 1937134.9813
• '/ EL 305.62 \
FENCE J CONCRETE PAD
EL 303.97 FLOATING DEBRIS BOOM
CONCRETEPAD
EL 310.22
TOP EL 306.48
\�. \' EDGE OF WATER
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1'40'
FLOW
o a m
WOODY DAM ROAD
/— GRAVEL/UNPAVED
60' PUBLIC RMI
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686285.0270
EASTING: 1936944.0010
5
PARCELID:0018231
ELLEN JOSEPH R JR AND
ELLEN ANNA S
DEED BOOK 1984 PAGE 474
\W,
1
`i
PARCEL ID: 0018233
�
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 352
m
PLAT BOOK 98 PAGE 183
10
U
Uf
Z
O
d
C�
O
U�
U
TOP EL 302.85
1
1
I
1
1
1
x00 \ \
CONCRETE SIDEWALL
PARCEL ID: 0066913
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
TOP EL 302A,
TRANSFORMER PAD
EDGE OF WATER
_ X MARK ON CONCRETE
/i NORTHING: 686294.3548
_ I EASTING: 1937134.9813
• '/ EL 305.62 \
FENCE J CONCRETE PAD
EL 303.97 FLOATING DEBRIS BOOM
CONCRETEPAD
EL 310.22
TOP EL 306.48
\�. \' EDGE OF WATER
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1'40'
FLOW
o a m
WOODY DAM ROAD
/— GRAVEL/UNPAVED
60' PUBLIC RMI
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686285.0270
EASTING: 1936944.0010
5
PARCELID:0018231
ELLEN JOSEPH R JR AND
ELLEN ANNA S
DEED BOOK 1984 PAGE 474
\W,
1
`i
1
GENERAL NOTES
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC DATA, LOCATION OF SITE FEATURES, WERE PROVIDED BY INFINITE LAND DESIGN, P.C. (117 NORTH
CHATHAM AVENUE, SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA) ON JANUARY 16, 2015. THE HORIZONTAL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE
NAD83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATES (US FEET). THE VERTICAL DATA SHOWN IS NAVD88.
2. NOT ALL UTILITIES ARE SHOWN.
3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE ENGINEER IN WRITING. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING
AND COORDINATING WORK WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES.
4. ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN ROAD
SURFACES CLEAN AND FREE OF CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES.
5. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
x
E '
a$e��
PARCEL ID: 0018233
�
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 352
m
PLAT BOOK 98 PAGE 183
U
C
Z
O
d
O
U
N
O
O
1
GENERAL NOTES
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC DATA, LOCATION OF SITE FEATURES, WERE PROVIDED BY INFINITE LAND DESIGN, P.C. (117 NORTH
CHATHAM AVENUE, SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA) ON JANUARY 16, 2015. THE HORIZONTAL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE
NAD83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATES (US FEET). THE VERTICAL DATA SHOWN IS NAVD88.
2. NOT ALL UTILITIES ARE SHOWN.
3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE ENGINEER IN WRITING. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING
AND COORDINATING WORK WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES.
4. ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN ROAD
SURFACES CLEAN AND FREE OF CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES.
5. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
x
E '
a$e��

FENCE (TO BE REMOVED)
•
•
o.
ALIGNMENT=DAM CENTERLINE
STATION=2+41.94
OFFSET=0.00
NORTHING186380.42
EASTING=1937352.73
ALL TREES AND WOODY VEGETATION
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
SHALL BE CLEARED AND GRUBBED AND
DISPOSED OF OFFSITE.
P
STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL SEQUENCE:
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY AND PROVIDE THE ENGINEER WITH THE
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS FOR APPROVAL FOR WORK AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO
MOBILIZATION ON THE SITE AND INSTALLING ANY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
2, FLAG ALL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
3. INSTALL ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN.
4. CLEAR AND GRUB ALL TREES AND WOODY VEGETATION INSIDE THE EXCAVATION
LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE LEFT ABUTMENT. DISPOSE OF CLEARED AND GRUBBED
TREES AND WOODY VEGETATION IN AN APPROVED OFFSITE LOCATION.
5. DIVERT FLOW THROUGH THE POWERHOUSE GATES. MAINTAIN THE WATER LEVEL
AT EL 274 USING PUMPS AS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE RIVER
FLOW IS THROUGH THE POWERHOUSE GATES DURING STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL.
6, EXCAVATE THE LEFT ABUTMENT AND DEMOLISH THE EXISTING LEFT SIDEWALL.
STOCKPILE THE EXCAVATED EARTHEN MATERIAL AND CONCRETE RUBBLE FOR
ESTABLISHING FINAL GRADES.
T SEPARATE ALL EMBEDDED STEEL FROM THE CONCRETE RUBBLE AND DISPOSE
OF IN AN APPROVED OFFSITE LOCATION.
8. DEMOLISH THE DAM FROM THE LEFT ABUTMENT TO THE POWERHOUSE AT
STATION 4+73.94 IN FIVE FOOT LIFTS. THE DAM SHALL BE REMOVED IN A MANNER
SO THAT THE RUBBLE FROM THE DEMOLITION WILL CREATE A WORKING PAD OFF
OF WHICH DEMOLITION EQUIPMENT CAN WORK.
\I1 \
\ ROCKOUTCROPS
\ ROCK OUTCROP
ROCKY RIVER
ROCK OUTCROP op
EXISTING SIDEWALL TO BE DEMOLISHED
DAM CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT
GRAVEL DRIVE
PION RUINS
THE EXISTING POWERHOUSE ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND BUILDING WILL
BE REMOVED PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION OF CONTRACTOR.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF THE
POWERHOUSE CONCRETE SUPPORT STRUCTURE, CONCRETE SIDEWALL AND WALKWAY,
AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL STRUCTURES.
i
.. 5+50 ' 6-00 6+1,5
E
FENCE (TO REMAIN)
r� STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL PLAN
SCALE: 1'-W
FLOW
o za /o
VOLUMES
STAGE 1 EXCAVATION = 5,380 CUBIC YARDS (CUT)
SPILLWAY AND LEFT ABUTMENT SIDEWALL CONCRETE DEMOLITION =1,880 CUBIC YARDS
�01
STAGE 1 DEMOLITION
z
W
G 2
u
N W
1
L `I
Q
W
Q
co
----------
\
I
\\
�
ALIGNMENT=DAM CENTERLINE
�
_
_
\ STATION=4+73.94
I
�
�, �, \ OFFSET=000
,
rI v ► \ NORTHING=688284.75
.
• �, =
, ' e. i EASTING=1937141.38
\ t
,
USE DEMOLISHED CONCRETE TO BUILD
�, \
A WORKING PAD FOR DEMOLITION
\
EQUIPMENT ACCESS.
\
1
FLOATING DEBRIS BOOM \
�
\
\
WOODY DAM ROAD
-
GRAVEL/UNPAVED
r-
60' PUBLIC R/W
\
CHANNEL TO BE EXCAVATED
BY OTHERS DURING UPSTREAM
SEDIMENT REMOVAL
)
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 0.94 ACRES
I
r� STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL PLAN
SCALE: 1'-W
FLOW
o za /o
VOLUMES
STAGE 1 EXCAVATION = 5,380 CUBIC YARDS (CUT)
SPILLWAY AND LEFT ABUTMENT SIDEWALL CONCRETE DEMOLITION =1,880 CUBIC YARDS
�01
STAGE 1 DEMOLITION
z
W
G 2
u
N W
1
L `I
Q
W
Q
co

310
305
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
295
290
285
280
275
270
265 265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
/
--- -- -"" °
; to
---------
--------------------------------
- AREA TO BE GRADED DURING
STAGE 3 OF DAM REMOVAL
---- SEE SHEET I.4
- -- -
--------------
---..,
4,
/CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM
- FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT o° f / ° / - -
-- CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD
is
Ob
_ 1
,YA �
t 1 0
—t°D _ tpp\ - BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
-�
'-_— _ _
/ ll
---
�`, _ J GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES ,/ / „%:/ �-�Op
GRADING 4(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES
\oto
001` �. q Z8S ° �` ��._''-- ivp0 / S
too
\Op \ ------� ---- -- - -----__ GRADING 4(H):1(V)SIDESLOPES�
°p> ` Z85 19 LOD t LOD 0 GRADING 3(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES 10'
—
��-L_ mo Loo Lp0
^QUO
290 _-_ 290
---
007 \ Z90 8 285—r85
007 Z8S 280 �; 295
2g� 7+00
\ 280
_
° FLOW_ 10+0p
�, S � 305
GRADING 2 75(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES 8+00
e6
'°z\ _ _ I• 9 -,' - ti - / "
310
oor'
Z °oZ8S280 — - 280 / 315 Do'Y
r°O� X90 - 285 ���85 _ ��i GRADING 4(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES ate°
0' a0' 80' 120' -- - - Dov
- '
280 S
OOT
0. 4' aoa:o nq a 12' 285 -
'�
poi
GRADING 3(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES _
001 Do,
- GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -
a,
310
a
305
z $ ?
ammw
E
300
> m
TOP OF DAM EL V. 302.4
C
o
�
^
m
+
�
m
00
EXISTING
DAM STRUCTURE
STA
= 0+00.86
r
a ^
o tp
ELEV
= 283.614
EXISTING
GRADE
w v
+
w
n
w
_
PROPOSED
GRADE
295
290
285
280
275
270
265 265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
/
--- -- -"" °
; to
---------
--------------------------------
- AREA TO BE GRADED DURING
STAGE 3 OF DAM REMOVAL
---- SEE SHEET I.4
- -- -
--------------
---..,
4,
/CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM
- FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT o° f / ° / - -
-- CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD
is
Ob
_ 1
,YA �
t 1 0
—t°D _ tpp\ - BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
-�
'-_— _ _
/ ll
---
�`, _ J GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES ,/ / „%:/ �-�Op
GRADING 4(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES
\oto
001` �. q Z8S ° �` ��._''-- ivp0 / S
too
\Op \ ------� ---- -- - -----__ GRADING 4(H):1(V)SIDESLOPES�
°p> ` Z85 19 LOD t LOD 0 GRADING 3(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES 10'
—
��-L_ mo Loo Lp0
^QUO
290 _-_ 290
---
007 \ Z90 8 285—r85
007 Z8S 280 �; 295
2g� 7+00
\ 280
_
° FLOW_ 10+0p
�, S � 305
GRADING 2 75(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES 8+00
e6
'°z\ _ _ I• 9 -,' - ti - / "
310
oor'
Z °oZ8S280 — - 280 / 315 Do'Y
r°O� X90 - 285 ���85 _ ��i GRADING 4(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES ate°
0' a0' 80' 120' -- - - Dov
- '
280 S
OOT
0. 4' aoa:o nq a 12' 285 -
'�
poi
GRADING 3(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES _
001 Do,
- GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -
a,
310
a
305
z $ ?
ammw
E
300
> m
295
290
285
280
275
270
265 265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
/
--- -- -"" °
; to
---------
--------------------------------
- AREA TO BE GRADED DURING
STAGE 3 OF DAM REMOVAL
---- SEE SHEET I.4
- -- -
--------------
---..,
4,
/CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM
- FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT o° f / ° / - -
-- CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD
is
Ob
_ 1
,YA �
t 1 0
—t°D _ tpp\ - BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
-�
'-_— _ _
/ ll
---
�`, _ J GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES ,/ / „%:/ �-�Op
GRADING 4(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES
\oto
001` �. q Z8S ° �` ��._''-- ivp0 / S
too
\Op \ ------� ---- -- - -----__ GRADING 4(H):1(V)SIDESLOPES�
°p> ` Z85 19 LOD t LOD 0 GRADING 3(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES 10'
—
��-L_ mo Loo Lp0
^QUO
290 _-_ 290
---
007 \ Z90 8 285—r85
007 Z8S 280 �; 295
2g� 7+00
\ 280
_
° FLOW_ 10+0p
�, S � 305
GRADING 2 75(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES 8+00
e6
'°z\ _ _ I• 9 -,' - ti - / "
310
oor'
Z °oZ8S280 — - 280 / 315 Do'Y
r°O� X90 - 285 ���85 _ ��i GRADING 4(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES ate°
0' a0' 80' 120' -- - - Dov
- '
280 S
OOT
0. 4' aoa:o nq a 12' 285 -
'�
poi
GRADING 3(H):l(V) SIDESLOPES _
001 Do,
- GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -
a,

EXC
ROC
OF FLOODPLAIN
SEE SHEET 5.2
NOTES: -
1. SITE TO BE ACCESSED FROM THOMAS MILL DRIVE AS PRIMARY ACCESS AND WOODY DAM ROAD AS
SECONDARY ACCESS IF NECESSARY.
--- _ 2. THOMAS MILL DR AND ACCESS ROUTES TO BE LEFT IN AS GOOD OR BETTER CONDITION THAN
PRE -CONSTRUCTION.
3. MATERIAL FROM CRIB DAM TO BE RE -USED AS ROCK TOE PROTECTION ON SURROUNDING STREAM
BANKS.
4. ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROCKY RIVER ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY 130 OF CHATHAM. ALL MATERIAL MUST BE STOCKPILED OUTSIDE OF THE 100 -YEAR FEMA
FLOODPLAIN (SEE SHEET 5.2).
HILL, SHAYNA
418 THOMAS MILL DR `
PIN: 9639-60-2899
1
;
I ,
)0 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN/^\\
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
EXISTING DAM CRIB WALL REMNANTS ,
(TO BE REMOVED)
- oo,sO
00p
�\��0�
col
�
` 001—. — _�ioo _may
('01 X100
\ UU, — QO, GOl — — — -- loo LOD �— LOU
—0ol---- -- ----1 /—lam `
—
col loo
LOD
LOD
_--- —loo ✓_ ; _ `.
LOD
1
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
,
PROPOSED LOD -----
------------ ------
kS FOR ----
AS TOE STABILIZATION .-
1
r7
cz
u o
�
u
O O
cz o
Q u
a�
°o
x�

U1)
N N N N N N W GJ
CID CO CO (0 to
? O
CCA O v 00 ((D
O
O
i
W
C? N W ?
O
0
N
O
my
CA)
0
z
D
O
-o
v
M
O
o
O
N
O
N
M
p
cn
�
O
W
D
O
v
M
CDo
n
n
rt
rt
O
Q
CD
Cn
O
—
O
ly
M
O
X
"
O
�
Z
cfl
O
�
v
G)
O
D
O
p
o
M
OD
X
O
N
00
O
Z
G)
D
C)
v
M
W
O
W
C7
o
s
Z
N
O
N
O
Dere:
Job Number:
10.20.20 Revisions:
005-14W5Hoosier
Dam Removal Project
,
Prolan Engineer: ANA
Drawn By: ANA
Chatham County, North Carolina
Checked By:
J31
W
I L D L A N D S
Section View
tNGINtt KING
3.2
312
W. Millbrook Road, Ste 225
Crib Dam Removal
Raleigh, NC 27609
Tel: [phone]
Sheet
Firm License No. F-0831

ry
Quercus Swamp Chestnut 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25"-1.0" Can
ty
ty All Year Panicum Redtop Panicgrass Herb 1.5 O
U
Buffer Planting Zone
Streambank Planting Zone
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Max Indiv. Min. Size Stratum % of Stems
Spacing Spacing
Salix nigra Black Willow 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5"-1.5" cal. Shrub 15%
Bare Root
Species
Common Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
# of Stems
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Platanus
occidentalis
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
Betula nigra
River Birch
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Q
d M
z.�
d�°D
Z
dx
orygLL
o
4@
2
�Z
3
amrn�
�zrE
cCt
4�
O
Planting
1Tables
Planting Tables
P-4
( j
5.2 Not to Scale
5.2
Not to Scale
--4O
O
-
fi be
Permanent
Riparian
Seeding -with additional
flowers
Q
o
U
Pure Live
Seed (20 lbs/ acre)
N
cd
x
4
o �
oga
s Plantin Tables
5.2 Not to Scale
, Plantin Tables
E
m
m
51 Not to Scale
Buffer Planting Zone
Streambank Planting Zone
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Max Indiv. Min. Size Stratum % of Stems
Spacing Spacing
Salix nigra Black Willow 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5"-1.5" cal. Shrub 15%
Bare Root
Species
Common Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
# of Stems
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Platanus
occidentalis
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
Betula nigra
River Birch
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Permanent Riparian Seeding -without additional flowers
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/ acre)
Approved Species Name Common Name Stratum Densi
Date (lbs/acre) rigidulum
All Year Panicum Redtop Panicgrass Herb 2.0
rigidulum All Year Chasmanthium River Oats Herb 2.0
All Year Agrostis hyemalis Winter Bentgrass Herb 4.0 latifolium
All YearChasmanthium River Oats Herb 2.5
All Year Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge Herb 3.0
All Year Panicum Deertongue Herb 3.5 Rye
c[andestinum
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Herb 2.5
Rye
Approved
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Densi
Cornus ammomum
Silky Dogwood
8 ft.
2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
35%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5"-1.5" cal. Shrub 35%
Sambucus nigra American 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5"-1.5" cal. Shrub 15%
tulipifera Elderber
Approved
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Densi
Cornus ammomum
Silky Dogwood
8 ft.
2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
35%
Date (lbs/acre)
All Year Agrostis hyemalis Winter Bentgrass Herb 4.0
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb 1.5
latifolium All Year Coreopsis Lanceleaf Herb 1.0
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb 1.5 lanceolata Coreopsis
All Year Coreopsis Lanceleaf Herb 1.0 All Year Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge Herb 3.0
lanceolata Coreopsis All Year Panicum Deertongue Herb 3.5
clandestinum
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Herb 2.0
All Year Asclepias syrica Common Herb 0.2
Milkweed
All Year Baptisia australis Blue False Indigo Herb 0.2
All Year Lobelia cardinalis Cazdinalflower Herb 0.3 Z
All Year Echinacea Pale Purple Herb 0.8
purpurea Coneflower
Approved
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Densi

s
JAm
i1y�
�Y
71
f, R
.A
• 4% --sv W ' Y.'.'��: •*� ^�P� . - .yam° ,=-
+ ° ' vu
"/i
r
h x"• a. T'i .`,.'ci
A
ik
y
• Y s 1
g,
� 5
r
�. Al,
• �t
M.
Sox,
Boom
is smog
NMI
low
MR
MR
MR M
Not MI
f
�:. _ -� ': Pv~ � ». a� �/ii •. wv
m
p
a 41"'
`1y
x
K'
a
r ,
t n �i14.v1� 4
6
�` ..wc � �. N f r •R�
x

Temporary Seeding
Pore Live Seed
Approved Species Name
Common Name
St atum
Density
Data
�z
------------ �
(lbs/acm)
Aug 15 Secale cereale
May 1
Rye Grain
Herb
140
May 1 -
Aug I S Setaria italica
German Millet
Herb
50
NOTES: o0
1. CONTRACTOR TO STOCKPILE AND SPOIL ANY DAM \\\
MATERIALS AND RIVER SEDIMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE \ \
100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS.
2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND STABILIZED
Z ACCORDING TO SEEDING SCHEDULE AND EROSION \\\
CONTROL MATTING DETAILS. \ \ \ o
3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR PERMANENT SEEDING °
SCHEDULE. \ \
o. so, im. 15o, 4. CONTRACTOR TO SELECT STREAM CROSSING TYPE AND \\\
LOCATION BASED ON CURRENT FLOW CONDITIONS. \ °o
HDRPAN NQ CROSSING THE CHANNEL SHOULD BE MINIMIZED °O>\ \ \\
DURING SEDIMENT REMOVAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. -------------
0
\ \
\ \ o
--
ACCESS ROAD \ /I
SEE SHEET 0.2 FOR ENTRANCE LOCATION \ \ o0
too A \
1 ;\
=4-1
STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREA (TYP.)
`.
FEMA 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS — � �
COD _.LOD
I
1
i
y\
[ o
°i
1 43437ou
0-1 100
DOTOPO SURVEY BOUNDARY
00
[oO
cb
_
1
)
O, °O
i
0
too �[,
to t00 - -
LOD
ss
18S - 285 285 z80
280
FL
W .
_ 280
1
d-+
� O
P-4 U
--4
O O
;m4
U
Q
rA
xA
cu
Q
- Z Z8
oo,\
_.
_
5 _
2BS o ,
V
r _�[oo -
�z
------------ �
4301 —____
4301__ –,
001���"
-,
�
1 ` � �
i��.. �, '^<...... `'<a.'�i,
-•__-_" 305
- o°
---
--
-
--- -
-
Y
z
FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN ETE�ITS
- ani
-------
- _�
---- ---- -------.
'
r"
_ - OP
_
- - -_
a
o
0
d-+
� O
P-4 U
--4
O O
;m4
U
Q
rA
xA
cu
Q

---------------
------------------
------------
-------------
I-
-----
� I
I \
--- --
/
'
/
I
t 1
1
\ -
I
\
I �
,
/
_
I ,
I _
1/
PROPOSED ROCK TOE AREA (TYP.) - l
CRIB DAM
r
/
1
-
\
STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREA (TYP.) / 4..
Iv
LOD
00 DOI:
LO
FDO
I I
i
ani,,
LOD
-, ACCESS ROUTE FROM WOODY DAM RD I
' SEE SHEET 0.2 FOR ENTRANCE / � ' �
60
} j O
Cr
\ I
01
iO
tp
J
r
,
/
/
_ y ,
I
,�.. —
-
,
DO
1p0/
011
i
i
i
i
/
I
/
,
i
/
\
/
--
_--
/
--------------
/
,
_ - -
/
p 1
I
i
/
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR TO STOCKPILE AND SPOIL ANY DAM
MATERIALS AND RIVER SEDIMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE
100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS.
2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND STABILIZED
ACCORDING TO SEEDING SCHEDULE AND EROSION
CONTROL MATTING DETAILS.
3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR PERMANENT SEEDING
SCHEDULE.
4. CONTRACTOR TO SELECT STREAM CROSSING TYPE AND
LOCATION BASED ON CURRENT FLOW CONDITIONS.
CROSSING THE CHANNEL SHOULD BE MINIMIZED
DURING SEDIMENT REMOVAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
0' S0' 100' 150'
I�eaaraul
to
zz $�
rc..=
_'q
I? .8
d .
z 3c�E
>y m LL
Temponry Seeding
Pure Live Seed
Approved
Species Name Common Name Stratum
Density
Date
(Ibslaere)
Aug 15 -
May I
Secale cereale Rye Grain Herb
140
May I -
AugIS
Setaria italics German Millet Herb
50
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR TO STOCKPILE AND SPOIL ANY DAM
MATERIALS AND RIVER SEDIMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE
100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS.
2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND STABILIZED
ACCORDING TO SEEDING SCHEDULE AND EROSION
CONTROL MATTING DETAILS.
3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR PERMANENT SEEDING
SCHEDULE.
4. CONTRACTOR TO SELECT STREAM CROSSING TYPE AND
LOCATION BASED ON CURRENT FLOW CONDITIONS.
CROSSING THE CHANNEL SHOULD BE MINIMIZED
DURING SEDIMENT REMOVAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
0' S0' 100' 150'
I�eaaraul
to
zz $�
rc..=
_'q
I? .8
d .
z 3c�E
>y m LL

O
v
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
INTO THE SOIL TO THE FULL
DEPTH OF THE BLADE AND
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE
TO OPEN THE PLANTING
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK THE
SHOVEL BACK AND FORTH
AS THIS CAUSES SOIL IN THE
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOT GROWTH.
REMOVE
DEBRIS FROM I
O2 3
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES IN
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO FRONT OF THE SEEDLING
THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL THE AND PUSH THE BLADE
SEEDLING BACK UP TO THE HALFWAY INTO THE SOIL
CORRECT PLANTING DEPTH TWIST AND PUSH THE
(THE ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE HANDLE FORWARD TO
1 TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE SOIL CLOSE THE TOP OF THE SLIT
SURFACE). GENTLYSHAKETHE TO HOLD THE SEEDLING IN
SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE PLACE.
ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT.
DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12
INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE AND
1 INCH THICK AT CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED TO
AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
PREVENT J -ROOTING.
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE
FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE.
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS
1 -ROOTED. 7�gare Root Planting
6.1 Nottocale
RADIUS OF TREE PROTECTION
INS.
Section View
3 Tree Protection
—Ti—N&o Scale
m
NOTES:
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED, AS
REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY
HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO
INSURE SURVIVAL
O
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE TO
CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF THE
PLANTING HOLD. THEN PUSH
FORWARD TO CLOSE THE TOP,
ELIMINATING AIR POCKETS
AROUND THE ROOT.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
Plan View
OR METAL "T" POSTS
iED AS STANDARDS.
CE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO STANDARDS TO
IIER.
NOTES:
1. ALL TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR
TO CONTRACTOR DEMOBILIZATION.
2. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION OF ALL TREE PROTECTION
BARRIERS.
'6
16; c0 \. 49
Ma* EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
\V (SEE DETAIL(
TOP OF BANK
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE
Section View
A)L A A A
4+toA A A A
A 3 A A A A
A A A A
A A A A A
TOE OF SLOPE
ho
wk
0
m
1/2" TO 2" 7
DIAMETER in p
O�
ri
Flan View
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. y
V
Live Staking O
6.1 of to ,
P. U
C
>
z
n� 0
1' MIN. OVERLAP IN ^ U
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION �.,.I
AT MAT ENDS (u
•N
STAKE (TIP) TOP OF BANK Vi m
CZ
4tqjr
A¢G
`TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View
EROSION CONTROL
T
1.25"�
1"
BANK
11"
Typical Stake
NOTE:
1. PER SPECIFICATIONS, ALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NATURAL FIBERS.
Erosion Control Matting
6.1 Not to Scale
TO
Q

2"-3" DIAMETER C(
8" MIN. DEPTH \ o
NOTES:
Tn
N
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE
NOTES:
N
ti
COMPACTED FILL
E%ISTING GROUND
1"/S pp�� b
1.
USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND
�Z
EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE
WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12"
p2a? W
a Qi ,n
STAY SPACING.
- �..
..
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING
2.
USE FILTER FABRICA MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH
a=
d
Q12E
OR DIRER FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH
AND 18" IN HEIGHT, AND FASTEN ADEQUATELY
STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ENTRANCE
NCE WILL BE EXTENDED AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
�
m
N
g
9'MAX. WITH WIRE
3.
EX
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 4" INTO
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
TRENCH.
EXTEND FABRIC 1
W
SHALL BE 12 }GAGE MIN.
4.
PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE SELF -FASTENER
INTO TRENCH
�- FILTER FABRIC
ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
tiry
1
\
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND 24 MAX
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN.
lJC
(18" MIN.(
4
WIRE
NOTES:
FILTER FABRIC
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE
NOTES:
TRUCKS.
COMPACTED FILL
E%ISTING GROUND
2. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESS AND
1.
USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND
EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE
WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12"
DEVICE ANDTIMELV MAINTENANCE.
STAY SPACING.
- �..
..
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING
2.
USE FILTER FABRICA MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH
OR DIRER FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH
AND 18" IN HEIGHT, AND FASTEN ADEQUATELY
STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ENTRANCE
NCE WILL BE EXTENDED AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
TO THE WIRES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
N
g
3.
EX
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 4" INTO
SEDIMENT REMOVAL
TRENCH.
EXTEND FABRIC 1
W
5. ANY MATERIALTRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
4.
PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE SELF -FASTENER
INTO TRENCH
IMMEDIATELY.
ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
6. USE 2"-3" DIAMETER COARSE AGGREGATE STONE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
7. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
NOTES
1. STRUCTURAL STONE SHALL BE (CLASS "B"1 STONE FOR
EROSION CONTROL PURPOSES.
2. SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE SHALL BE NO. 5 OR NO. 57
STONE.
Construction Entrance
6.2 Not to Scale
FRONT VIEW
SILT FENCE
SEDIMENT
CONTROL V- 6" MIN.
STONE
FLOW 1
3' MAX.
CROSS-SEcnON VIEW STRUCTURAL
STONE
Stone Outlet
62 Not to Scale
-ENCE
STRAW WA
EXISTING GROUND
Temporary Silt Fence
62 Not to Scale
2' OVERLAP
STRAW WA'
EXISTING GROUP
Section View A -A'
NOTE: F__ 3'- 4'
1. SECURE THE WATTLE WITH 24" STAKES EVERY 3'd' AND WITH A STAKE
ON EACH END. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF
THE WATTLE LEAVING AT LEAST 2"-3" OF STAKE EXTENDING ABOVE THE
WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE FACE.
Temporary Straw Wattle
6 Not to Scale
V �
A
„� O
O crs
U
Cz7
z
N� .
W �
O
Q U
a�
Q 4+
xs
u
TO,
Q

I I
I / I
I i I
MUD MATS
NOTES:
1. FORD CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL BANKS.
2. MAINTAIN DIVERSION CHANNEL TO INSURE
RUNOFF DOES NOT ENTER CHANNEL.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE
APPROPRIATE FORD DIMENSIONS.
I )Temporary Ford Crossing
6.3 Not to Scale
RIP -RAP COVERED BY
APPROPRIATELY LARGE
COARSE AGGER GA TE I o3 I ANGULAR ROCK.
25' MIN.
25' MIN.
m
p
NOTES:
d O
S' DIM
1.
THIS TYPE OF CROSSING CAN BE INSTALLED IN
a
0
BOTH A WET OR DRY WEATHER STREAM
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
�Z
CONDITIONS.
m
_ - _
USE SERIES OF PARALLEL PIPES DEPENDING ON
MIN. 48" PIPE DIAMETER
BASE FLOWRATE AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
COARSE AGGREGATE 6'•
MINIMUM PIPE DIAMETER OF 48'
1/2 DIAMETER OF PIPE OR 12",
EARTH FILL COVERED BY
8
REMOVE DURING CLEANUP.
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
MAINTAIN LOW FLOW THALWEG
4.
CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO USE A TEMPORARY
LARGE ANGULAR ROCK.
THROUGH CROSSING
SUPPORT LOG
FILTER FABRIC
Plan View
12" 0 MIN.
SEDIMENT CONTROL IN [STATE]".
�Y
CLASS R
STONE
NOTE:
1.
CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS AT NORMAL
BASEFLOW.
2.
MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
CLASS A/B STONE
3.
INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
4.
MAINTAIN CROSSING 50 THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
S.
STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE
MUD MAT.
WATER DIVERSION
WATER DIVERSION
6.
CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
CHANNEL
CHANNEL
ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
NOTES:
1. FORD CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL BANKS.
2. MAINTAIN DIVERSION CHANNEL TO INSURE
RUNOFF DOES NOT ENTER CHANNEL.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE
APPROPRIATE FORD DIMENSIONS.
I )Temporary Ford Crossing
6.3 Not to Scale
RIP -RAP COVERED BY
APPROPRIATELY LARGE
COARSE AGGER GA TE I o3 I ANGULAR ROCK.
25' MIN.
25' MIN.
m
m
NOTES:
d O
O d
1.
THIS TYPE OF CROSSING CAN BE INSTALLED IN
of
0
BOTH A WET OR DRY WEATHER STREAM
Plan View
�Z
CONDITIONS.
m
2.
USE SERIES OF PARALLEL PIPES DEPENDING ON
MIN. 48" PIPE DIAMETER
BASE FLOWRATE AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
COARSE AGGREGATE 6'•
MINIMUM PIPE DIAMETER OF 48'
1/2 DIAMETER OF PIPE OR 12",
EARTH FILL COVERED BY
3.
REMOVE DURING CLEANUP.
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
APPROPRIATELY
4.
CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO USE A TEMPORARY
LARGE ANGULAR ROCK.
BRIDGE CROSSING. IF HE/SHE DOES, IT MUST
CONFORM TO THE "MANUAL FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL IN [STATE]".
�Y
Af/per/rte
Section View
3 )Temporary Stream Crossing- Culvert
6.3 Not to Scale
Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
6.3/ Not to Scale
711
Q
m
CC V m =
2
O=OiN
a mm u
�Z
E
m
711

HoosierDam_Overview.
pdf
HoosierDam_Detail1.
pdf
HoosierDam_Detail2.
pdf
HoosierDam_Detail3.
pdf
HoosierDam_Detail4.
pdf
HoosierDam_Detail5.
pdf
HoosierDam_Detai16.pdf

ilir
l� r
Ilk
Y' 11
"w` `4, t`'.*aT� .
f «r y �tr�4r=r
�Cp,
I T \1 �~ ,/;h //i S � •,�` �. �'i.;e�rb,C �:•�.�•.. � ,\� K�- ef�.�4 1� �;• %%.� a l.Y�. stl�i '�"Re/ill����:
'.e >� 1 �� \`��1`r��/p �.xi� ice°% �� :.,� 11�,L ` �.� � i !.�r/, gip;; r `', ��,.��,t�;;`.$, `'. , fir.,. ;c `'�,� �,, r),,'. a, �,�+. x°'•,-Y�,�"-: , •%t.,�.%,ss -' :--r_fir,` •, .<- l r� cfr >.r! -%ifp.:.4l''���l t''t,^LzFte• l_ \1t�. : ay v`{` ;. i - l� �;y'=�''.�, ,`.•� , �`.= $,;`
Zs-s„ra_`
• ,/, i ) "�y. t r,b� "" , �ROW_
2'1
?•
aIN
A , t `I �s:r•N'(Y p'r �'' �;'?���py
'r� :s .%,� �, i / �l�'!% \•�.,•1� `�� Lir �� :•� +• �./' r /- `�i'(�. �,..•y, 3�S �E ! /1va,
P.
+ /.i,3 'li �' II��p+�i�•''� t. %% f=riii.�CCC �iCrp �f�� "
�...... / I - j •1. mss', / s' W+1Ar
'
_'�`. r.� ,� 'INrI: �t ' es. . •..� l., 1 i A'Yhivf f �rA �„t sr'�W��i.'y.,, + r „N�sY✓�'i•a-x - eft, F,�t� L.wli t.'9(• .. A? f ,V. :v
. `:.{. �.�•.,._ \,.\1 .., /�✓ ,1 p p,a.\ „err , tee` .�r ..s+.I+`^.i,ai �• sa. �„'�iLt i� .
,�� Al
` "'� R'r• 11
.rr/"�\ w�yp� 1 !"
,, ;j.11' •,ypj'�i �•l'�p'�L\=Y ;"fir y'` Of .'4_' `�t�. rdi "' •:Y�•. t``�' rf� r• •. ', ,� iq• (p.i..
(VI. ;fj �/i•r✓!� �, p �' �\\ �-.• ,,,y ;t it�r� iL 1. .+�+�y. !/�•,,., '� ��I�N..r�$ � l� +r' _ ,� t ,..A^�`�t�, �t�::l��:'J �i / J �',
� •, „ � 11 Irl .. It _� � /��se• J(j
�:'b ✓-" '�' "^"14� . �y is iy '4,6 f h !Fr' �,+J ,R .•ra � •� t� .•��ll�jp.rp 't } ii . .Z;f°n: t,p:,� ,'C'�11'..:.,,.;yY.!ty ..:yi.Y+�`�fr I' F<
� /' ` '+ M a� %'�C��'��re ..r;:' ., "cyr~' x,:# .�.;�_�- ..��}}�:��w r rt /,." �" ,,. �✓ `"� !, s�,�,t ••�, .•. ^x. ..xdr s� ,t. ..'".� � fii . �� ��'
;:! .. s? «s •,w` .a i` ill�'II� �+ li�`KIV
i/: 9.: +M,»a' �� 1 \. 5.0'w, ,.t�,�s� .. "•ti 7 1.1`1 �. i r iyi 4 F, .fi' I �'f1 t SN.r�-.
TRIB
-!/1�� ,� � -�\ —� �_ I ��f ! / � l�' L�� .i ..•�� „iA 1 t (.w,"��y � �i�� � � , i�rf ''St, . �'4 dS �
%� �. � •�?`.� +r :`,,,v, � � ,,.: rs .+��7'} /kr 1 r�S/� \ y �� dYr,:�•..
C\� =�R �{{��' ;,�' ,b�l�\:•��'�r•�'�' /moi/�� �il(�/f.= � j�.r+w
\. - !T•��"/.rll. 3 �dp �.r�T,f^'�'�l!)�/0 ••;`'
j
�/!�`*�9� • r„i t ��4Ap11+t; /f _ All
i"e. ,
i� 4.✓ ���%ice � .,�. i l
f 'r ,��'tA` �\ 1I1rA'Mill����� .� _ - -. ilM. .. s''•i'illlj ''.r"� °� i) ,/:h `.+c•r} .',.iii !4 r:{';
t w�•. : ' �' 1���” �+� f r 5: ., b;S �: i. (ll �"' '•r - r� r ''�'14� , i Aaie t F . ti 9z
=1� t,�' '�, ;a TRI"B 4
�t. tt Ems.
_ \\,, `•, t .,a_; ° \. \ . .t / 4 �� ` 11� r x yy ��" �
1 . \
.l Wyly til. p rt �✓" j,;,f;
I'� ✓� /."G -�,� {��-..,,,�(7 x � t• rr`„ . �' �" �. c.`� � -'�' �� ,»�� � ��- � � �y *rl r �.i'.�i0.V , � td t �i �t � ,v�. M ! py '!� �"�'a. '—���.',� ..m° .r ®rk• -� G7 „� .,j ,.. �' !�`' i t .� 1 \�s.�i' � r.�l,� + •'pts � ,I.'
,frq, . ,•� \ ti 41] s - r .^�, `q,'.... �,., t ,p.)l Y• 1 ,r .S r i v//� �t 4; { tir :. `1 r1 �i a, �,ai:! ��� v
_v TRIB 5 (�t�
'` `Y t'� "� � x• � J, Y '\,�11 ­ I �POO
�....�,,
1 _!'� �. 'c ���,�\ •�.. 1 �.'I iiyt ' '� . �< �t L t - ..n,., t'/lam ;
+:ro:r'�,•�•�,"-•�,+•t\4� W.
Ari stlfr•,i. o
.%. ,•. >/ < .-: TRIB 2 /`-^ ';� ..�'i(► LY 1 ,,' d ��" "e, -w .5;'`� �; !Yr�yc9'�,�„;/�A
i �••� I. I b
WL AC S B
w
IL
/ .
/r I �i r �•+. _ 4 �' " ° r.,._� �i.►es v., �,h•,r r : :.� „V....�ji�'i ! l
Pf"�y�f'.+" ��,/��� 1�•.:\ �' � t``� 1�J�� j f��w ;,'i,l , ((l,l -.—^ r ( 'f� t WL AA
�.' 4Dpi� at)�� /�' s; �,��� IR- �'i �`! �" ),' �I }'.r 5>. 41 rl5 } ( ,� :fit , ✓ .t '� �J�N1 w+D'.�y�i� ` -_
r
''` vs. *�+il � � %^ � r, • , ,;� F / %TRIB' 3' /1.r ;,.;, , •� t � rte':; ,:n= .�. {= . •�' ;,� 'i'; ""°' /..r�'Ja
�,.s _,.r,.«., � ), � ;J i:/f` (l!N",� - ..,�` -:� r ,--:: S/`I!.i�:.v�ij1j, •^�p••`-�''' ""°.t�r. ,�'. '�-i ''. r� ���i. _ -
�i`
.• / .J� I .� h F W L Z 9� a
1
�► r* t�r/fi I,%er / ��r' �'W L Y i;i W L X # + ,= _• . `� arE�y "r,%
y ,J
_�-•c'
�+ •,f7•+" r� - ,,, y 11 ` � :� ��F .� \\ \ , � -_ ��-' '"`t
, ��'�.••, ; `�i1-�- L - 9�' `:.t .t.�:, ,,��.^��- �.'lp.i'
f';'i�' /, x �'i••:. ,sem ✓'. .\.- �i ii, r .:�i;i'l ,�+°: < ,T f
j r: �` � ''•��'` � ;may f �� -, �� ri/ r'��i ..�-•. !Ris•- .� ."� -� WL V-
l� F v r -.F_"'.<.. _ I, ice/ s`i ,:',\ r, t �� r� {13�:71r" /i•,,ll� �'
1\6 � t ::'R �tiiili � "'. � �I y / : �'�'1��1, J
r" j' J ✓i /! ." 'tio NL T ' W L U ""e�r111 r� ti�v 1 I l
..- ,,; .r :4�/%- �.. �,./ of w., .. .�.��, I ,5 i`, � �, �i 1 ti� ✓
r ;,�»,� �'r� ern('' � I, i:.AI �\`: �,7! ii� '�..-•�'"`p 1"'2 \,�-�'.� ".,.` ./(. �_'
,. %z"-�..- y �''�' � i •+r,..,¢ 1� rl rJ' �-'•�= ..fes e lG /
� �+��� � i'�7' �:..a --_- ��g1� F.. � \� y..: WLR �JIJI �•,,,vt t � � f",��,� .
� �►+�'`�a�.,,�, _ %��- WL s :S: �J ri�t� ��:' '�a�\e /° �.� �.!!.
� �T-
?pCc•" :/.._j{ s 3
�' 3s 1Yeir;, - ! ` �"'`► ! ��� k,� WL Q ;\. WL O "' WL NWL L
•
>'Z'?'�
� p
yrs �`rr.f t iJl1 tr M + /; ,. i
✓.•, '{lll,; \ f� TRIB 6 i
1 d'tV ji+' "+►'�\\I(/r \ rr~~ t� ..,.:�,'Y a
tl� �` �_ • IIJ i 1r .
`•���. �t�l'i°u r b ✓ ! WL Ji �..%._` WL+�I
r HMI'�(7 / -'J,/ lir �. "'':! '1'�1:_ .,°�� ,: A, �� t , 'llC'� J • f '��...-s% / 4^, _ ri ;.;U: }
��$` 1t ,�a_a � �,.., � F'r� ` I ���•. ,�����%�r;(j � �//� !i�",tV�� �/i�,i��'J � _ �'��' ,! Z
{ r r•:.',+'fi ' 1 t a.o "'/1'1N M^z�--F/ t I� '..�.Z"• WL G WL K xi + WL F /•.�
5 ,. v�t'A4 �l.!`.t 'J" ,iy�'��s��'��•" .��� lir �\�`� ,r/�, �\� .ri= ril +'tr ��1 ..� t. ji.,. �: 7�c� ,,, y �.,, / G
° +,r� � ! i ,If r� �'.\..7 �� � � � tt � I ,�= ,f �- ._ .,•." r\ �:._' y " ;� Ifs r I ,..
�Wy
'=3
Fig
* ` � . � >rY� ,; Yr '� � ¢ -.,�I rf` '�1/; n( q, ;.•art - .%�� l+ . � . iii >l"
r
r
��li',j ti � ` ����>y �.,;a r � - ��/� t=,may//!"` �°`^��;.,,oyr•�l!i 1 ' � 3� .�,. �- �
„pt°�'" � , l/�� .. t `!// / \, • .., h... � -;,.tom , , // v .. .�:? `'�i' • WL B 'r1`'`' ,Yr
v*',� "��'�, °t�\\�;t ,r,. •f�ra..t, (r',F-._ ,�ti>�.x�sv�' /, a/, .�'�� �.�_;;� _�"�f '� �7ii's'a = .��f`_s.•`l
11\,\a`l�`r41�� eT:
: r!;ljl !/lr,t j'�i{' .t y
�lI' � .� O R It �'` ;ll i �� � ,�(�rl J..i�1� C�., ;�� H ° �r`a: `:.h\ � ; t��ti: � � _ �' `\` �,\�l•,�y�*.r
!!� 2 ' , t , .z - �� • ,}11 � �! ;� t °N I + I � ;:..-' � " , r � If�r � \\ ` �� •�•r,� ,rte,•-; i,� WL D y.»..
�; ilY-. + , �,�; _g.Id>�R / �1,, ,.P.11, ,. r_ .ro F �,/ P i..r - i"6`1'. � � u' ..-+,":� -L". �.`'•:�:,:-,,/� - peg . � ,+r /, ;..
Imo./" _'e!' ' tti�� ,r �'��c\"l�i, "•" I Pa•�,�'
+f" 7z- .t>>, �.�1� M•w+°.. +;�, Irj! ~- y�" t�ii "�`'i,� �, __ry c it �\ .,,. 1.(�.
/ 1 ' ♦ _. °; j1 F , ��.., N�\\, :.�„�li /.rz "'Fi •'s �r,, p �j''� ! y 1 + T , .y ,�• '' Ar4,:?,
!� _ 1i'j3I rj5 •z►A a�\
/•`1 �' l..,i�, -�'� - - - r ° ) , ' Xi) f:4 `�a. _'. �`' t\�a�
'
\ ry ,,
�`i77�1t `+^\•1i,. ,'�F. ' ''1 "�� / �°. '� >> � M.;,� �k';,,e -" r t �'t�rs�e+
�J-
r
,C _ w
!r ,•. "a":3!f..;"�4 T' y^ �1.l.i , J� ._,t:, :'c -
:�::' r; r'L� � --�� +Arm"' � � /%n/ s .itl"•/�'r #. .�'..� �` _���a�, _-,�:+Z.r"`'`Ctk-�M.. ... .�-�k =..:�. .. +,e �v 'yj qtr•
2 Hoosier Dam
• Wetland Data Point
:p �'Trr+�' a 1-m`39�< � �'�1 � jpars.: ��"i.°rsA��tr• Y S ;�' � ��'r' J' f a ' �:r ,�� �L�Fi
Tributaryj�• J g.
/,� -a3 �� �:'_ I�k:� ��/'�'`ia.,J.Y•� r���p.�; i1. ^�,� '�` } 1 >yt'' �_,s:.
.,�'�'�!< /' �b +•''rr'�.�i��(��,I I;} #tib` -i, r' � •���.w;... pE/•r4.t.:,�
Wetlands - 4.8 acres .ri),�j �� ,.,. .•�/ fir' �� ,..(lyd,,;-r .y;tip sr��ty� v'
- Wetlands - estimated based on LIDARIr;� lE��7 I�'
7� ill tf l�,
and observation from public waters - 0.5 acres
Jurisdictional Determination Boundary 127.6 acres
////�-'�,. > •.�� c tt ,+'`piry � R, f p i��l )j��• `1���' �C' t � AOr � - w r � (�
i J' lr� ` +, e' r � "'yt���� y�liR +� �. �^� r. .F �j/%� I �F• �d, v y .
Permission to Survey Properties
[� 130 of Chatham Ownership���
Contour Interval = 2 feet
� u rr%" /t� -�. � gyp• � � �, �` ii \ ry��` ,•,.. „: ; �i ��Iia ,. �! � �
MR!'r­
A
....:�li'
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Mapn
Overview Map 0•2S 0 he boundariesown on this map "'i" U
� tshnr
are approximate and are intended for 9
u
� ------- informational purposes only This Places
Chatham County North Carolina
i"i1125 map does not repr'esEnt a legal survey. , -v

I WL M
n
WLN�.�
{ u
WL L`;
W
LO
a WLJ'
WL G
IL�
. WL K
R
. w aw
. rl f
Y ,
JO
{ hY+' �dr"t a„{r 1 �W4+
7 IPA
7`7
? *' f TomKx
#
W B`
WL F
Estimated 1
s.y
Estimated 2 r 'j s, = j ,r,
y ��Yi Ya
te
Estimated 3«
nix y.
110 n
a fid• "� 3.
n:
b � 1
�►�',WL C`"�
g
r
LP
a..
y a.
WL D
Wetland Data Point, '` '>
Wetlandsia, R.
estimated n LIDAR
Wetlands - ated est based o 4 � `� . r�.��� ��� �. � . � �`� , ` ' �. • d`''•' f .�
and observation from public waters
,
Jurisdictional Determination Boundary
[� Permission to Survey Properties,
(� 130 of Chatham Ownership
Contour Interval = 2 feet
t
lib' �$ g �y � ,. a� r 'd r"r � �� ` '_� hx f° 4% �a A719
�..:.,,aw"�'�Sets . ' ,,,� - ; Yr.;ei� �it�f - � . ,i.j � =t �..�,"''�ir.� \�. ` �� - r >ti!e..
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
Detail Map 1
250 JUo The boundaries shown on thrz map .¢.
are approximate and are intended for Lnique
----' —' Places
�
Chatham County North Carolina ` - — Feet map does not reinformation purposes on present a legal n, s
l survoy. r r

WL V
WL T
WL S
W
'w
W AA
WL Z
'47
Y
-4V
l�Z
eo
WL Y
�
WL X
—2,
ITI
1 41L"'
WL 0
7
�
WL P 6,
6A,
W 0
ij WL M
WL G
k—U1 I Luur It I Lt2r Vdl — /- I tetell.
WL N 71
WL L
\NF L K
WL I
WL J
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
DetailMap 2 i he boundaries shown an thi, map
250 500 area pproximate and are intended for Uwoue-O
ac
informational purposes, only. This
es
w" k . .....
Chatham County, North Carolina Feet map does not represent a legal sLOVOY. I;I"
'J 4
yy ii ys
k4"
A
Ao�
rr
7
�
WL P 6,
6A,
W 0
ij WL M
WL G
k—U1 I Luur It I Lt2r Vdl — /- I tetell.
WL N 71
WL L
\NF L K
WL I
WL J
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
DetailMap 2 i he boundaries shown an thi, map
250 500 area pproximate and are intended for Uwoue-O
ac
informational purposes, only. This
es
w" k . .....
Chatham County, North Carolina Feet map does not represent a legal sLOVOY. I;I"

-" t"'> L,'y: ^ s s_ .14* "1t.SIMONNVO
Fs .S@i`� a d x'
F Iliv
r� 1
r,p` w Aa
k 4F,
T R I B 5
A a JOYA
Nr �
VL AB x; �
,
1.
'L
jv
X
9
I%AP,
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
Detail Map 3 2501 0, _ oo
'(he boundaries shown on this map
lJnu ue
are appraximaYe and are intended for d
Chatham County North Carolina D ormnote e purposes This Places
P P Y r PlIces:-
� Feet map does not represent a legal survey.

ir
Z
ttfA
U. 'VAR%
"PIK•
4.
Tributary
Jurisdictional Determination
Boundary
fs
130 of Chatham Ownership
P
W-4 S
Contour Interval 2 feet
I ,
11114�111'111 .
- "t �
'R
3
Rocky
River Woody Dam
Removal - JD Request Map
Detail Map
Chatham
4
County, North Carolina
h, shown on this map
0 250 500
are approximate and are intended for
informational purposes only. This
Feet
P,
r C. 8
U kal Ilu.....
map does not represent a legal survey.

TRIB I
liv- V-7 L
T R I B 2
0
71
Anil
N 47"
t
Tributary
Jurisdictional Determination Boundary
130 of Chatham Ownership
Contour Interval = 2 feet
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
- 'Y
Detail Map 5 The bOUndaires shown on this map � ,, 1—r—, f H,
are approximate and are intended for [In
Ur"
informational purposes only This P
H,
Chatham County, North Carolina map does not represent a legal SLJrVeY
MAP AREA
4?
71
Anil
N 47"
t
Tributary
Jurisdictional Determination Boundary
130 of Chatham Ownership
Contour Interval = 2 feet
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
- 'Y
Detail Map 5 The bOUndaires shown on this map � ,, 1—r—, f H,
are approximate and are intended for [In
Ur"
informational purposes only This P
H,
Chatham County, North Carolina map does not represent a legal SLJrVeY

or
1
,7
MAP AREA,
Wr-110
Tributary
Jurisdictional Determination Boundary
130 of Chatham Ownership
Contour Interval 2 feet -4
n
Rocky River Woody Dam Removal - JD Request Map
Detail Map 6 j i,, on [his map
a re approximate and are intended for Unique
informational purposes only. Th�s Places Chatham County, North Carolina Feet map does not represent a legal survey.