20090633 Ver 1_401 Application_20090609

09-0633
O?WA
0 r?RQG
I 1 ? ?
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
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
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1 d. 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
1 e. 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: Unnamed Tributary (UT) to West Fork Deep River
2b. County: Forsyth and Guilford
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Kernersville
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: EEP Acquisition Conservation Easements; Jerry Ring, Alvin Ring, Martha Lidewell, Ann
Mathews
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Book 2945, page 10;book R6941, page 1081; book R6941, page 1072;book RE 2857,
page 4299; book RE 2760, page 1222
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attention: Toni Wyche Jones
3d. Street address: 1652 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
3f. Telephone no.: 919.715.1324
3g. Fax no.: 919.715.2219
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page I of 12
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: Phillip Todd
5b. Business name
(if applicable): SEPI Engineering Group
5c. Street address: 1025 Wade Avenue
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604
5e. Telephone no.: 919.789.9977
5f. Fax no.: 919.789.9691
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
May 29, 2009
CYNDI KAROLY, UNIT SUPERVISOR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WETLANDS UNIT
1650 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699 -1650
Re: Permit Application - UT to West Fork Deep River Stream Restoration - Resubmittal
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Attached for your review are two copies of the site restoration plans and the revised PCN for the
UT to West Fork Deep River Stream Restoration Project located in Forsyth and Guilford
Counties. Please feel free to call me at 919.715.1324 or email me at
[e-mail] with any questions regarding this plan.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
SiAcerely,
Toni Alch@nes, El, CFM
NC EE Review Coordinator
Attachment: UT to West Fork Deep River Stream Restoration Plan (2 originals)
PCN
North Carol r. '17 ,S
.:, r : ,?? n,nt r? ; ,1652 ail Service (enter Ra(e` 2-s'99-1
Transmittal
CYNDI KAROLY
To: 401 WETLANDS UNIT Date: 5/29/2009
From: Toni Wyche Jones, EEP
Re: Application for 401 Certificati
Hand Delivery
? Urgent X For Review ? Please Comment X Please Reply ? Please Recycle
UT to West Fork Deep River
Qcc??oe??
JUN 12009
OENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS ANO STORMWyATE1q BRAE
North (are na E. ?, st .. ? ")au-- it Pr ??- F 'n, .?§4 2 "-_: ;?:. ?aiei ?, ! WV a (eep.net
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Parcel IDs: 6894-11-1700; 6894-01-6787; 6894-11-6032;
6894-21-0408; 6894-21-3452
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 80.03960 Longitude: - 36.05613
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: approximately 17 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to West Fork Deep River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C, WS IV
2c. River basin: Cape Fear River Basin
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:
The existing land use for the five land tracts varies. For the Jerry Ring tract, Alvin Ring tract, Glidewell tract, and
Matthews tract, the predominant condition is a forested floodplain except for areas transversed by the Duke Energy
transmission line. The Royle tract is currently managed for agriculture.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
None identified
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 4,241 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed work includes, but is not limited to the following: 1) to improve water quality, 2) to improve
habitat for fish and invertebrate species, and 3) to provide flood storage.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Primarily utilizing track hoes, the project involves 2,040 feet of stream preservation, 990 feet of stream enhancement
level 1, and 2,201 feet of stream restoration. Please refer to the enclosed restoration plan.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ? No ®Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. 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 12
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 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
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 ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
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
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
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
le
Permanent P or
( intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Priority 2 Restoration Main Stem - ® PER ® Corps 50 363
Reach 2a ? INT ® DWQ
S2 ®P ? T Priority 2 Restoration Main Stem - ® PER ® Corps 40 1669
Reach 2b ? INT ® DWQ
S3 ®P ? T Priority 2/3 UT-D ® PER ® Corps 10 430
Restoration ? INT ® DWQ
S4 ®P ? T Enhancement UT-A ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 10 382
S5 ®P ? T Enhancement UT-B ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 10 427
S6 ®P ? T Enhancement UT-C ? PER
® INT ® Corps
® DWQ 10 181
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 3452
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
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.
Open water
impact number
- Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4L Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then com lete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose of 5c.
Wetland impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5L Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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 an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ® Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
131 ? P ®T Restoration UT to West Fork ® Nos 125000 125000
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 125000 125000
6i. Comments: Please note that 5.7 acres of buffer restoration will occur along a corridor spanning 50 feet from the proposed
top of banks on both sides of the stream.
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
.
The project has been designed to create a functional uplift to the ecosystem, create a stable stream system, and imporove the
water quality and bilogical habitat of the streams. The design involves the utilization of sedimentation and erosion control
measures, and land disturbance activities have been minimized.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The existing stream will be enhanced and restored within the assigned construction easement. Sedimentation and erosion
control measures will be under the regulatory oversight of the DENR Division of Land Resources.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? 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
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
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.
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 8 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . 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? 30%
2b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Stormwater management is incidental to
enhancement and restoration construction activities. Please see the attached restoration plan.
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative 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? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
® Other: N/A
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
® Other: N/A
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 9 of 12
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?
1 b. 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)?
1 c. 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.
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.
No wastewater is anticipated to be generated from this project. However, the contractor will be held responsible for
protecting all sewer lines and water lines that exist. The designer is required to show all utility lines including sewer lines on
the design sheets. The contractor is required to verify the exact location of the sewer lines. In addition, the contractor is
required to call the "Call Before You Dig" toll-free number at least 48 before initiating construction activities.
Page 10 of 12
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?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
®
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A search of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's website
indicates two endangered species and three threatened species potentially occurring in Caldwell County. The species,
their habitats, and status are described in Table 4 of the attached restoration plan.
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?
A search of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's website
indicates the federally protected species in Table 4 potentially occurring in Forsyth and Guilford Counties. The species, their
habitats, and status are described in Table 4 of the attached restoration plan
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 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office conducted a review of the project
and concluded that the project would not affect any historic resources or archeological sites.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? =Eyes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: No Rise Study with Letter of Map Revision; A decrease in water
surface elevation is expected; therefore, a CLOMR is not needed.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM 3710689400 J
Toni Wyche Jones, EI, CFM,
Review Coordinator
+ 29 May 2009
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
ent's Signature Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name isv
(Agent's authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Unnamed Tributary to West Fork Deep River
FINAL Restoration Plan
February 23, 2008
SCO Project # 070712401
EEP Project # 442
Forsyth/ Guilford County, North Carolina
Submitted to:
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

0
•
UT to the West Fork Deep River
Executive Summary
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) intends to restore streams and
riparian buffer on unnamed tributary to West Fork Deep River (UTWF) in Forsyth/Guilford
County (EEP Project Number 442). Additionally, there are several other small, unnamed
tributaries to UTWF that will be restored, and a level spreader will be constructed to remove an
`on-line' drainage ditch. There are five landowners participating in this project that lies south of
Kernersville, NC.
The restored streams have been divided into several reaches dependent upon its treatment and
location on the restoration project. Table 1 summarizes the reach segments and their proposed
restoration treatment.
Table la. Stream Reach Components and Structure EEP Project No. 442

Stream
Reach Existing
Linear
Footage Proposed
Linear
Footage
Restoration
Treatment
Restoration
Approach Proposed
Stream
Classification
Main Stem -
Reach 1 2,0401f 2,040 Preservation Remove Exotic
Vegetation N/A
Main Stem -
Reach 2a 3631f 3001f Restoration Priority 2 E
Main Stem-
Reach 2b 1,6691f 1,5281f Restoration Priority 2 Bc
UT-A 3821f 3821f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-13 4271f 4271f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-C 181 if 181 if Enhancement I N/A E
UT-D 4301f 3731f Restoration Priority 2/3 Bc
*Approximation based on measurement along stream centerline in Microstation.
Table lb. Summarv of Restoration Levels for Stream and Buffer Restoration
Restoration Level Stream Of) Buffer AC
Restoration 2,201 5.7*
Enhancement I 990 n/a
Enhancement II n/a n/a
Preservation 2,040 9.9#
* Buffer restoration area includes a corridor spanning 50-feet from the proposed top of banks on both sides of the
stream (existing top of bank in the case of UT-C) along Main Stem Reaches 2a and 2b, UT-C and UT-D. In areas
where the 50-foot buffer extended outside of easement, the easement boundary was defaulted to as the buffer
restoration boundary.
# Buffer preservation includes the entire conservation easement area of Main Stem - Reach 1, UT-A, and UT-B; this
acreage is not for compensatory mitigation credit.
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Executive Summary (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 1 of 2
February 2009
•
There are several project goals and objectives that are applicable to all of the stream reaches.
These goals and objectives are to:
• Improve water quality by:
o providing stable pattern, dimension and profile to pass appropriate storm events
and their sediment;
o incorporating appropriate slopes on the stream banks to reduce erosion and
sedimentation;
o planting a diverse riparian vegetation for the uptake of nutrients for Main Stem -
Reach 2a, Main Stem - Reach 2b, UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D and
appropriate vegetation in the Duke Power transmission line;
o installing a stormwater best management practice (level spreader) to eliminate
the direct conduit (drainage ditch) of nutrients into UT-D and Main Stem -
Reach 2b; and,
o providing appropriate stream crossings on the Royle Tract (ford crossing on
Main Stem - Reach 2b, pedestrian crossing on Main Stem - Reach 2b and pipe
replacement on UT-C);
• Provide flood storage by laying the stream banks back and providing greater access to a
floodplain for Main Stem - Reach 2a, Main Stem - Reach 2b, UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and
UT-D
•
•
• Improve habitat for fish and invertebrate species by:
o including in-stream structures that promote and maintain pools; and,
o incorporating appropriate slopes on the stream banks to reduce bank erosion and
associated direct influxes of fine sediments as well as to allow for vegetation to
provide shade and cover;
• Provide an enhanced riparian buffer for Main Stem - Reach 1 by removing the exotic,
invasive vegetation from the buffer.
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Executive Summary (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 2 of 2
February 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• 1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ...................................................................4
1.1 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATIONS .............. 4
1.3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................................... 4
1.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE .......................................................................... 4
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .............................................................................................5
2.1 DRAINAGE AREA, PROJECT AREA, AND EASEMENT ACREAGE .......................................... 5
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION / WATER QUALITY .................................................... 6
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ............................................................................. 7
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ...................................................... 7
2.5 ENDANGERED / THREATENED SPECIES ............................................................................... 8
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................11
2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................11
2. 7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ...........................................................................................11
2.7.2 Site Access ..................................................................................................................................12
2. 7.3 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................12
2.7.4 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass ....................................................................................................13
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................13
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY ........................................................................................13
3.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ...............................................................................................14
3.3VALLEY CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................................................15
• 3.4 DISCHARGE (BANKFULL, TRENDS) ....................................................................................15
3.5 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (PATTERN, DIMENSION, PROFILE) ........................................15
3.6 CHANNEL EVOLUTION .......................................................................................................16
3.7 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................16
3.8 BANKFULL VERIFICATION .................................................................................................17
3.9 VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPE(S) DESCRIPTIONS AND DISTURBANCE HISTORY...... 17
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS ....................................................................................................................18
4.1 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................................
4.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ...............................................................................................
4.3 DISCHARGE (BANKFULL, TRENDS) ....................................................................................
4.4 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (PATTERN, DIMENSION, PROFILE) .......................................... 18
18
18
19
4.5 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................
4.6 BANKFULL VERIFICATION .................................................................................................
4.7 VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPE(S) DESCRIPTIONS AND DISTURBANCE HISTORY...... 19
19
19
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN .......................................................................................... 19
5.1 STREAM DESIGN NOTES .....................................................................................................
5.2 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .........................................................
5.2.1 Designed Channel Classification ..............................................................................................
5.2.2 Target Buffer Communities ....................................................................................................... 19
22
23
23
5.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 23
5.3.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................23
5.3.2 Calculations and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 24
• 5.4 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 25
5.4.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR ..........................................................................................................25
UT West Fork Deep River Page 1 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
5.4.2 Hydrologic Trespass .................................................................................................................. 26
• 5.5 HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 26
5.5.1 Modification to Ditch draining to UT-D ...................................................................................26
5.5.2 Schematic of Ditch Modification ...............................................................................................26
5.6 SOIL RESTORATION ........................................................................................................... 26
5.6.1 Soil Preparation and Amendment .............................................................................................26
5.6.2 Soil Preparation and Amendment Summaryper Community Type .........................................27
6.0 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION .....................................................................28
6.1 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ................................................................................ 28
6.2 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 29
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................30
7.1 STREAMS .............................................................................................................................30
7.2 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................... 31
7.3 SCHEDULE / REPORTING .................................................................................................... 31
8.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................32
9.0 PROJEC'
Table la.
Table lb.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
• Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
P TABLES
Stream Reach Components and Structure EEP Project No. 442
Summary of Restoration Levels for Stream and Buffer Restoration
Drainage Area for Stream Reaches
Land Use Practices in the Project Study Area EEP Project No. 442
Forsyth and Guilford County Federally Protected Species
Property Owners and Associated Streams with Proposed Mitigation Type
Summary of Existing Stream Channel Classification Per Stream Reach
Summary of BEHI/NBS
Summary of Shear Stress Computations for Main Stem - Reach 2 and UT-D
Soil Preparations and Amendments per Planting Zone_
Planting Plan Species - Bottomland Hardwood Forested Buffer
Planting Plan Species - Utility Easement Corridor
Stream Bank Permanent Seed Mixture
Flood Plain Permanent Seed Mixture
Project Design Firm Contact Information
Project Activity
Project Contact Information
Restoration Component Attribute
UT West Fork Deep River - Existing Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
UT West Fork Deep River - Reference Reach and Design Summary Data for
UT-D
Table 20. UT West Fork Deep River - Existing Condition, Reference Reach and
Design Summary Data for Main Stem - Reach 2a & 2b
Table 21. Flood Study Comparison for UT West Fork Deep River (Knight Road
Branch)
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 2 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
10.0 FIGURES
. Figure 1.
Figure 2(a).
Figure 2(b).
Figure 3.
Figure 4(a).
Figure 4(b).
Figure 4(c).
Figure 5(a).
Figure 5(b).
Figure 5(c).
Figure 6.
•
•
Project Site Vicinity Map
Watershed Map
Land Use Map (Year 2006)
NRCS Soils Map
Fork Creek Reference Site Watershed Map
Fork Creek Reference Site Vicinity Map
Fork Creek Reference Site Soils Map
UT Polecat Creek Reference Site Watershed Map
UT Polecat Creek Reference Site Vicinity Map
UT Polecat Creek Reference Site Soils Map
Existing Conditions Map
11.0 DESIGN SHEETS
Sheets EX1 to EX8.
Sheets DS1 to DS8.
Sheet BMP-1.
Sheet XS1 to XS2.
Sheet PF1 to PF3.
Sheets V1 to V8.
Existing Conditions
Design Sheets
Level Spreader Sheet
Cross Sections for Main Stem - Reach 2a & 2b, UT-D
Profile Sheets
Restoration Plan Sheets
12.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Supplemental Ecological Resources Technical Report and
Categorical Exclusion Documentation
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Reference Reach Photographs
Appendix 5. EEP Floodplain Requirement Checklist
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 3 of 33
February 2009
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The stream restoration site, UT to the West Fork Deep River (UTWF), is located in southeastern
Forsyth County and crosses into Guilford County, North Carolina. The project is located off of
Sandy Ridge Road Exit (Exit 208) of I-40 between Winston-Salem and Greensboro. From Sandy
Ridge Road, travel approximately 3.5 miles and turn left onto Squire Davis Road. There is a
temporary construction easement entryway located just northwest of the powerline right-of-way
on Squire Davis Road. Unnamed tributary C (UT-C) of UTWF is located at the end of the
construction access. Site access may also be obtained via the property of Mr. Rafe and Marianne
Royle (1609 Squire Davis Road, Kernersville, NC 27284).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The UT to West Fork Deep River project area and associated tributaries are located within the US
Geologic Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003010010 and NC Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 030608. The entire project is located in the Cape Fear River
Basin in North Carolina.
1.3 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1 in the appendix shows the project vicinity. The site is located along the Forsyth/
Guildford County line southwest of Kernersville, North Carolina.
• 1.4 Project Components and Structure
The stream restoration project involves several restoration treatments. These treatments are
dependent upon the existing condition of the project study streams and where these channels are
in their channel evolution. Table 1 summarizes the stream reaches and their proposed mitigation
treatments.
is
UT West Fork Deep River Page 4 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
n
U
Table la. Stream Reach Components and Structure EEP Proiect No. 442
*Approximation based on measurement along stream centerline in Microstation.

Stream
Reach Existing
Linear
Footage Proposed
Linear
Footage
Restoration
Treatment
Restoration
Approach Proposed
Stream
Classification
Main Stem -
Reach 1 2,0401f 2,040 Preservation Remove Exotic
Vegetation N/A
Main Stem -
Reach 2a 3631f 3001f Restoration Priority 2 E
Main Stem -
Reach 2b 1,6691f 1,5281f Restoration Priority 2 Bc
UT-A 3821f 3821f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-13 4271f 4271f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-C 1811f 1811f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-D 4301f 3731f Restoration Priority 2/3 Bc
Restoration Level Stream (If) Buffer (AC)
Restoration 2,201 5.7*
Enhancement I 990 n/a
Enhancement H n/a n/a
Preservation 2,040 9.9#
Table lb. Summary of Restoration Levels for Stream and Buffer Restoration
T Hurter restoration area includes a corridor spanning 50-feet from the proposed top of banks on both sides of the
stream (existing top of bank in the case of UT-C) along Main Stem Reaches 2a and 2b, UT-C and UT-D. In areas
. where the 50-foot buffer extended outside of easement, the easement boundary was defaulted to as the buffer
restoration boundary.
# Buffer preservation includes the entire conservation easement area of Main Stem - Reach 1, UT-A, and UT-B; this
acreage is not for compensatory mitigation credit.
Main Stem - Reach 1 of the UTWF has no stream treatment as part of this stream restoration
project. The stream reach on this part of the project has an intact, extensive riparian forest. The
conservation buffer width that EEP has included in on this portion of the stream restoration
project is substantial, and the width ranges from 64 to 345 feet. The decision was made to
conduct enhancement of the existing riparian buffer as there are several invasive species that exist
in the buffer.
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
•
2.1 Drainage Area, project area, and easement acreage
Table 2 summarizes the drainage areas for the stream reaches that will have restoration treatments
applied to them. UTWF drainage area totals approximately 3.27 square miles (2,093 acres) at the
downstream end of the project. Drainage areas for the remainder of the reaches are listed in
Table 2 below. It should be noted that it was impossible to delineate a watershed boundary for
UT-A separate from UT-B. The UT-A drainage area listed in Table 2 is an estimate. The project
area encompasses 17.3 acres.
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 5 of 33
February 2009
r1
U
Table 2. Drainage Area for Stream Reaches

Stream Reach
Drainage Limits Drainage Area
(square miles
Main Stem - Reach 2a Catchment upstream of and including UT-B. 2.6
Main Stem - Reach 2b Catchment upstream of but excluding UT-D 3.04
Main Stem - Reach 2b Catchment including entire project. 3.27
UT-A Catchment upstream of UT-B confluence (0.02 to 0.03)
UT-B Catchment upstream of UT-A confluence 0.60
UT-A/B Catchment upstream of Main Stem confluence 0.63
UT-C Catchment upstream of Main Stem confluence 0.07
UT-D Catchment upstream of Main Stem confluence 0.15
The watershed of the stream restoration project has been developed. Based on a review of aerial
mapping, the following land use practices were identified along with their respective acreages
(Table 3).
Table 3. Land Use Practices in the Proiect Studv Area EEP Proiect No. 442
Land Use Acreage Percentage of Land Use
Forested 648 34
Residential (low density) 76 4
Residential (medium density) 423 23
Open water 9 0.5
Agriculture 710 38
lvote that J% of the watershed is impervious.
0 2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
Streams located within the project study area (PSA) all drain to West Fork Deep River. The
aforementioned stream is located in the Cape Fear River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03030003, and NCDWQ Stream Index # 17-3- (0.3). West Fork Deep River is currently
classified as Water Supply IV (WS-IV). Water from streams with this classification are used as a
water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing where a designation of WS-I, -II, or -III is
not feasible. Additionally, these waters are protected for Class C uses. Typically, WS-IV streams
are located in moderate to highly developed watersheds.
UT West Fork Deep River empties into the Deep River and then enters Oak Hollow Reservoir, a
water supply for the Town of High Point, NC. After the Oak Hollow Reservoir, water eventually
flows into the Randleman Lake Reservoir, a water supply for the Triad of NC, including the City
of Greensboro, City of High Point and surrounding populations. The West Fork Deep River is
located within the Randleman Lake Water supply Watershed.
The Randleman Lake Buffer rules were implemented in January 2000 as a protective measure of
this water supply watershed, including the project study reach. The rules were implemented to
address the potential for future nutrient problems in the watershed. The buffer rules addressed
stormwater, buffer and wastewater discharge components. Intermittent or perennial
hydrologically connected waterbodies located within this watershed are protected for two major
functions related to riparian buffer areas, (1) maintaining diffuse sheet flow from overland
stormwater discharge and (2) retaining riparian buffer pollutant removal functions. Protection of
these waters occurs 50 feet from top-of-bank (TOB) on either side of the channel. Stream
• restoration activities that encroach upon zone 2 (20-50 feet from TOB) are exempt, and activities
UT West Fork Deep River Page 6 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
that occur in zone 1 (0-20 feet from TOB) are allowable as long as best management practices
• (BMP's) to protect surface waters from erosion and excessive nutrient inputs are maintained.
The Watershed Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin states the potential causes of
water quality degradation in this West Fork Deep River watershed are sediment and nutrients.
This report also states that potential sources of water quality degradation include non-urban
development and agriculture.
The October 2005 Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan states that West Fork Deep River,
from SR 1850 to SR 1818 (0.5 miles), is Impaired for aquatic life. The reason for impairment is
violation of the turbidity standard.
West Fork Deep River is currently listed on the 2008 Draft NC Impaired Waters List (303 (d)). It
is impaired from its source to a point 0.3 miles downstream of Guilford County SR 1850 (Sandy
Ridge Rd). Fish and benthic samples were collected in 2004, and resulting biotic indices from
this data concluded that there was an impairment of unknown etiology.
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The PSA is located in the Southern Piedmont Region of Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) Major Land Resource Areas of the US (MLRA) # 136. Parent material consisting of
metamorphic and igneous rocks dominates this region which contains hilly to rolling uplands
with defined drainage patterns. Elevation ranges are from 330 to 1310 feet above sea level.
Dominant soil orders in this MLRA consist of Ultisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols (MRCS 2006).
• Soils found along UT to West Fork, as shown in the USDA soil surveys for Forsyth and Guilford
Counties, include Wedhadkee soils and Chewacla sandy loam. Wedhadkee soils (Typic
Fluvaquents) are poorly drained, hydric soils found on stream floodplains, generally in long
bands. Slopes range from 0 to 2%. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is
medium. The seasonal high water table is at the surface for 2 to 6 months annually.
Chewacla sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) is a somewhat poorly drained, hydric soil
that occurs in long, flat areas parallel to the major streams on the flood plains. Slopes are less
than 2%. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is medium. The seasonal high
water table is 0.5 to 1.5 feet below the surface.
A review of the project study area in 2005 as part of a feasibility study for this stream restoration
project noted no wetlands on any properties intended for stream restoration despite the hydric
soils present on the soils maps. Another review of the project study area was conducted for the
updated Ecological Resources Technical Report finalized in September 2008, and this review
noted no jurisdictional wetlands present on the properties intended for stream restoration
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Land use within the watershed is historically rural, dominated by agriculture and livestock;
however, recent housing developments have changed the nature of the watershed. The
predominant land uses within the watershed consist of residential, agriculture, and mixed forest.
The majority of the project's watershed lies in Forsyth County. A comprehensive development
plan has not been developed for the area, and there are no planned initiatives to create a
. comprehensive development plan for Southeast Forsyth County Area.
UT West Fork Deep River Page 7 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
• Since the initial feasibility study in 2003, there was been little development in the watershed. As
the watershed continues to develop in the coming years, the drainages will experience additional
runoff and a steeper hydrograph following storm events. The additional runoff and steeper
hydrograph following storm events can lead to increase rates of enlargement in incised channels;
however, channels with adequate floodplain, flood storage and grade control are more likely to
remain stable.
There is a considerable amount of sediment moving through the UT West Fork Deep River
watershed. The likely cause of this sediment is past land use practices where watershed drainages
were relocated to accommodate the preferred land use; however, there is no direct evidence that
Reach 1, Reach 2 (a or b), UT-A, UT-B, UT-C or UT-D have been moved as there are no
discernable relic channels within the acquired conservation easements. These drainages in the
watershed now have trees along the banks, but they remain unstable moving slowly through the
stream evolution process. It is difficult to predict how long it will take for these drainages to
become stable as the drainages continue to widen and aggrade in conjunction with debris jams
and other erosion processes.
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protects plants and animals with the federal status
designations of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Experimental (either essential or non-
essential) under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Four federally-protected species are listed by
the USFWS as occurring in Forsyth and Guilford Counties (USFWS 2008). Table 4 provides
detailed information concerning each species, and a species description follows the table with a
biological conclusion provided for each species.
Table 4. Forsyth and Guilford County Federally Protected S ecies

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA No No Effect
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
Small-anthered Bittercress Cardamine micranthera E No No Effect
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T No No Effect
1=threatened, E=endangered
BGPA= Bald Eagle Protection Act, which replaced the Endangered status as of August 2007
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The bald eagle is a large raptor with a white head and
dark brown body. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color and can be
identified by the flat wing soar. Eagle nests are found in close proximity to a clear flight path to
water (within a half mile) near the largest living tree in an area that has an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can sometimes cause eagles to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January and typical food
includes fish, coots, herons, and wounded ducks.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) GIS Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence layers were queried for federally listed species in the PSA. No
occurrences of individuals or population occurrences of bald eagle were found (NCCGIA 2006).
. Additionally, no individuals were encountered during the field assessment. The distance from the
UT West Fork Deep River Page 8 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
study area to the nearest lake (Oak Hollow Lake) is approximately 2.0 miles. Implementation of
• the stream restoration project will have no effect on the bald eagle.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) The red-cockaded woodpecker is 18 to 20
centimeters long with a wing span of 35 to 38 centimeters. There are black and white horizontal
stripes on its back and its cheeks and under parts are white. Its flanks are black streaked. The cap
and stripe on the side of the neck and the throat are black. The male has a small red spot on each
side of the black cap. After the first post fledgling molt, fledgling males have a red crown patch.
This woodpecker's diet is composed mainly of insects which include ants, beetles, wood-boring
insects, caterpillars, and corn ear worms if available. About 16 to 18 percent of the diet includes
seasonal wild fruit.
For nesting/roosting habitat, open stands of pine containing trees 60 years old and older. Red-
cockaded woodpeckers need live, large older pines in which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf
pines (Pinus palustris) are most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also
acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense hardwood
understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years
old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In good,
moderately-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker consists of old open pine stands for nesting and
younger pine forest for foraging. No habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker was found along
the project study area as the project's terrestrial communities are remnant bottomland hardwood
• forest and disturbed/pasture. No individuals were detected during the site assessment. The on-
line maps of the NC Natural Heritage Program were assessed on June 5, 008, and this review did
not any occurrence of red-cockaded woodpeckers within one (1) miles of the proposed project.
Habitat requirements for the red-cockaded woodpecker are not located within the project study
area; therefore, implementation of the stream restoration project will have no effect on the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) This small flowering plant reaches 8-16
inches tall, white flowers with anthers 02 inch long and petals .05-08 inch wide; distinguished
from the similar Cardamine rotundifolia by its much smaller nearly round anthers (instead of
oblong), smaller flowers, and more angulate and nonclasping leaves.
Habitat for the small-anthered bittercress consists of seepages, wet rock crevices, streambanks,
sandbars, and wet woods along small streams. The small-anthered bittercress has been found
only in the Dan River drainage basin. In the project study area, there were no wetland habitat
areas, and no individuals were encountered during the site assessment. Additionally, North
Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) GIS Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence layers were queried for federally listed species in the PSA. No occurrences
of individuals or population occurrences of small-anthered bittercress were found (NCCGIA
2006).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
All populations of small-anthered bittercress are found within the Dan River Drainage (NC
• Natural Heritage Program, 2006). The UT to West Fork Study stream restoration site lies within
the Cape River Basin. The on-line maps of the NC Natural Heritage Program were assessed on
ITT West Fork Deep River Page 9 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
June 5, 2008, and this review did not any occurrence of small-anthered bittercress within one (1)
miles of the proposed project. The drainage requirements are not meet to support the small-
40 anthered bittercress, therefore, implementation of the stream restoration project will have no
effect on the small-anthered bittercress.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long,
pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem 9.5 to 25 centimeters (cm) tall terminating in a whorl
of 5 or 6 light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and measure up to 8 by 4 cm. A
flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of the stem. Flowering occurs from
about mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or so.
In North Carolina, this species is typically found in montane oak-hickory or acidic cove forests.
The understory structure and composition of occupied sites can be quite variable, ranging from
dense rhododendron thickets to open/sparse shrub and sub-shrub strata. Herbaceous cover tends
to be sparse, however at least two sites are characterized by fairly dense stands of New York fern
(Thelypteris noveboracensis). Sites currently or historically known to support small whorled
pogonia have elevations that range from 2000 to 4000 feet.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Elevations within and along reaches within the PSA were from 850-900 feet above sea level.
Habitat for the small whorled pogonia consists of montane oak-hickory or acidic cove forest at
elevations ranging from 2000-4000 feet. No habitat for the small whorled pogonia was found
along the project study area. The field assessment occurred in late April, 2008 which is not in the
official flowering period for this specie. Terrestrial communities located on the restoration site are
remnant bottomland hardwood forest and disturbed/pasture. No individuals were encountered
• during the site assessment. Additionally, North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (NCCGIA) GIS Natural Heritage Element Occurrence layers were queried for federally
listed species in the PSA. No occurrences of individuals or population occurrences of Small
whorled pogonia were found (NCCGIA 2006). Implementation of the stream restoration project
will have no effect on the small whorled pogonia.
The USFWS list for Forsyth County notes existence of the bog turtle in the county. The USFWS
lists the bog turtle as threatened due to is similarity of appearance. The bog turtle is not afforded
any federal protection under the ESA. The following description of the bog turtle, and a
summary of its potential presence in the project study area is noted.
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergia) Bog turtles are 3 to 4 'h inches in length and range in color
from light brown to ebony. This turtle has a conspicuous bright orange, yellow or red blotch
found on each side of the head. The bog turtle is typically found in mossy, bogs and marshy
meadows, and small wetlands along creeks (NCNHP, 2006). The project study area is comprised
of fragmented riparian forest, roadside/disturbed land, and former agricultural land.
Bog turtles inhabit slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens,
marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub swamps; the habitat
usually contains an abundance of sedges or mossy cover. The turtles depend on a mosaic of
microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter (USFWS 2000).
"Unfragmented riparian systems that are sufficiently dynamic to allow the natural creation of
open habitat are needed to compensate for ecological succession" (USFWS 2000). Beaver, deer,
and cattle may be instrumental in maintaining the essential open-canopy wetlands (USFWS
• 2000).
UT West Fork Deep River Page 10 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
Habitat for this turtle includes bogs, marshy meadows, and wetland areas along creeks. In the
is project study area, there were no wetland habitat areas and no individuals were encountered
during the site assessment. Additionally, North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (NCCGIA) GIS Natural Heritage Element Occurrence layers were queried for federally
listed species in the PSA. No occurrences of individuals or population occurrences of bog turtle
were found (NCCGIA 2006).
2.6 Cultural Resources
The NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was
contacted by postal mail on May 27, 2008 concerning the proposed stream restoration project.
SHPO replied, in a letter dated June 11, 2008, that `no historic resources would be affected by the
project'. SHPO had no comment on the project as a whole.
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
No specific constraints pertinent to the proposed restoration exist due to the landowners'
cooperation with the restoration occurring on their property. There are five landowners along the
project, and Duke Power has a transmission line across the Main Stem (Reach 2), UT-A and UT-
B. There is a power line crossing along UT-D on the Royle Tract, but this section of UT-D is
located upstream of the area planned for restoration.
The Main Stem, including Reach 1, 2a and 2b, flows through land owned by each of the five
• landowners. UT-A and UT-13 lie on the Jerry Ring Tract. UT-C and UT-D lie on the Royle
Tract. Ecosystem Enhancement Program acquired the conservation easements on all of the tracts
except the Royle Tract. This conservation easement was acquired by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
The Royle Tract contains a conservation easement on the entire tract in addition to the
Conservation Easement acquired by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The other
easement is administered by the Piedmont Land Conservancy. Other features on the Royle Tract
include: a ford crossing of UTWF in Reach 2b; a ditch which empties into UT-D; a pipe
crossing/gravel road at the beginning of UT-C and UT-D as it enters the Royle Tract; a power
line at the at the beginning of UT-D; and a pedestrian crossing within Main Steam - Reach 2b.
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 11 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
Table 5 notes the landowner name, its tract deed book, the stream(s) on the tract and the proposed
• restoration for the tract.
Table 5: Property Owners and Associated Streams with Proposed Mitigation Type

Property Owner Deed Book -
Deed Page
Stream Reach Proposed
Mitigation Type

Ring, Jerry P.
1347-1076 Main Stem - Reach 2a
(upper 163 ft of reach)
Restoration
Main Stem - Reach 1 Preservation
UT-A and UT-13 Enhancement I

Ro le, Rafe
2945-0010 Main Stem - Reach 2a
(lower 137 ft of reach),
Restoration
Main Stem - Reach 2b, Restoration
UT-D Restoration
UT-C Enhancement I
Ring, Alvin E. 944-125 Main Stem- Reach 1 Preservation
Glidewell, Martha A. 1992-165 Main Stem- Reach 1 Preservation
Matthews, Ann R. 1347-1070 Main Stem- Reach 1 Preservation
2.7.2 Site Access
Only one construction traffic entryway point exists onto the stream restoration site. The entryway
exists at the Royle tract. The 20 feet wide ingress, egress, and regress permanent easement is
located approximately 100 feet north of the power-line easement off of Squire Davis Road. The
easement leads to the temporary construction easement just east of UT-C. Numerous large
• hardwood trees line the top-of-bank on the main stem of UTWF, and stream restoration plan for
the project involved a design that minimized impacts to trees.
EEP has contacted Duke Energy regarding access within its easement to implement stream
restoration on UT-A and UT-B. This access for construction would be gained from Rougemount
Lane.
2.7.3 Utilities
There are utilities located with the project study limits of UTWF stream restoration project:
power transmission lines and sanitary sewer line. The power line easement is located within the
project boundaries, and early coordination with Duke Power has been implemented to ensure
project success. EEP has coordinated right of entry access with Duke Power.
The existing transmission line limits vegetative plan restoration. Duke Power has website that
includes its preferred list of trees species to be planted its right of ways. Species on Duke Power
list are those that are low growing and involve minimal maintenance.
The species from the Duke Power list that were native to NC have been incorporated into the
planting plan for the project. EEP provided a list of additional species to Duke Power that EEP
would like to have included within the transmission line areas.
Additionally, EEP has plans to discuss other utility challenges with Duke Power. These include:
right of entry to replace the pipe located on UT-C as well as access to temporary access across the
power line right of way for UT-C as well as UT-A and UT-B. For UT-A and UT-B, a right of
UT West Fork Deep River Page 12 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
entry is sought from the right of way opposite of the Royle Tract, off of Rougemount Lane in
Forsyth County.
• A sanitary sewer line runs perpendicular to the main stem of UTWF, and it is located on the
Glidewell Tract. The proposed restoration plan for the project does not involve any adjustments
to the stream. There will be vegetative enhancement on the Glidewell Tract. The sewer line is
noted for information purposes only.
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trespass
The UT West Fork Deep River stream restoration project lies within a Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) flood zone. The project site appears on DFIRM Map Number
3710689400J, and the drainage is named Knight Road Branch. The upstream half of the site is
located in Forsyth County and is within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone AE that
includes base flood elevations and a floodway. The downstream half is located in Guilford
County within SFHA Zone AE that includes base flood elevations, but this section of the project
does not include a floodway.
The proposed restoration plan proposes no changes (pattern, dimension or profile) to the Main
Stem - Reach 1 which is primarily located in Forsyth County (Alvin Ring Tract, Glidewell Tract
and Matthews Tract). There is small portion of the Main Stem - Reach 1 that is located in
Guilford County on the Jerry Ring Tract. Therefore, no floodplain modifications are required for
Forsyth County.
A small segment of Main Stem - Reach 1 and all of Main Stem - Reach 2 as well as all of the
tributaries are located in Guilford Counties. The project will affect the FENIA flood zone in this
• county.
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey
The existing land use within proposed project study for the five land tracts varies. For the Jerry
Ring tract, Alvin Ring tract, Glidewell tract and Matthews tract, the predominant condition is a
forested floodplain except for areas transversed by the Duke Energy transmission line. The Royle
tract is currently managed for agriculture.
An ecological resource inventory was conducted for the project, and an existing condition survey
for the streams was performed. All of the drainages within the project study area were evaluated
using stream guidance from the NC Division Water Quality (Identification Methods for the
Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams). SEPI graded out all of the drainages on the tract,
and based on the NCDWQ rating system, the drainages were determined to be jurisdictional
streams. Streams identified as Main Stem UTWF (Reach 1, 2a and 2b), UT-A, UT-B and UT-D
were determined to be perennial, and UT-C was determined to be an intermittent channel which
the US Army Corps of Engineers would require compensatory mitigation (i.e., important channel)
if impacted by a development project. The NCDWQ rating sheets for these drainages are
included in Appendix 3.
The project was reviewed for the presence/absence of wetlands on the tracts during the ecological
resources inventory. The review noted that there are no existing wetlands on any of the tracts.
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 13 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
An extensive, intact riparian buffer was noted for Main Stem - Reach 1, and a limited buffer was
noted along Main Stem - Reach 2a & 2b as well as UT-C and UT-D. The buffer in Main Stem -
• Reach 1 included several invasive, exotic species. A vegetative buffer exists in areas along
sections of UT-A and UT-B. There is a Duke Power powerline along UT-A and UT-B.
Generally speaking, stream reaches Main Stem - Reach 2a, 2b, UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D
lacked habitat for fish and invertebrate organisms. The stream channel is not passing sediment as
it should, and sediment deposits were noted in the stream reaches.
The majority of the stream assessed for restoration treatment occurred on the Royle Tract,
including the lower portion of Main Stem - Reach 2a, Main Stem-Reach 2b, UT-C and UT-D.
The remaining stream survey occurred on the Jerry Ring Tract which includes the upper portion
of Main Stem-Reach 2a, as well as UT-A and UT-B.
A review of the conservation easements was performed to determine whether the project streams
had been relocated. There is no direct evidence that Reach 1, Reach 2 (a or b), UT-A, UT-B, UT-
C or UT-D have been moved as there are no discernable relic channels within the acquired
conservation easements
Other features were noted during the existing condition survey. These features include the two
pipe crossings, with one pipe located on UT-C as it enters the Royle Tract and one on UT-D as it
enters the Royle Tract. Only the pipe crossing on UT-C will be replaced as part of the restoration
project.
A ford crossing and a pedestrian crossing were also noted on Main Stem - Reach 2b within Royle
• Tract. The ford crossing will moved to the upper portion of Main Stem - Reach 2b, and the
pedestrian crossing will be replaced just upstream of the existing ford crossing.
3.2 Channel Classification
The existing channel conditions for stream reaches associated with the UTWF restoration plan are
summarized as follows:
Table 6. Summary of Existing Stream Channel Classification per Stream Reach
Stream Reach Existing Length Rosgen Classification
Main Stem - Reach 2a 363 feet E5/ F5
Main Stem - Reach 2b 1,669 feet E5/ G5c
UT-A 382 feet G5
UT-13 427 feet G5/E5
UT-C 181 feet E5
UT-D 373 feet E5
Note: stream length reflects measurement along stream thalweg.
Although portions of the Main Stem-Reach 2a and 2b, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D classify as an E
channel, they are unstable and experiencing bank erosion. They have significantly high bank
height ratios, allowing for large flow events to be contained within the streambanks. This lack of
access to a floodplain causes increased shear stress on the stream bed and banks.
r1
UT West Fork Deep River Page 14 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
0 3.3 Valley Classification
The project site is located in an alluvial valley. Prior to incision of the main stem and tributaries,
the channels may have meandered across the floodplain moderately, as there is some slope within
the valley that is confining.
3.4 Discharge (bankfull, trends)
The discharges for Main Stem - Reach 2, as well as UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D, were
calculated using three different methods or equations. The methods and equations used were
Manning's equation, field identified bankfull indicators and verified bankfull indicators.
Verification was completed using the North Carolina Piedmont (Rural) Regional Curves.
Manning's Equation calculates the flow discharge (Q) that the existing channel can handle based
on a Manning's roughness coefficient, the cross-sectional area, hydraulic radius, and slope of the
channel. When using this equation the flow within the riffle sections of the stream is evaluated.
The bankfull elevation was determined based on indicators that were surveyed in the field during
the existing condition survey. The cross sectional area at bankfull was used with an
approximated and appropriate bankfull velocity to estimate discharge. The regional curves were
used to verify bankfull discharge. The regional curves are based on field data collected from
gauged streams of varying drainage area sizes and are specific to a particular hydrophysiographic
region. They relate the watershed drainage area of a stream to the cross-sectional bankfull area,
• discharge, width and depth of a channel. The bank full cross sectional area, as determined by the
filed indicators, fell very close to the regression line on the regional curve, and well within the
confidence limits.
3.5 Channel Morphology ( pattern, dimension, profile )
Main Stem -Reach 2 of UTWF lies within a moderately wide, alluvial valley. The tributaries to
UTWF are slightly more confined due to the present topography. None of the project reaches are
frequently accessing their historical floodplains. The lack of floodplain access is due to
significant incision that has occurred. The described valley type supports the presence of Rosgen
C/E or Bc stream type for the Main Stem, and the valley supports a Rosgen E or B channel for the
associated tributaries (UT-A, UT-B, UT-C, and UT-D). The existing channels in the project study
area are classified as degraded E, G, and F stream types. The proposed design for the Main Stem-
Reach 2 and UT-D is an E and/or Bc stream type. The suggested design will create a stabilized E
stream type for UT-A, UT-B, and UT-C.
The upper section of Main Stem - Reach 2 has developed some sinuosity (Station No. 10+00 to
13+00). Therefore, this reach is has been differentiated as Main Stem - Reach 2a. The bank
height ratios range from 1.3 to 2.5, and the width to depth ratio ranges from 7.8 to 12.2. The
existing stream type is E/F, and the targeted stream type is an E.
The remaining stretch of Main Stem - Reach 2, referred to as Reach 2b, has relatively low
sinuosity as measured from the top of bank; however, within the high, eroding banks, the stream
meanders at low flow as it continues to deposit sediment on alternating point bars and mid-
channel depositional features. The bank height ratios within Main Stem - Reach 2b range from
2.0 to 2.2, and the width/depth ratio ranges from 8.0 to 12.3. Due to the aggradation that has
. occurred within the project reach of Reach 2b, the average slope of the channel has decreased and
UT West Fork Deep River Page 15 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
reduced the ability of the channel to convey the suspended and bed load being supplied by
upstream. The existing stream type is E/G, and the targeted stream type is a Be.
• The un-named tributary (UT-D), that flows into the lower portion of Main Stem - Reach 2b, has
also incised. This stream has an excessive channel slope that is continuing to cause incision
within the study area of this reach. At one point the tributary flows sub-surface and re-emerges
before flowing into UT West Fork at the confluence. The cross-sectional area of this channel
ranges from 6.4 to 6.6. The bank height ratio ranges from 1.3 to 2.9. This channel does not have
much sinuosity, and, due to the slope, this stream would not be a meandering channel in a stable
state. It was determined that a step-pool channel would be appropriate for the valley slope and
level of confinement for this stream.
UT-A and UT-B flow into the upper portion of Main Stem - Reach 2a, while UT-C has its
confluence with UTWF in the upper portion of Main Stem - Reach 2b. These streams are
incised, eroding and unstable. UT-A and UT-B have high bank height ratios with the bank height
ratios for UT-A ranging from 3.4 to 3.7, and those for UT-B range 2.7 to 3.4. The bank height
ratios for UT-C are not as high, and these range from 1.4 to 1.8. These tributaries lack much bed
diversity in the form of pools and riffles. Nick points or head-cuts are present in these reaches.
These channels have low sinuosity and are very small channels.
3.6 Channel Evolution
Main Stem - Reach 2 is currently in an aggradational phase of channel evolution. The channel
has previously incised, possibly due to increased flow from adjacent development, agricultural
practices; or, it is possible that the increased slope is due to re-alignments in the past. Following
the initial incision, the streambanks have eroded to a point where the channel is too wide to
• generate the necessary depth (and associated shear stress) to move the suspended and bed
material being supplied from upstream of the subject project. As a consequence of this inability
to move sediment through the stream, there is a significant amount of aggradation in the Main
Stem - Reach 2. This aggradation has caused the slope to decrease, and overtime, the channel
will use this material to form benches and bars, creating a floodplain at it current elevation. A
considerable amount of material will need to be deposited to create this floodplain. The negative
impacts to aquatic habitat, water quality and downstream sediment transport will continue until
this reach is stabilized/ restored to a stable dimension, pattern, and profile. It is possible to
eliminate these long term, negative effects by restoring the stream to its endpoint classification in
the stream evolutionary sequence. In this scenario, the stream classification type for Reach 2
would either be a C/E or Be depending on the slope of the stream and sinuosity.
The channel evolution of UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D involves the adjustment from a Rosgen
C or E to G to F to C/E or Be stream type. Currently, the tributaries are at varying stages of this
process. The goal of the stream restoration project is to stabilize these stream reaches by creating
a floodplain for each of the tributaries and stabilize the channel as either a C/E or Be stream type
at the current elevation.
3.7 Channel Stability Assessment
The data collected during the existing conditions survey of the Main Stem channel shows that the
channel is vertically and laterally unstable. The influx of sediment (sand) coming into the system
constantly changes the streambed elevation and has caused a lack of bed variability necessary for
stability and in-stream habitat. The streambanks are unstable due to the erosive forces created by
the active channel carrying a greater than bankfull discharge.
r?
UT West Fork Deep River Page 16 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
From the data collected for the bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio, all of the project study
• channels are vertically unstable. The Bank Height Ratio (BHR) ranged from: 1.3 to 2.5 from
Main Stem - Reach 2a and from 2.0 to 2.2 for Main Stem - Reach 2b. For the tributary
drainages, the BHR ranged from 3.4 to 3.7 for UT-A, from 2.7 to 3.4 for UT-B, from for UT-C,
and from 1.3 to 2.9 for UT-D.
•
•
The Entrenchment Ratio (ER) ranged from 1.2 to 2.9 along Main Stem - Reach 2a and from 1.2
to 1.9 for Main Stem - Reach 2b. Entrenchment was fairly constant on UT-A with a ratio of 1.5.
The Entrenchment Ratio (ER) ranged from 1.4 to 2.6 along the UT-B, 10 to greater than 13 on
UT-C, and 2.2 to greater than 12.5 on UT-D.
The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) was calculated at each cross section along Main Stem -
Reach 2 and each tributary during the existing conditions survey. The BEHI results are presented
in Table 7 below. Bank Erosion Potential (BEP) ranged from Moderate to Very High along the
Main Stem-Reach 2, was only from High along UT-A and UT-B, and ranged from Moderate to
High on UT-C and UT-D. In several locations, the streambanks along the site are actively
eroding.
Table 7. Summary of BEHUNBS
Cross-Section # Reach BEHI Results EP NBS Results
1 Main Stem - Reach 2a Moderate High
2 UT-A High Extreme
3 UT-A High Extreme
4 UT-B High Extreme
5 UT-B High High
6 Main Stem - Reach 2a High Extreme
7 UT-C Moderate Very High
8 UT-C High Very High
9 Main Stem - Reach 2b Very High Extreme
10 Main Stem - Reach 2b Moderate Very High
11 Main Stem - Reach 2b High Very High
12 UT-D Moderate Moderate
13 UT-D High Extreme
3.8 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull was determined in the field using field indicators such as benches, scour lines, and
erosion and depositional patterns Bankfull data was cross-checked against the North Carolina
Rural Piedmont regional curve data to ensure consistency (Harman et al. 1999). The bankfull
cross sectional area that was calculated from the survey data fell within the confidence limits on
the regional curve, and very close to the regression line.
3.9 Vegetation Community Type(s) Descriptions and Disturbance History
Vegetative terrestrial communities in the project study area were distinguished by plant species,
location in the landscape, past disturbances and hydrologic characteristics. For the purpose of
this restoration plan, only habitats located directly within the project study area are summarized.
UT West Fork Deep River Page 17 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
Based on the field review, there are two different community types likely to be impacted by the
proposed stream restoration project. These community types include: Remnant Bottomland
• Hardwood and Disturbed/Pasture land.
The remnant bottomland hardwood community resides along the banks of Main Stem - Reach
1. This community existed within the 30-50' buffer of the stream that had not been disturbed by
livestock grazing and mowing. The following flora was observed in this community type within
the project study area: beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Lioriodendron tulipifera), sweet
gum (Liquidambar styracuflua), river birch (Betula nigra), white oak (Quercus alba), red oak
(Quercus rubra), hickory (Carya glabra), maple (Acer rubrum), dogwood (Cornus florida), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
The disturbed/pasture land community type dominates the project study mostly in the southern
reaches (i.e., Main Stem - Reaches 2a and 2b), influencing UT-C and UT-D, and includes the
power line right of way affecting UT-A and UT-B. This community contains mowed and
maintained pasture land for cattle raised on the Royle Tract. Vegetation within the power line
right of ways varies in its successional state. On the Royle Tract, the vegetation is maintained in
an herbaceous state, whereas on the other tracts vegetation is irregularly maintained.
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Two reference reach streams were identified as being appropriate for restoration comparison and
modeling purposes to use in the stream restoration for UTWF project. These reference reaches
were utilized for this study due to environmental similarity between the proposed UTWF
restoration reach sites and the reference stream sites. These two reference streams are UT Polecat
• Creek, located in Randolph County, NC and northeast of the town of Randleman, and Fork
Creek, also located in Randolph County.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
The reference reach streams used are located within the Piedmont physiographic region of NC.
These reference streams were similar in watershed, annual rainfall, and elevation range including
valley type characteristics. The first reference reach, UT Polecat Creek (Figure 5(a)), is located in
a rural landscape with a drainage area of 0.4 mil. The second reference reach, Fork Creek (Figure
(5b), is also located in a rural setting with a drainage area of 2.2 mil.
4.2 Channel Classification
A Rosgen Level II Classification was performed on each of the reference streams. Results of this
classification revealed that UT Polecat Creek exhibits a B4c stream type, while Fork Creek was
classified as an E4 stream type.
4.3 Discharge (bankfull, trends)
Bankfull was readily identified on each of these two reference streams as they exhibited
consistent indicators throughout the reaches. Verification of the bankfull was accomplished by
plotting the bankfull cross sectional area for each reach against the regional curve data (Harman
et al. 1999).
After verification of the bankfull cross sectional area, the bankfull discharge was calculated for
each surveyed reach using a single-section analysis. Manning's `n' was estimated from relative
UT West Fork Deep River Page 18 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
roughness calculations of the bed material and from observation of the channel flow conditions.
Water surface slope was assumed to be consistent with the slope of the bed profile. Discharges
• were then plotted against a graph of the regional curve data. The graphing of the data indicated
that the calculated bankfull discharges were consistent with the regional curve data.
4.4 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)
Reference reach streams were chosen to reflect design parameters for the proposed stream
restoration. Reference reaches were analyzed for morphological characteristics (see Reference
Reach and Design Data Tables at the end of Section 10).
Results of this analysis reveal that UT Polecat Creek is a meandering channel in a moderately
confined valley with a well-developed floodplain. The second reference reach, Fork Creek, is a
low-sinuosity stream in a moderately sloped colluvial valley. Both of these streams exhibit bed
slope, channel material and valley form that are consistent with the optimal design criteria for
UTWF and its tributaries.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
No detailed channel stability assessment was performed due to the obvious stability of the based
and banks of the reference reach streams. Upon completion of the existing condition stream
survey at each reference reach, it was found that width-depth and bank height ratios were
appropriate for self maintaining, stable streams. A reconnaissance was preformed up and
downstream to find any sources of past or present degradation. No degradation was found,
additionally significant bedrock features were encountered in the surveyed reaches beyond the
. reference reach boundaries.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull was determined in the field using field indicators such as benches, scour lines, and
erosional and depositional patterns. Bankfull data was cross-checked with the regional curve data
(Harman et al 1999), field surveyed bankfull was consistent with the regional curve data.
4.7 Vegetation Community Type(s) Descriptions and Disturbance History
A mature Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) exists at both reference reaches
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). Canopy species of this subtype observed included American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), red oak (Quercus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), and tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Dominant shrub species included beech (Fagus grandifolia),
holly (Ilex opaca), privet (Ligustrum sinense), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata). Herb, vine and sub-
canopy species included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), and running cedar (Lycopodium clavatum).
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Stream Design Notes
The stream design process for the Main Stem of UTWF, including Reach 1, Reach 2a, and Reach
2b, along with UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D was comprehensive in its approach. At the request
• of EEP, it was determined that the restoration treatment to be applied to Main Stem - Reach 1
UT West Fork Deep River Page 19 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
would be preservation with vegetative enhancement to remove exotics. Reach 1 is forested, and
the riparian buffer is extensive in some portions (greater than 50 feet).
• Reach 1 is currently in a widening and aggradational phase of its evolution (Rosgen F
classification). The widening and aggradation of the channel has resulted in large trees falling
into the channel. There appears to be no ongoing incision of the bed within Reach 1 or the stream
area just upstream of Reach 1. Channel evolution is not always a linear process, and, as large
trees continue to fall into the channel, additional instability of Reach 1 is expected to occur due to
excessive widening, debris jams, and additional sediment input. A high fine sediment load from
the eroding banks is present throughout Reach 1, and this sediment load is also coming from
upstream of Reach 1. There are likely various sources of sediment in the watershed as many
reaches of this stream and its tributaries are likely to be degraded. Reach 1 is in worse shape than
Reach 2 due to very high eroding banks, large undermined trees, and erratic depositional features.
It is anticipated that sediment sources in Reach 1, along with other unknown upstream sources,
will continue to provide an excessive fine sediment load to Reach 2 and may overwhelm the
channel post-restoration, which may result in instability.
The Randleman buffer rules include two zones with 0 to 30 feet from top of bank (known as Zone
1) being a `no' touch zone, and 30 to 50 feet from stream's top of bank (know as Zone 2) to have
limited development, including the potential conversion of forested vegetation to herbaceous
vegetation. If the extensive buffer area is not protected through EEP's conservation easement, the
stream bank erosion in this reach would likely be accelerated. The vegetative enhancement will
involve removal of several invasive species that exist in the buffer, and this restoration approach
is defined as Preservation. It is necessary to note, however, that the existence of the buffer alone
will not stabilize this reach and the addition of the large trees into the channel as the banks fail
0 will create additional problems throughout this reach.
There are additional benefits to preserving the extensive buffer associated with Main Stem -
Reach 1. This preservation area provides a wildlife corridor as well as coverage for shelter and to
forage. In combination with Main Stem - Reach 2, there is over a mile of riparian buffer along
UT West Fork Deep River.
Also, the preservation of the additional buffer along Main Stem - Reach 1 ensures that a riparian
buffer will exist after Main Stem - Reach 1 stabilizes itself to its channel evolution endpoint,
whether that is a Rosgen C or E channel. A 50-foot buffer will be ensured to exist, and this buffer
will assist in future stability of Main Stem - Reach 2.
For Main Stem - Reach 2, the channel currently provides very little aquatic habitat and is not
adequately transporting the sediment load supplied from upstream of the project. The design
includes adjusting the plan view of the channel, creating riffles and pools in the profile, as well as
increasing the overall slope to transport the appropriate sediment size/load, and constructing a
channel dimension that will provide for better sediment transport through the inclusion of a multi-
stage channel. By providing an inner berm feature in the design, the stream will be allowed to
deposit material as necessary on the benches without filling in the thalweg of the channel features
(i.e., pools). The inner berm also allows for the channel to naturally narrow over time as
vegetation is established on the benches.
Main Stem - Reach 2 is being designed as two different stream types. The upper reach (i.e., Main
Stem - Reach 2a) has a proposed length of 300 linear feet with a Priority 2 restoration approach.
Main Stem - Reach 2a is designed as an E4 channel with moderate sinuosity and a high
is width/depth ratio that will narrow over time. This alternative was chosen to allow for the
UT West Fork Deep River Page 20 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
construction of the critical depth for sediment transport. Designing a C type channel would have
• resulted in a shallower and wider channel that would not move the excessive amounts of fine
material being supplied by upstream erosion and overland runoff. An E channel with a high
width to depth ratio was used to allow for a less risky bank slope to be constructed as well. The
stream design treatment for Main Stem - Reach 2a is defined as "Restoration".
The remainder of Main Stem - Reach 2 (i.e., Main Stem - Reach 2b) has a proposed length of
1,528 linear feet with a Priority 2 restoration approach. Main Stem - Reach 2b will be
constructed as a Bc4 channel using step-pools to dissipate energy rather than meander bends.
This design was chosen to work with the existing pattern as much as possible, minimize excessive
grading of the very high terrace, and provide for the overall slope necessary to generate the
required shear stress for sediment transport. The stream design treatment for Main Stem - Reach
2b is defined as "Restoration".
The proposed ford crossing will be located at Station 14+20 along Main Stem - Reach 2b. This
location was chosen because there is a flatter approach for a vehicle at this crossing compared to
the current ford location. In addition, the ford needed to be located over a proposed riffle.
It is anticipated that Main Stem - Reach 2a and 2b will continue to experience a high sediment
load issue even after its restoration. The channel treatment and design for Main Stem - Reach 2a
and 2b includes risk management for this continual sediment load, including the incorporation of
an inner berm feature and bankfull benches. These features may or may not prove to be an
adequate measure to alleviate the effects of the large sediment deposits that will occur during
moderate to high flow events. Stream restoration treatments further upstream in the watershed
would further reduce the risk of failure for the stream work in Main Stem - Reach 2a and 2b.
For UT-A and UT-B, these channels are deeply incised with steep banks (over 1:1 slope in all
areas and the stream banks were vertical in many areas). The stream banks of these two
drainages are wasting material into these channels, and ultimately UTWF Deep River, thereby
degrading the water quality of the receiving streams. There are also head cuts present along these
channels that need to be stabilized to avoid further incision, and, consequently, reduce the
potential for additional bank erosion. The stream treatment for UT-A and UT-B is defined as
"Enhancement Level P" restoration treatment. Bankfull benches will be created at the appropriate
elevations to give these channels an E-type channel dimension. The proposed linear footage for
both of these channels will not change from the existing footage, 382 linear feet and 427 linear
feet for UT-A and UT-B, respectively. Additionally, buffer vegetation appropriate for the Duke
Power transmission right of way will be planted, and these plantings will assist in providing
stability for the stream channel.
UT-C has several trees along the channel itself, but there is no an extensive buffer as UT-C is
located in pasture. The trees that line UT-C are potentially preventing the channel from widening
itself and eroding additional material into the receiving waters. Therefore, the design decision
was made to stabilize the potential locations for headcuts and grade incised banks in areas that
would minimize disturbance of the existing buffer yet achievea stable stream reach. An
"Enhancement Level I" restoration treatment will be applied to UT-C with a proposed E-type
channel classification. The proposed linear footage for UT-C will not change from the existing
footage (i.e., 181 linear feet).
UT-D is an incised tributary that has bank erosion, on-going channel degradation and locations
where the baseflow is subsurface. Without stabilizing this channel, UT-D will continue to
• degrade the bed and banks. There is no buffer of significance along this channel, so the design
UT West Fork Deep River Page 21 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
approach recommended is a Priority 2/3 restoration which will result in improved pattern,
• dimension, profile, grade control, habitat and decreased erosion rates. UT-D has a proposed
stream length of 373 linear feet and the target stream classification of Bc. The stream design
treatment for UT-D is defined as "Restoration".
Old stream channels, abandoned due to project construction, will be backfilled. Backfilling the
abandoned channel will reduce the amount of waste material. In addition, Mr. Royle has agreed
to allow the contractor to waste excess material on this property. The excess material from
project construction will be placed outside of the FEMA area on the Royle Tract.
5.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
There are several project goals and objectives that are applicable to all of the stream reaches.
These goals and objectives are to:
• Improve water quality by:
o providing stable pattern, dimension and profile to pass appropriate storm events
and their sediment;
o incorporating appropriate slopes on the stream banks to reduce erosion and
sedimentation;
o planting a diverse riparian vegetation for the uptake of nutrients for Main Stem -
Reach 2a, Main Stem - Reach 2b, UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D and
appropriate vegetation in the Duke Power transmission line;
• o installing a stormwater best management practice (level spreader) to eliminate
the direct conduit (drainage ditch) of nutrients into UT-D and Main Stem -
Reach 2b; and,
o providing appropriate stream crossings on the Royle Tract (ford crossing on
Main Stem - Reach 2b, pedestrian crossing on Main Stem - Reach 2b and pipe
replacement on UT-C);
• Provide flood storage by laying the stream banks back and providing greater access to a
floodplain for Main Stem - Reach 2a, Main Stem - Reach 2b, UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and
UT-D
• Improve habitat for fish and invertebrate species by:
o including in-stream structures that promote and maintain pools; and,
o incorporating appropriate slopes on the stream banks to reduce bank erosion and
associated direct influxes of fine sediments as well as to allow for vegetation to
provide shade and cover;
• Provide an enhanced riparian buffer for Main Stem - Reach 1 by removing the exotic,
invasive vegetation from the buffer.
The Main Stem - Reach 2 of UTWF and its tributaries are currently unstable due to previous
incision, widening and current aggradation. The channels do not provide adequate in-stream
habitat due to a lack of pools and riffles. On the Main Stem - Reach 2, the slope is too low to
transport the large amount of fine material entering the reach from upstream erosion and overland
flow from construction sites. The goals of restoring Main Stem - Reach 2 include creating a
stable channel that will transport the sediment being supplied by incorporating a inner berm
UT West Fork Deep River Page 22 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
feature and a bankfull bench for flood storage and to decrease bank stress during high flows;
• maintain riffles and pools; and to provide storage for additional sediment on the bars and benches
that will be constructed. Also, the buffer will be vegetated with appropriate native species to
assist in bank stability and provide shade and organic material.
The tributaries, identified as UT-A, UT-B and UT-C, will also be stabilized by creating
floodplains for them to access at their current bed elevation. This restoration will reduce erosion
and provide a location for planting vegetation to increase bank stability. Also, in-stream grade
control structures (sills and vanes) will be used to arrest current headcuts and the incision that is
currently taking place.
UT-D will be restored to a Bc stream type. Project implementation will include planting riparian
vegetation and installing grade control structures will be used throughout to prevent further
incision and to provide improved pool habitat. The dimension will be adjusted by grading a
bankfull bench and adjusting the plan view of the channel to remove overly tight meander bends.
5.2.1 Designed Channel Classification
The existing Rosgen stream classification of the Main Stem varies from an E, G, and F type
channel. The channel classification is dependent on the degree of incision and the amount of
widening/erosion that has occurred.
The tributaries classify as a Rosgen G or E, depending on the amount of incision that has
occurred.
The Main Stem - Reach 2a has been designed to classify a Rosgen E while Main Stem - Reach
• 2b has been designed to classify a Rosgen Bc channel. A Rosgen E type has been designed for
UT-A, UT-B, and UT-C. UT-D has been designed to classify as a Rosgen Bc post-restoration.
5.2.2 Target Buffer Communities
The restoration plan for UT West Fork Deep River includes riparian plantings along the Main
Stem and identified tributaries. Two buffer communities are planned for the project and include
native bottomland hardwood species and low growing shrubs for the power line areas. The list of
bottomland hardwood species to be planted on the tract is found in Table 7.
Duke Power has a website dedicated to its list of preferred plant species to be planted within its
right of ways. However, this list includes a majority of species that are `exotic' (i.e., not native to
NC). The species from the Duke Power list that are native to NC are included in Table 8, and
Duke Power was contacted regarding its willingness to plant the species noted with an asterisk.
5.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
5.3.1 Methodolou
The Main Stem - Reach 2 and its tributaries are currently classified as sand bed channels;
however, these streams would be gravel bed channels under stable conditions. Sediment
transport and stream power were analyzed for the existing and proposed stream conditions.
A gravel bed section upstream of Main Stem - Reach 2 was used as the (sediment supply)
reference condition. Pavement and Sub-pavement samples were taken from the upstream supply
• reach as well as in the upper portion of the restoration reach to determine the necessary depth and
slope for adequate transport of bed material.
UT West Fork Deep River Page 23 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
• 5.3.2 Calculations and Discussion
Main Stem - Reach 2
The existing stream channel and design data were used to calculate the required shear stress to
move the gravel sized material present in UT West Fork Deep River just upstream of Main Stem
- Reach 2. Having adequate power to move this larger material will allow the restored stream
reach to move the gravels and supply the downstream riffles with the larger material. The
existing slope of the channel within Main Stem - Reach 2 is not adequate to transport the
necessary material; therefore, the stream design included steepening the average channel slope.
The steepening of the average slope required cutting into some of the aggraded channel material
at the lower end of the project reach. It is important however, not to exceed the threshold values
for slope and depth as the result will be the occurrence of incision in the project reach.
Currently, some of the coarse grain size material is being transported into the first few riffles
within Main Stem - Reach 2. However, once the stream power decreases enough due to lower
slope and higher channel width, the larger grain sized bed material is no longer mobile. The
design goal was to increase the shear stress at bankfull slightly thereby increasing stream power
so that the coarser (gravel) material could travel through the restored reach. The current
aggradational state of the channel would eventually result in bar formation and a narrower
bankfull channel, yet the negative impacts to water quality would continue until the channel
stabilized.
UT-D
UT-D is a first order tributary to the Unnamed Tributary to West Fork Deep River. UT-D flows
into the Main Stem - Reach 2b towards the lower end of restoration project. This channel is
actively incising. It was a goal in the design to lower the shear stress and provide adequate grade
control to prevent further incision. By increasing the channel bankfull width, decreasing the
depth, and maintaining the existing slope, the stream power was decreased. The particle sizes
assumed to be mobile during bankfull flow are included in the following table. Due to the
constraints of not being able to alter the beginning or ending elevations of UT-D, as well as the
valley slope and width not being suitable to a meandering channel, a Rosgen B stream type was
chosen for the design to provide adequate step-pool structures to maintain stability of the channel
profile.
The local threshold grain size mobilized at bankfull discharge was computed for the Main Stem -
Reach and for UT-D for existing and proposed conditions. The list below summarizes the results
of the computations:
Table 8. Summarv of Shear Stress Comuutations for Main Stem - Reach 2 and ITT-D
•
Shear Stress bs/ftZ Threshold Diameter (mm)
Main Stem - Reach 2
Existing (riffle) 0.33 15
Proposed (riffle) 0.42 24
UT-D
Existing (riffle) 0.5 30
Proposed riffle 0.4 20
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 24 of 33
February 2009
5.4 HEC-RAS Analysis
• 5.4.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR
The UT West Fork Deep River stream restoration site lies within a FEMA flood zone. Main
Stem - Reach 1 lies entirely in Forysth County with a small segment in Guilford County. Main
Stem - Reach 2 and its tributaries are located within the Guilford County and located within
SFHA Zone AE that includes base flood elevations, but this section of the project does not
include a floodway.
The proposed restoration plan proposes no changes (pattern, dimension or profile) to the Forsyth
County portion of Knight Road Branch on the Alvin Ring Tract, Glidewell Tract and Matthews
Tract. Therefore, no floodplain modifications are required.
The proposed restoration plan does include changes to the Guilford County portion of the Knight
Road Branch, noted as Main Stem- Reach 2 of UTWF (pattern, dimension and profile) and
located on the Jerry Ring Tract and Royle Tract. The restoration plan also includes changes to
UT-A, UT-B, UT-C, and UT-D, and with UT-B included in the backwater of the Knight Road
Branch FEMA area. Based on these modifications to Main Stem - Reach 2 and to UT-A, UT-B,
UT-C, and UT-D, modifications to the FEMA area will result, and a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) will be requested from the NC Floodplain Mapping. Upon completion of the
stream construction activities, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) will be requested from NC
Floodplain Mapping. A hydraulic analysis was performed on Knight Road Branch (Main Stem -
Reach 2). The analysis is based on the NCFMP procedures and includes three models, the
duplicate effective, the corrected effective, and the revised conditions.
• The Duplicate Effective was prepared using the effective model obtained from the NCFMP. The
effective model was saved in HECRAS Version 3.1.3 and renamed as the duplicate effective
model. The duplicate effective model was executed, and the resulting 100 yr water surface
elevations were compared to Table 14 in the Guilford County Flood Insurance Study Report
(FIS). The duplicate effective elevations matched the FIS elevations.
The corrected effective model was prepared using a copy of the duplicate effective model and
adding project survey data. Cross sections (XS) 4986.5, 5500, 5641, 5723, 5739, 5772, 6037,
6282, 6415, and 6666 were added to the corrected effective model using project field survey data.
These cross sections were constructed using a combination of LiDAR data downloaded from the
NCFMP website for the overbanks and project field survey data for the channels. Cross sections
6000 and 5600 were removed from the corrected effective model and replaced with 5641 and
6037 to utilize the project survey data. Manning's n values were verified from the aerial imagery
on the DFIRM. In general, the Manning's n values are consistent with the values in the duplicate
effective model. At XS 5269.9, an ineffective flow limit was placed at Station No. 4942.91, and
the Manning's n value was revised from 10 to 0.14 based on the land use observed in the aerial
imagery. Because new cross sections were added to the model, reach lengths were also revised.
Ineffective flow limits were placed appropriately throughout the study reach based on
topographic conditions. A floodway was also prepared for the project reach using the effective
floodway (non-encroachment) location where possible.
The revised (proposed) model was prepared using a copy of the corrected effective model with
the addition of the proposed stream restoration project. The stream centerline and reach lengths
• were revised based on the proposed centerline. Therefore, cross section stations upstream of
cross section 4800 are slightly different in the revised model from the corrected effective model.
UT West Fork Deep River Page 25 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
Cross sections 6698, 6428.8, 6294.4, 6049, 5775.9, 5745.9, 5729.7, 5698.2, 5495.3, 5257.7,
• 4962.2 were revised based on the proposed restoration cross section data. The revised condition
model utilized the identical Manning's n values and ineffective flow limits as the corrected
effective model. A proposed pedestrian bridge was added at cross section 5733.9, and the
contraction and expansion coefficients were revised accordingly at cross sections 5745.9, 5729.7,
and 5698.2. A floodway (non-encroachment) profile was also prepared.
In general, the water surface elevations from the revised condition decrease compared to the
corrected effective model. The decrease is a maximum of 2.15' and a minimum of 0.65' in the
project reach. The revised condition non-encroachment width also decreased compared to the
corrected effective model. Table 9, found in the table section of the report, provides a detailed
flood study comparison for the Knight between the duplicate effective, corrected effective, and
revised models.
5.4.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The pattern, dimension and profile will be modified by the stream restoration project, thereby
affecting the floodplain water surface elevations. There will be no hydraulic trespass because:
• the water surface elevations from the revised condition decreased when compared to the
corrected effective model; and,
• the revised condition non-encroachment width also decreased compared to the corrected
effective model.
5.5 Hydrological Modifications
is 5.5.1 Modification to Ditch draining to UT-D
There are no wetlands on the tracts affected by the stream restoration project nor will any
wetlands be affected by the implementation of the level spreader for UT-D.
The ditch that drains into UT-D will be modified. Currently, the ditch is a direct conduit of
nutrients into UT-D which empties into UT West Fork Deep River that drains to Oak Hollow
Reservoir. An earthen level spreader has designed to collect stormwater from the ditch, and the
level spreader will cause stormwater to sheetflow into UT-D and/or Main Stem UT West Fork
Deep River.
This BMP has been designed so that it will not require any long-term maintenance.
5.5.2 Schematic of Ditch Modification
The proposed modifications are depicted on Sheet BMP-l.
5.6 Soil Restoration
5.6.1 Soil Preparation and Amendment
Where grading is to be performed to implement the stream restoration, the overlaying 4-6 inches
of topsoil will be stockpiled for re-distribution over the site after grading is complete. Soil
samples were sent by Mr. Rafe Royle to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Division
of Agronomic Services for analysis. The project soils have an appropriate pH and good levels of
nitrogen. The soil results recommended only the addition of potash (K2O) for the establishment
UT West Fork Deep River Page 26 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
of hardwood seedlings. Based on these results, 50 lbs/acre of potash will be applied to topsoil
after the topsoil has been redistributed over the graded areas and prior to temporary seeding or
planting. This amendment will be distributed evenly and will be incorporated to a depth of four
to six inches.
U
•
5.6.2 Soil Preparation and Amendment Summary per Community Tyne
The areas proposed for planting will be ripped and disked after topsoil has been re-distributed up
to the pre-disturbance ground elevation and the soil amendment has been broadcasted over the
graded or disturbed areas. The same amendment will be applied to all proposed planting areas,
regardless of community type. The amendment consists of 50 lbs/acre of potash (K2O) to be
evenly distributed and incorporated into the top 4 to 6 inches of topsoil.
Table 9. Soil Preparations and Amendments Der Planting Zone
Zone 1- Bot tomland Hardwood Forested Buffer Acres 7.89
Ground Mulch
Mechanical Approx. Cover Mulch Density/ Nutrient Nutrient
Treatment Date Fabric Type Thickness Amendments Total lbs
Coir
(disturbed
stream Wheat
Disking 1 - banks only) Straw 75% cover Potash 395
Subtotal 395
Zone 2 - Util ity Easement Corridor Acres 0.78
Ground Mulch
Mechanical Approx. Cover Mulch Density/ Nutrient Nutrient
Treatment Date Fabric Type Thickness Amendments Total lbs
Coir
(disturbed
stream Wheat
Disking 1 - banks only) Straw 75% cover Potash 39
Subtotal 39
Zone 3 - Bottomland Hardwood Forest evasive Species Mana ement Acres 7.24
Ground Mulch
Mechanical Approx. Cover Mulch Density/ Nutrient Nutrient
Treatment Date Fabric Type Thickness Amendments Total lbQ
Herbicide 1 0
Subtotal 0
Total 434 15.91
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 27 of 33
February 2009
6.0 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION
0 6.1 Plant Community Restoration
Native plant species were chosen based on field site observations of existing plant communities
within the UTWF stream restoration corridor. Natural communities were assessed using
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina Third Approximation (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). The dominant natural plant community that exists or existed in the riparian zone
of UTWF is Piedmont Bottomland Forest. Plant and seed materials will be placed on the stream
banks, bankfull benches, and terraces. Additionally, plant and seed materials will be planted in
areas disturbed by construction traffic. Existing riparian species may be transplanted on site
during the construction phase. Any woody or herbaceous species proposed for transplantation
must be kept at adequate root moisture levels during the construction process. Lime and fertilizer
amendments shall be added at the discretion of the on-site planting supervisor.
Two vegetative communities have been proposed for this project. These communities include:
bottomland hardwood forest areas (also referred to as `Zone 1) and utility easement corridor (also
referred to as `Zone 2). Zone 3, entitled Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Invasive Management),
refers to the area where invasive maintenance will occur. For stream stability purposes, the
outside of the meander bends will be planted. Planting densities for the aforementioned areas
include a tree plant spacing of 680 plants per acre (8 feet spacing) initial density. Live stakes will
be planted at 4,840 stakes per acre (3 feet spacing). Target densities are 320 trees per acre after
Monitoring Year 3. All areas compacted by construction traffic will be disked prior to seed and/or
planting applications.
In areas prone to erosion (i.e., meander bends), live stakes will be used. Stakes shall be installed
randomly with respect to species, 2' to 3' feet apart. These stakes shall be selectively placed on
existing vegetated stream banks.
A permanent seed mixture of native grasses and forbs shall be applied to all disturbed areas of the
site. Separate mixtures shall be provided for stream banks, flood plans and areas for the
temporary construction easement and waste material sites on the Royle Tract. The permanent
seed mixture for stream banks shall be applied in order to provide rapid stabilization of
constructed stream banks and steep slopes. The permanent seed mixture for the flood plans shall
be applied to other disturbed areas, outside of the existing tree lines, to provide rapid growth of
herbaceous ground cover with a habitat value.
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 28 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009

•
•
Table 10. Plantinu Plan CnPMPC - Rn++nmlanrl uar?xx,?r?a TP., ?+ D ?? ,, .s. .. i7
Scientific Name Common Name
Aesculus sylvatica painted buckeye
Fraxinus enns lvatica green ash
Quercus michauxii swam chestnut oak
Ca rya labra pignut hickory
Asimina triloba pawpaw
_
Ulmus americana .
American elm
Car inus caroliniana musclewood
Illex o aca American holly
Cornus orida flowering dogwood
Cornus ammomum# silky dogwood
Salix ni ra# black willow
., ...-., OF.,. Va -11 w F1alncu vii uie nlealluer oenus or the stream as tlve stakes; other species planted as bare root.
Table 11. Plantinu Plnn Cn,,A-c - TTtilil-w t7.,..,, rx
Scientific Name Common Name V
Amelanchier canadensis servicebe
flex verticillata winterberry
Sambucus canadensis *elderberry
Cornus ammomum * flowering dogwood
Viburnum runi olium blackhaw
Co lus canadensis American filbert
Lindera benzoin *s icebush
.. . , - oywlw wclc lcyuc5Lcu w ue useU In Lne rJUKe rower rlgnt of way
Note: all species are bare root plantings.
Table 12. Stream Rank PPrmnnPnt caaA Mivr,,.
Scientific Name Common Name
Andropo on lomeratus bushy beard grass
Bidens aristosa -beggar tickes
Dichanthelium cladnestinum deer ton e
Elymus vir inicus Virginia wild rye
Panicum vir atum switch ass
Table. 11_ Flnnrl Plain Parmor. + eooa Aii.?.L....,.
Scientific Name A Common Name
Andro 0 on eraradii big blue stem
Bidens aristosa beggar tickes
Carex vul inoidea fox sedge
Chamaecrista asciula partridge ea
Elymus vir inicus Virginia wild rye
Schizach rium sco arium little blue stem
6.2 Invasive Species Management
During the existing conditions field review, several exotic invasive species were encountered
within the stream restoration area. Multifora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) and autumn olive (Eleagnus pungens) were observed within the channel and at top-of-
bank of Main Stem - Reach 1 and UT-A and UT-B. This vegetation zone is known as Zone 3 -
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
Page 29 of 33
February 2009
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Invasive Species Management). There may be areas outside of
• this zone that may require treatment.
Chinese privet is an aggressively invasive shrub that was historically planted as an ornamental
and has escaped cultivation. Dense stands can encroach and out-compete native species. Fruiting
occurs from July through March. Autumn olive was historically planted to enhance wildlife
habitat, is a less aggressive shrub than Privet, and fruits from August through November (USDA
Forest Service 2003). Multiflora rose is a vine historically planted for erosion control and can
form dense, impenetrable stands. Rose fruits from September through October (SEEPPC 2008).
Both mechanical and herbicidal control is recommended for all three species (USDA Forest
Service 2003 and SEEPPC 2008). Mechanical extraction of privet, autumn olive and rose will be
conducted concurrently with stream restoration construction. Any herbicidal application must be
applied prior to the fruiting season for each individual invasive species. Optimally, herbicides
should be applied prior to the fruiting of broad leaf shrubs and trees in the vicinity of the invasive
species to ensure that no collateral damage ensues.
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
7.1 Streams
According to the NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines, stream monitoring must continue for five
years or until the stream has experienced two bankfull events in separate monitoring years.
Therefore, a stream flow/ crest stage gage must be installed on-site to provide an accurate record
of bankfull flow. Measurements including cross-sections, longitudinal profiles, and bank stability
assessments, will be conducted once a year and at the same time of year to determine how well
• the stream is maintaining the constructed dimension, pattern, and profile. Furthermore, the
stability condition of the bed and bank material will help to determine if the stability goal was
achieved.
Following the completion of construction and site planting, a baseline survey will be conducted
for 3,000 linear feet of the restored stream reaches (Main Stem - Reach 2a, Main Stem - Reach
2b, UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D). The portions of each restored stream reach to be surveyed
will be determined during the field visit and a survey-grade global positioning system (GPS)
field-data collector or modern total station equipment will be used to conduct the baseline survey.
The baseline survey will consist of a stream channel plan and profile (including thalweg, left and
right water surface, left and right bankfull and left and right top-of-bank measurements at the
head of all stream features, including riffles and maximum pools, and location of all in-stream
structures) and detailed cross-section surveys. Based on the assumption of monitoring to occur
only along Main Stem - Reach 2 and UT-D, the total number of cross-sections is six with a
maximum of one riffle and one pool for Main Stem - Reach 2a, one riffle and one pool for Main
Stem - Reach 2b, and 2 riffles and 2 pools for UT-D. The locations of these cross sections will
be determined after construction. A topographic survey showing location and elevation of filled
channel, ditch modification and level spreader, and other features associated with restoration
activities will also be conducted. A pebble count will be conducted at each detailed cross-section.
During the baseline survey, each detailed cross-sections will be pinned with rebar and flagged at
two ends. A crest stage gage will be installed during the baseline survey to help document
bankfull events. The location of the crest gage and bank pins will be surveyed in during the
baseline survey and will be shown on the monitoring baseline drawings. In the proceeding years,
the data collected will be overlain to demonstrate changes in the stream over time and to
• determine whether the stream is stable. Additionally, the field data will be analyzed and
UT West Fork Deep River Page 30 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
compiled into a table noting values for varying morphological features from existing condition
is values, design values, base line values and subsequent monitoring year values.
Permanent photo reference points will be installed along the restored stream reaches during the
baseline survey. These reference points will be used to document any changes in the stream over
a five year period as the direction of the photo point will be consistent over time. These reference
points will be noted on each year's monitoring
7.2 Vegetation
Vegetation plots will be established in order to measure survivability rates of planted and
transplanted woody vegetation. Nine permanent total woody stem monitoring plots will be
marked prior to the monitoring baseline survey, in accordance with requirements as set forth in
CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et.al 2006). Stem count plots will be
strategically located throughout the site to ensure 10 meter by 10 meter plots. The corners will be
permanently marked with metal conduit and flagged. The plots will be monitored for 5 years or
until success criteria have been met.
7.3 Schedule / Reporting
An as-built report will be prepared and used as a baseline for all subsequent monitoring. The
monitoring and corresponding reports will begin one (1) year following completion of the as-built
report and will continue for four additional years or until success criteria are met.
The as-built and monitoring reports will include:
• • Executive Summary;
• Project Background Data;
• Project Monitoring Methodology;
• Project Condition and Monitoring Results, including, but not limited to, current
condition plan views, overlays of cross sections and profiles from each monitoring year,
visual stream assessment, and morphology and hydraulic summary; and,
• Recommendations and Conclusions.
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 31 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
8.0 REFERENCES
• Duke Energy Corporation. 2008. Selecting Trees for Transmission Rights of Way.
h!lp://www.duke-energy.com/safe!y/right-of-way-management
City of Winston-Salem, NC Planning Department.
http://www.cityofws.org/Home/Departments/Planning/CCPStaf`f/Articles/Comprehensive
Planning
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen
and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Lee, M.T. et al. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sampling
Only. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-manual-v4 levl 2 pdf
Miller, J.H. 2003.US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern
Forests- A Field Guide for Identification and Control. Research Ecologist, USDA Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, Auburn University, AL 36849.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ). July 2007. Updated Draft Manual of Stormwater Best
Management Practices. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp updates htm
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR , Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ). North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (2008 Draft 303(d) Report,Public Review Draft.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc us/tmdl/General 303d htm
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ). Basinwide Planning Program: October 2005 Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005 htm
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. October 2004.
http://www.nceep.net/news/reports/buffers.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Wetlands
Restoration Program. Watershed Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin. 2001.
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/cape_fear_2001.pdf
North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) and North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR). 1999. Order 15A NCAC 02B .0250. Randleman Lake
Watersupply Waterhsed: Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas.
http://ncrules.state.nc.us
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 32 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Online Digital Floodplain Maps. 2007. http://www.ncfloodmaps.com
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources / North Carolina Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA).2006. NC Hydro 24K DataSet 2006 ESRI
ARCGIS shapefile format.
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Co.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
Raleigh, NC.
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2008. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant
Manual. http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/multirose.html
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web
Soil Survey. 2008. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda. ov/app/.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Environmental Laboratory. 1987.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• (NCWRC). Stream Mitigation Guidelines. April 2003.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) 2006.
Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Handbook 296. Accessed at http://soils.usda. og_v
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species System database [web
application]. Available: htlp:Hecos.fws.gov/tess public/StartTESS.do

UT West Fork Deep River Page 33 of 33
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
•
Section 9.0 Project Tables
0
• UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
•
Table la. Stream Reach Components and Structure EEP Proiect No. 442

Stream
Reach Existing
Linear
Footage Proposed
Linear
Footage
Restoration
Treatment
Restoration
Approach Proposed
Stream
Classification
Main Stem -
Reach 1 2,0401f 2,040 Preservation Remove Exotic
Vegetation N/A
Main Stem -
Reach 2a 3631f 3001f Restoration Priority 2 E
Main Stem -
Reach 2b 1,669 if 1,5281f Restoration Priority 2 Bc
UT-A 3821f 3821f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-13 4271f 4271f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-C 181 if 1811f Enhancement I N/A E
UT-D 4301f 3731f Restoration Priorit 2/3 Bc
*Approximation based on measurement along stream centerline in Microstation.
Table lb. Summary of Restoration Levels for Stream and Buffer Restoration
Restoration Level Stream feet Buffer acre
Restoration 2,201 5.7*
Enhancement I 990
Enhancement II
Preservation 2,040 9.9#
* Buffer restoration area includes a corridor spanning 50-feet from the proposed top of banks on both sides of the
stream (existing top of bank in the case of UT-C) along Main Stem Reaches 2a and 2b, UT-C and UT-D. In areas
• where the 50-foot buffer extended outside of easement, the easement boundary was defaulted to as the buffer
restoration boundary.
# Buffer preservation includes the entire conservation easement area of Main Stem Reach 1, UT-A, and UT-B; this
acreage is not for compensatory mitigation credit. ; .
Table 2. Drainage Area for Stream Reaches

Stream Reach
Drainage Limits Drainage Area
(square miles)
Main Stem - Reach 2a Catchment upstream of and including UT-B. 2.6
Main Stem - Reach 2b Catchment upstream of but excluding UT-D 3.04
Main Stem - Reach 2b Catchment including entire project. 3.27
UT-A Catchment upstream of UT-13 confluence (0.02 to 0.03)
UT-13 Catchment upstream of UT-A confluence 0.60
UT-A/13 Catchment upstream of Main Stem confluence 0.63
UT-C Catchment upstream of Main Stem confluence 0.07
UT-D Catchment upstream of Main Stem confluence 0.15
0
•
•
Table 3. Land Use Practices in the Proiect Studv Area EEP Proiect No. 442
Land Use Acreage Percentage of Land Use
Forested 648 34
Residential (low density) 76 4
Residential medium density) 423 23
Open water 9 0.5
Agriculture 710 38
Note that 5% of-the watershed is impervious.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus BGPA No No Effect
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
Small-anthered Bittercress Cardamine micranthera E No No Effect
Small whorled o onia Isotria medeoloides T No No Effect
Table 4. Forsyth and Guilford County Federally Protecte Species
T=threatened, E=endangered
BGPA= Bald Eagle Protection Act, which replaced the Endangered status as of August 2007
Table 5: Property Owners and Associated Streams with Pronosed Miti¢atinn Tvne

Property Owner Deed Book -
Deed Pa a
Stream Reach Proposed
Mitigation Type

Ring, Jerry P.
1347-1076 Main Stem - Reach 2a
(upper 163 ft of reach
Restoration
Mainstem - Reach 1 Preservation
UT-A and UT-B Enhancement I

Ro le, Rafe
2945-0010 Mainstem - Reach 2a
(lower 137 ft of reach),
Restoration
Main Stem - Reach 2b, Restoration
UT-D Restoration
UT-C Enhancement I
Ring, Alvin E. 944-125 Mainstem- Reach 1 Preservation
Glidewell, Martha A. 1992-165 Mainstem- Reach 1 Preservation
Matthews, Ann R. 1347-1070 Mainstem- Reach 1 Preservation
Table 6. Summary of Existing Stream Channel Classification per Stream Reach
Stream Reach Existing Length Rosgen Classification
Main Stem - Reach 2a 363 feet E5/ F5
Main Stem - Reach 2b 1,669 feet E5/ G5c
UT-A 382 feet G5
UT-B 427 feet G5/E5
UT-C 181 feet E5
UT-D 373 feet E5
Note: stream length reflects measurement along stream thalweg.
40
•
•
Table 7. Summarv of BEHI/NBS
Cross-Section # Reach BEHI Results EP NBS Results
1 Main Stem - Reach 2a Moderate High
2 UT-A High Extreme
3 UT-A High Extreme
4 UT-B High Extreme
5 UT-B High High
6 Main Stem - Reach 2a High Extreme
7 UT-C Moderate Very High
8 UT-C High Very High
9 Main Stem - Reach 2b Very High Extreme
10 Main Stem - Reach 2b Moderate Very High
11 Main Stem - Reach 2b High Very High
12 UT-D Moderate Moderate
13 UT-D High Extreme
Table 8. Summarv of Shear Stress Commutations for Main Stem - Reach 2 and YTT-n
Shear Stress (lbs/ft') Threshold Diameter (mm)
Main Stem - Reach 2
Existing (riffle) 0.33 15
Proposed (riffle) 0.42 24
UT-D
Existing (riffle) 0.5 30
Proposed (riffle) 0.4 20
is
Table 9. Soil Prenarations and Amendments ner Planting Zone
•
LJ
Zone 1- Bottomland Hardwood Forested Buffer Acres 7.89
Ground Mulch
Mechanical Approx. Cover Mulch Density/ Nutrient Nutrient
Treatment Date Fabric Type Thickness Amendments Total lbs
Coir
(disturbed
stream Wheat
Disking 1 - banks only) Straw 75% cover Potash 395
Subtotal 395
Zone 2 - Util ity Easement Corridor Acres 0.78
Ground Mulch
Mechanical Approx. Cover Mulch Density/ Nutrient Nutrient
Treatment Date Fabric Type Thickness Amendments Total lbs
Coir
(disturbed
stream Wheat
Disking 1 - banks only) Straw 75% cover Potash 39
Subtotal 39
Zone 3 - Bottomland Hardwood Forest nvasive Species Mana ement Acres 7.24
Ground Mulch
Mechanical Approx. Cover Mulch Density/ Nutrient Nutrient
Treatment Date Fabric Type Thickness Amendments Total lbs
Herbicide 1 0
Subtotal 0
Total 434 15.91
Table 10. Planting Plan Species - Bottomland Hardwood Forested Buffer (Zone 1)
Scientific Name Common Name
Aesculus s lvatica -painted buckeye
Fraxinus enns lvatica green ash
Quercus michauxii swam chestnut oak
Carya glabra -pignut hickory
Asimina triloba pawpaw
Ulmus americana American elm
Car inus caroliniana musclewood
Illex o aca American holly
Cornus orida flowering dogwood
Cornus ammomum# silky dogwood
Salix ni ra# black willow
#" ttnese species will be planted on the meander bends of the stream as live stakes; other species planted as bare root.
40
•
•
Table 11. Planting Plan Species - Utili Easement Corridor Zone 2
Scientific Name Common Name
Amelanchier canadensis serviceberry
flex verticillata winterberry
Sambucus canadensis *elderberry
Cornus ammomum * flowering dogwood
Viburnum runi olium blackhaw
Co lus canadensis American filbert
Lindera benzoin *s icebush
"*" notes that these species were requested to be used in the Duke Power right of way
Note: all species are bare root plantings.
Table 12. Stream Bank Permanent Seed Mixture
Scientific Name Common Name
Andro 0 on lomeratus bush beard grass
Bidens aristosa beggar tickes
Dichanthelium cladnestinum deer tongue
Elymus vir inicus Virginia wild rye
Panicum vir atum switch ass
Table 13. Flood Plain Permanent Seed Mixture
Scientific Name Common Name
Andro 0 on eraradii big blue stem
Bidens aristosa beggar tickes
Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge
Chamaecrista asciula partridge ea
Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye
Schizach rium sco arium little blue stem
Table 14. Project Design Firm Contact Information
Design Firm SEPI Engineering Group
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Designer Dani Wise Johnson
Project Manager Phillip Todd
LJ
•
•
Table 15. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT West Fork (Deep River EEP Project No. 442

Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion
Date
Restoration Plan 2/2009 9/2008 2/2009
Final Design - 90% 7/2009*
Construction 1/2010*
Temporary S&E and Permanent seed mix
applied TBD
Permanent seed mix applied TBD
Containerized, B&B, livestake planting TBD
Mitigation Plan / As-built (Year 0 Monitoring -
baseline TBD
Year 1 Monitoring TBD
Year 2 Monitoring TBD
Year 3 Monitoring TBD
Year 4 Monitoring TBD
Year 5 Monitoring TBD
UsMUIateu tidies based on rinal Restoration Plan submittal
Table 16. Project Contact Information
UT West Fork (Deep River EEP Project No. 442

Designer Dani Wise Johnson (Stream Designer)
SEPI Engineering Group (Design Firm)
1025 Wade Ave Raleigh NC 27605
Construction Contractor TBD
Planting Contractor TBD
Seeding Contractor TBD
Seed Mix Sources TBD
Nursery Stock Suppliers TBD
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Performers TBD
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Performer TBD
Stream Monitoring POC TBD
Vegetation Monitoring POC TBD
Wetland Monitorin POC TBD
0

.'7
Table 17. Restoration Component Attributes - UT West Fork (Deep River) EEP Project No. 442
UT-A UT-B UT-C UT-D Reach 2at Reach 2btt
Drainage area
(Square miles (0.02 to
0.03) 0.60 0.07 0.15 2.6 3.04
Stream order iA 151 / 2° lS` ist, 3` 3r
Restored length (feet) 382 427 181 373 300 1528
Perennial or
intermittent Perennial Perennial Intermittent Perennial Perennial Perennial
Watershed type Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural
Watershed LULC Ag-
Livestock Ag-
Livestock Ag-
Livestock Ag-
Livestock Ag-
Livestock Ag-
Livestock
Watershed
impervious cover % 4.5%* 4.5%* 1% 1% 5% 5%
NCDWQ AU/Index 03-06-08 03-06-08 03-06-08 03-06-08 03-06-08 03-06-08
NCDWQ Class WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV WS-1V WS-IV
303d Listed No No No No No No
Upstream of 303d No No No No No No
Reasons for 303d n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total acreage of
easement^ - - - - 15.6^ -
Total vegetated
easement acreage A - - - - 15.6^ -
Total planted acreage
as art of restorationA - - - - 9.9^ -
Rosgen classification
of pre-existing E5 E5 E5 E5 E5/F5 E5/G5c
Rosgen classification
of As-built TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Valle type 8L 8 °' 8L 8 a
Valley sloe 0.0071 0.0072 0.0204 0.011 0.0047 0.0047
Valle side sloe n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Valley toes sloe n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Cowardin
classification n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Trout waters
designation No No No No No No
T/E Species None None None None None None
Soils / characteristics
Series
Max Depth
Clay %
K
T
Wehadkee
80
21.3
0.24
5
Wehadkee
80
21.3
0.24
5
Wehadkee
80
21.3
0.24
5
Chewacla
80
25.2
0.28
5
Wehadkee
80
21.3
0.24
5
Series-
80
21.3, 5.2
0.24, 0.28
5
notes that the catchment upstream of and including UT-B.
t t notes that the catchment upstream of, but, excluding UT-D.
* notes that watershed for UT-A and UT-B were combined for impervious cover percentage.
^ notes that the total project easement is 15.6 acres with 9.9 acres being replanted for the restoration project.
@ notes that the Valley Type is 8 (Broad Alluvial).
• Reach contains both Chewacla and Wehadkee series.
u
•
•
h
• a ? p o a o ?

Q O.
N N
,.. h h
•? 0
p fV
^ ,,; O
? T
N
["? ' N O N O D N P N b ISl
a ? T ? C . O
O N Q •„ O
C O
O

N O
N ? N h ?
O V p S
O
^
? M M r ..
O h to
P O h
T
N .N. ?p Q o
O ? o
O N

U
F %
?

N

?. h
a .h.
O
? m
O
O
T h
O O
O
O

Q
O
N
N
«
W
N
b
O
^

p
O
O

?
C O
r•
K b ^. b
b ry
... ?
Q N
N c
N N
l? a
p
? v
C ?
? ?n
N
^ ?'
b
Q rn
M
p
O ,o
N «
.-. op
p
O c
N
F o
D ? r

O O
h
X .-.
h rn o ± « h a
O a
q
9 F
? x
? "' ^
O v
? °
?
O ?n
Q
N c
O '^.
V e r
V ry o0
O op
O Ull
U y N
O
O
F
? 9
E
h
N
X ...

b
v
b
«
Q
«
G
«
h
r
p
Q
^
N
[?
h
C

O
P
O
C
?
N
?
N
p'? r

r ...

r
r
?
N
O
^'
vt
b
.? O
O
p O.

O?
O G

X
«
N _
Q
^
^
b
M
O
?•
?
?
?
?
CJ c
N
h
N o
O
P
Q `o
0
z

? r w a p Q ? «
u «
?
N ... ? N ?p N « T ? ? O O
? fal

?
T
O?
?D
Q
h
-I
?O
Q
T I
?.
-I
m
Q
Q
N
C
T
Q
C
O
N
^
b
C
O
^
Q
N
M

k O
`? N
?v h ?. Q
Q ?
? C_
? ?
,ham ?
? ..
a
vi h
? r
c P
M 0
`* 0
c «
o

N b
D °
O ?n
b O b v, h 1n c, v E N v ° n N h
?
O « Q
P =
O ??'+
? b o ^
c _
u ? O
c ? c? c ?G c ^
R
b N vi to Q N ... h O E % N .?-?. O « .? N M Q b .^ O C7
= X P Q .p N oG N N N w b p h o Q p o P
0 0
m
u
R
C
N O P O O O? O C
? a
d h
N M
T
N N b rv h O
E
V X
V ? M A N
?
R
r
z
y
k
N
C
M
N
c.
?

P _2 1
b
?, A
@
V
@
EO
R
fV

?
o6
?
.6
e
?
b
?

O

Op
N

O
M

O?
r
v 4?
V1 V
R
V N O

h
.-.
h
G?
'
«
N
M
h
h Q ?
k
W
^..
b
m
N
b
r
b
Q
O
N b
? N
O
?
? R
N k ri c r E
?
?
o
v
a Q
p
cQa N
v
o N
o °
o
?
w
u 0

z
X h O
v?'i 1?
? Q
"' «

r O?

N ?'n ?

N

N ? C

? OTC

? O

T b

C i

Q• N
''n
? N
o
G ?p

.'?'
a
N O
o
O Qb.

N
d
E
a.
s v °

u
c
3 .u
?
E c'
r a
u q.
c
E
.
`? o
? Q
v
aL+
?
o
m
'O

L
a,
c
c
? C u
C
F r
A o
„
a
?
'y
N
+
,
u o z $ v? a E .
m ? u .a v d U 3 3 F.o o.
? 5 w c° ,? t a... °

U m u ? L C
C = C C ` ? r^n O fn G. ?' ;j` C
F rS u ^ C?
O
R
W •C m ^a m m 3 m m 3 v°, d a a` z a a c a 8 > z 3 y
m .
•
C J
LI
Table 19. UT West Fork Deep River - Existing Condition, Reference Reach and Design Summary Data for UT-D
Reference Existing Condition Design
Stream Name Fork Creek UT West Fork UT-D UT West Fork UT-D
Survey Date 3/2/2006 4/1/2008
Stream Type B4c E,G,F B4c
Drainage Area (mil 2.2 0.1 0.1
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 20.1 5.6 8.5
Bankfull Mean Depth Dbkf) 1.73 1.2 0.8
Width/De thRatio 11.6 4.7 11
Max Riffle Depth Ratio (Dmax/Dbld) 1.2 1.5 5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area Abkf) 34.8 6.6 6.6
Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 4.7 4 4
Bankfull Discharge bkf) 163 26.4 26
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmax) 2 1.8 1.0
Width of Flood Prone Area W a 63 12.3 18.7
Entrenchment Ratio Wf a/Wbkf) 3.1 2.2 2.2
Min Meander Length (Lm) 37.0 104.76 51.1
Max Meander Length (Lm) 172.0 161.77 68.2
Min Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) 1.8 18.7 6.0
Max Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) 8.6 28.9 8.0
Min Radius of Curvature (Rc) 47 15.1 85.2
Max Radius of Curvature (Rc) 316 52.8 119.3
Min Radius of Curvature Ratio Rc/Wbkf) 2.3 2.7 10
Max Radius of Curvature Ratio Rc/Wbkf) 15.7 9.4 14
Min Belt Width Wblt 33 29.6 17.0
Max Belt Width (Wblt 40 59.4 29.8
Min Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wblcf) 1.6 5.3 2
Max Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) 2.0 10.6 3.5
Sinuosity K 1 1.32 1.15
Valle Sloe 0.0079 0.0110 0.0110
Avg. Slope (measured) 0.0079 0.0119 0.0119
Min Riffle Sloe Sri 0.0010 0.0063 0.0119
Max Riffle Slope Srif) 0.0210 0.0235 0.0321
Min Riffle Slope/Ave Sloe Sriff/Save) 0.1 0.53 1
Max Riffle Slope/Ave Slope (Sriff/Save) 2.7 1.97 2.7
Min Riffle Length Lriffle 5.1 5.1
Max Riffle Length Lriffle 82.9 18.7
Min Riffle Len h/Bankfull Width (Lrif/Wbkf) 0.6 0.9 0.6
Max Riffle Len h/Bankfull Width (Lrif/Wbkf) 2.2 14.8 2.2
Pool Slope (Spool) 0.1 0.0035 0.0012
Pool Slope Ratio S ooHav) 0.1 0.3 0.1
Min Pool Depth (D pool) 0.6 1.4 1.0
Max Pool Depth (D pool) 5.2 2.1 2.6
Min Pool Depth Ratio (D ool/Dbkf) 0.3 0.8 1.0
Max Pool Depth Ratio (D ool/Dbkf) 2.6 1.1 2.6
Pool Area A ool 37.5 7.9
Pool Area Ratio (A ooMkf) 1.1 1.1 1.2
Min Pool Length (L pool) 4.57 8.5
Max Pool Length (L pool) 16.15 12.8
Min Pool Length Ratio (L ool/Wbkf) 0.4 0.8 1.0
Max Pool Length Ratio (L ool/Wbkf) 1.2 2.9 1.5
Pool Width (W pool) 19.9 10.2
Pool Width Ratio W ool/Wb 1 0.99 1.2
Min PooVPool Spacing (-) 11.58 25.6
Max PooVPool Spacing (-) 95.94 59.6
Min Pool Spacing Ratio (p-p/Wbkf) 3.5 2.1 3.0
Max Pool Spacing Ratio (- /Wbkf) 6.7 17.1 7.0
Materials:
L Particle Size Distribution of Channel
d16 1.1 0.15
d35 11 0.4
d50 28 0.55
d84 81 1.1
d95 130 2
2. Particle Size Distribution of Bar/Riffle
d16 5.7
d35 12
d50 18
d84 41
d95 55
Largest Size at Toe of Bar 70
61 61 OL Jug JO go L le az!S 1saSie-1
S'6 S'6 SS 96P
9 9 - it, 48P
8* 1 9* 1 81 09P
ZI S£P
91P
oUj!W/jegdo uo!lnq!.Osia oz!S a[opnd'Z
6 6 - Oct 96P
9 S 16 18 b8P
b'I 4'l Sl 8Z 09P
I I II SEP
1' 1 91P
louuegD jo uo!lnq!.als!Q az!s 010111M -I
:sleualeW
L'9 L'9 19'6 58'9 S'S L'9 3-1qM/d-d) oijull SuloedS food xelnl
S'E S'E LZ'I 9E'I 9'E S'E ONgM/d-d) oiled 8u!oedS food u!W
9'941 4'041 I176I Z'6ZI ZS (d-d) ftoedS food/food xeW
9'9L E'EL L'SZ 0'OE b£ - (d-d) 8ulaedS food/lood u!W
Z' l Z* l 66'0 00' I 8'0 I (hlgM/loodM) opuX glp!M loud
£'9Z I'SZ 6'61 L'81 I'L 6'61 (loo M) glp!M loud
TI Z' I E07 l I' I - Z' l 731-cR /lood-1) 0,55I glSua7 food xeW
4'0 b'0 Ib'0 Z9'0 b'0 03lgM/lood-l) oiled gl$ua-I food u!W
E'9Z I'SZ I'I4 9'bZ (food l) glduaZ lood x -W
8'8 b'8 Z'8 9,11 (food l) ql ua-I food u!W
1* 1 f' t Z I' I Z l' I I' l (hlgd/[oody) oiled eaxy food
E'84 E'8b I'6b Cob S'LE (loody) eaay lood
9'Z 97 ZZ' I SL' I 97 (xewQ/loodQ) oiled gidaQ food xeW
1 I S6'O Ell E'0 (xew(j/loodQ) o!led g1daQ food u!W
Z'9 b'S O'b S'b - - (loodQ gldaQ l0od -R
4'Z 17 Z'E 0'E - (loodQ) gldaQ lood u!W
l'0 l'0 LS'O 00'0 - l'0 ($fmS/IoodS) oiled adolS loud
E000'O E000'0 EI00'0 0000'0 L100'0 I'0 (loodS) adolS [ood
Z'Z Z'Z OZ'6 ZO'b - Z'Z (lqM/3!j'7) qlp!M l[njilueg/gl$ua7 aLI3!d xeln[
9'0 9'0 bS'0 E8'0 9'0 (IxgM/I!?7) qlp!M llnj lueg/gl$ua7 oLU!d uiW
I'8b I'9b 6'581 6'88 all TI glsuo-l al;3ld xeW
I'EI 97I 0'1I E'8I OIJJ!J'I 418ua-l DUN u!W
E'Z £'Z 99'1 9b'1 E'Z L'Z (aAeS/33!iS) adolS any/odolS aLI3!W xeyq
0* 1 0* 1 OL'O 00' I I'0 (aAeS/33!JS) odolS aAd/odo[S o[I3!W u!W
0900'0 0900'0 8£00'0 8£00'0 LZO'O IZO'0 (I!iS) odo[S aB3!W xvW
9Z00'0 9ZOO'0 9100'0 9Z00'0 100'0 (}!iS) a olS oUj!d u!W
9Z00'0 9Z00'0 EZ00'O 9Z00'0 ZIO'O 800'0 (painseaw) odo[S '$AV
L400'O Lb00'O Lb00'0 Lb00'0 800'0 adolS AalleA
I I' l l Z' I 6I' I SZ' [ t7'1 I Ol) ,?i!sonu!S
S'E 4 0'8 0'4 E'S 0'Z (INgM/1lgM) o!leW qlp!M aapueaW xLW
Z E S'Z 0'4 O'E 9,1 (IxgM/IlgM) o!leW qlp!M 1apuuoW u!yv
9'9L 8'£8 Z' 191 6'88 OS Ob (1[qM) 41MAN llag xeW
8'E4 6'Z9 6'64 6'88 8Z E£ (1lgM) g1P!M llag tuW
b[ 0'L S'4Z 0'4 S L'SI U)lgm/od) oiled ainleAmQ3o sn!ped xeW
0t 017 Z £'Z (INgM/olloiled aanleAin3 jo sniped u!Vq
E'90E L'9bl Z'b6b 1'88 OS 91C (od) ainle,unD jo sniped xeln[
8'812 8'E8 9'ZZ I'6Z 61 Lb (od) alnletinD jo sniped u!W
0'8 0'6 0'6E b'6 0'6 9'8 (INgM/w7) oiled gl$uo-l aapuealnl xulN
0'9 0'9 917 4'6 0'9 8* 1 (lqM/w l) opeW gl2ua7 aapuuoW uiW
I'M 9'881 E'L8L 9'80Z 0'98 O'ZLI (w7) glduarl npuealn[ XBW
E' 1 E I L'SZ 1 476 9'802 0'99 0'LE (w7) gl$ua7 Japue31N U! w
S'Z £ 9* 1 E' l E'S I'E (I3[gM/ed.IM) oiled luowgouoqug
L'bS 09 E'ZE 9'8Z OS E9 (ed3M) eaid ouoid pool,d;o glp!M
b'Z bl'E Cc 97 9,1 Z (xewQ) g1daQ wnw!xeW l[njNmag
861 861 OZZ OZZ b'LE £91 o lqb) o2mgos!Q lln3)lueg
917 91, S S S'E L'b (hlgA)1SUOOIOA ueaw pnj3lueg
CE4 6'£4 6'Eb 6'6E 9'01 811E (INgy) easy leuollaaS-ssojD llnj lueg
£' [ 5* 1 5,1 4' I 9,1 Z* l (jNgQ/xewQ) o!leW ql aQ o[I3!W -W
Z l O I E'6 Z'Z [ £'8 9,11 oiled gldaQ/glp!M
8'I OI'Z Z'Z 8'I EI'I EC[
(I)[gQ) gl aQ ueaw lln3xUeg
6' I Z 0,1Z Z'OZ I'ZZ t7* 6 l'OZ (}xqM) qlp!M linj)lueg
97 b0'E b0'E 97 4'0 Z'Z (Z!w) ea.iy aSeuleaQ
abg 4a 399/s a, SA/Sa 4a abfl a Z weaalS
:V LS :V LS 8002/I/b 80OZ/I/17 900Z/Z/E '31EGfaAinS
qZ goead 31ao31soM Lfl
u31saQ eZ goeaW Naod 1saM Ln
u;IlsaQ qZ goeaW 3po3IsoM Ifl
uol;!puo:) Zulaslxg eZ gaeaW )PO31som Lfl
uo!;!puo3 du!as!xg NOWD leaalod 1fl
aauaaa3aIl 3[a313110d
aauaaafan awe[.[ weailS
(q ag e) Z gaaall - walS ulaW ao3 uleQ ,frewwns uSlsaQ put: gaeaH aauaaa;aH,uo13lpuo3 21u[ls!xW -.JaAIW daaQ 31ao,,l lsaM Jfl 'OZ alge,L
• •
10
0 ZS£ Z£8 00'0099 00'0 O;eoildn(I
0 8Z£ 17£8 06'69Z9 00'0 iia JJOD
00'0 0 £LZ Z£8 OL'LSZ9 00'0 pas1AO-d 00817
ojvogdnQ
0 61717 17£8 00'0099 00'0 3JFI -UO3
00'0 0 171717 ££8 0£'96179 00'0 pasIAag Z79617
0 lzi ££8 00'0009 00'0 aluoildnQ
0 ££17 S£8 00'i1799 00'0 33HJ10D
00'0 0 I9£ ££8 OZ'8699 00'0 pastAO-d L'L9ZS
0 0 0 00'0 00'0 aluoildna
0 ZiS 9£8 OO'£ZLS 00'0 JJFI JJOD
00'0 0 L£17 17£8 OL'6ZL9 00'0 pasiAO-d £'96179
aluoildnCl
0 8617 9£8 00'6£L9 00'0 33g 110D
00'0 0 0917 17£8 06'917L9 00'0 pas1Aa21 Z'8699
olvoildn(I
0 £L17 9£8 007LLS 00'0 33H JJOD
00'0 0 81717 17£8 06'SLL9 00'0 pasiAO-d L'6ZL9
ajioolldnQ
0 9217 9£8 OO'L£09 00'0 33R DOD
00'0 0 99£ S£8 00'61709 00'0 paslAMd 6'S17L9
oluoildn(I
0 6117 L£8 0078Z9 00'0 33a JJOD
00'0 0 617Z 9£8 Ob't,6Z9 00'0 pastAO2I 6'9LL9
ojuoildnQ
0 S££ 8£8 00'9I179 00'0 iia JJOD
00'0 0 £8 S£8 08'8Z179 00'0 pas1ADU 61709
Olvoildn(I
0 £17£ L£8 00'9999 00'0 BEI110D
00'0 0 L61 9£8 00'8699 00'0 pas1AO-d 17'176Z9
a;roildnQ
0 Z8£ 6£8 017'8669 00'0 BEI JIOD
00'0 0 6£Z L£8 Ob'0£OL 00'0 pasiAO2I 8'8Z179
aluoildnQ
0 0 0 00'0 00'0 BE[ DOD
00'0 0 0 0 00'0 00'0 pasiAO2l 8699
0 0 0 00'0 00'0 31voildn(I
0 0 0 00'0 00'0 33a JJOD
00'0 0 0 0 00'0 00'0 pasIAO2i 17'00L
03) add HH00 0j) ZH Oj) in (I3) 03) 0j) HA NV'ld NOI.LVIS U21AIH
QdSIAaH HA VIS Jud VIS 0N21 HIGIM AVM000'ld 001 MISM
OOI iLaddwl dol H.LIM
133roHd HA OOI 'IdSM
eatl puuZI 3gd!u?II aaA'H naaQ I.1ojjsoM ZII io3 uoslandmoa Spn;s pootd •IZ algn.L
0 0 0
•
Section 10. Figures
•
•
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
p j Q
Kernersville
0
Miles
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
F ORSYTI
.1 0 IN
TY
l
-W�* �& 3 17
PROJECT
LOCATIO
` 1
0
r
O y�/Oc
PROJECT SRO
LOCATION v
PA\g
�O l
O
UILFORD
Greensboro
4 I40
r1
g High Poinp
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
CO
co
C
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
N UT WEST FORK
(DEEP RIVER)
STREAM RESTORATION
W E FORYSTH/GUILFORD
COUNTY, NC
$ FIGURE 1 -.
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
KERNE-RSVILLE NC QUAD

0
tl.

_,

Oil

+ n
s6
t
NC ECOSYSTEM
Entire Watershed 3.27 Square Miles F o r y s t h C o u n t y G u i l f o r d C o u n t y E N H A N C E M E N T
l?(mstcm PROGRAM
SubwatershedA/B = 0.63 Square Miles
Subwatershed C = 0.07 Square Miles
UT WEST FORK DEEP RIVER
Subwatershed D= 0.15 Square Miles STREAM R E S T O R A T I O N
N FORYSTH/GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
Miles w E FIGURE 2 (a)
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 WATERSHEO MAP
s
•
0
Watershed - 1865 acres (100%)
• - Forested - 648 acres (34%) N
Residential (Low Density) - 76 acres (4%) W E
Residential (Medium Density) - 423 acres (23%)
S
Open Water - 9 acres (0.47%)
0 1.121 1.11 1.1
Agriculture - 710 acres (38%) M;,es
r I NC ECOSYSTEM
FcY?sysem ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
UT WEST FORK (DEEP RIVER)
STREAM RESTORATION
FORYSTH/GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
FIGURE 2(b)
LAND USE MAP - YEAR 2006
'� t ���j ► lig. a �- I i i ] ' �.. , �� , ► L"� r1,�' !
'f;��r�1Ai '"r" �j Ra�
ff� •'y-� t �
yf l r —•. {�
S r9
IF
Li
a 1 iIf
1 ` C. all
ti A
�e
REFERENCE "
REACH-
FORK
EACH-FORK CREEK4,4
el
le
r _
�_ `t I � �,' Jrr• C.-: �' ,� _may �sf'�J �'•+��,4 1 4�� "i �'4 '�
,[oe'r f +�•. J ' �"• ^y it , tr ��-r t ��,
1 V 1 l
Ar
ilx—
Watershed Boundary �.
NC ECOSYSTEM
Reference Reach ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
UT WEST FORK
(DEEP RIVER)
STREAM RESTORATION
FIGURE 4(a) - FORK CREEK
N REFERENCE SITE WATERSHED MAP
RANDOLPH COUNTY NC
1 0.5 0 W E (ASHF_BORO NC QUAD)
Miles s

+
{ 1,1r TO ASHEBORO
+r-
+ 1?. •Jrc f'ti ft r1• i : ,? •-1 .rte .-4 +`-?
1.J r r?• r. y I ?f?J ! ?1- i
l '? { REFERENCE' t =• '•. ., ti`' sa tti?ti w '+
r i !`• y{J "? r41'•? fr r l'? 1? ?? REACH 16
! ?•, `'?"? rS t 1
FORK CREEK r {
46
Ili ? 1. ?? I. ? i.?f } L /, t ??.,1+'• ? ' ` ?+IJ r? r?`' 1 ? t '..11 ?.- ? n.
l_ ?{ --j +! .- `+?rjy , 't 1 . 1r s ,? ?,1 II • .? f ? ?f 1 •'? ?•t ??? 1 ; ? `"? t ,a 9 ??
1 If ?'?;``/+ ', :' M ; 5. _ +? - r ((//"tea ?fr1 ``?_' '.??''`- t ? +. ? ,?+'e
'y!??/??'-,.F.r? `? 1 f ? ? .J..r .+?tr' r f ? '. _-.':s '• ?1 '{I . ?? ,? ?f ?, , I" t *.1 ? ? - ? r . r€ ' i,K
"'.++a7 ? -.-r-.r jl ` " ? r ? ? r "r ?1. i ' ? •? '??`• ?-:?? ? rat ?" ? ti-? t' ???y ? ;,? 1
r;t . r ?r l ? ..?r r lr. - r r 'tii`?'''???ir•'_ 1? fj•` ? :.? i `l`?y ?? ?'?
err'` r? •+r.r?M E- 'r r! a / ?1' ??ler,'yl ?f.t- r 1 I!1 1•'1' ? 1. t . ? j 1??? ? y`..•?/ I QC"+.???s..s••"•' _ ' ',Ii
'} j'• k ?r+{ J 1 ' ^•t t !',•1 (L? • ? t f I)Ir r- S ? ?,, a 3?' ?
s w If fr ,},r l r, f ; 4 s.? t `L 3 -emu .
:},'?? ?tf'' ?1 y is ?1 '{ ax. ?,?ll? ? ? ? ' ? 1???.5? r r? ???J' ? i +? ? -
`7 r ? r ` ` k ?t r ti 1 ? ??
- - 1 r r 1? • ? / , r?.l,_ "? ? - - v`..l ? ? -"' 1 +#
• 1 ! ? , - r ! rr 1 _111 I ? ,, +. ! + ? l •a I- Is + I lr ` `?
:? : - .: ?.,, ti • _ -? ( `-`` ._ , ?- . -tax { _ . Ir ; I .-
NC ECOSYSTEM
r
E!cosYstem ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
UT WEST FORK
(DEEP RIVER)
STREAM RESTORATION
FIGURE 4(b) - FORK CREEK
REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP
N RANDOLPH COUNTY NC
1 0.5 0 1 wE (ASHEBORO NC QUAD)
Miles s
-7 Tn �'.. « '� � � '� � ��p�q *3 �•1t de
`��`.� kir /�•. _
1t
ii yp �4 ; aT

Jlj
,
rem
-pop
? k
CA
REFERENCE ! r•?-? _??
REACH-
(UT POLECAT CREEK) ILL
¦' p??
11 1 Ian
ALI
F6vL
I
_ ? ¦ 1 ??? I
Fkzel
r %6AM-
f. ¦ r.
OXON
•
0.5 0.25 0 0.5
Miles
NC ECOSYSTEM
r~
lcosystem E N H A N C E M E N T
PROGRAM
UT WEST FORK
(DEEP RIVER)
STREAM RESTORATION
FIGURE 5(a) - UT POLECAT CREEK
REFERENCE SITE WATERSHED MAP
RANDOLPH COUNTY NC
(GREENSBORO NC QUAD)
M J ?? . - 4
lw-
r -~
?r
J
!' Lr fr r 1
L% Z
1 f .?
.
OLD GREENSBORO RD ?.J+
jffiv J -y ? I I 1 ?', ? ? ? '•? ' ? -fir
9 ..?'
REFERENCE I 1 _
? REACH I ;? ?''? ? 7?'° "??? •' r _• -? :,
220 -''
y Y' 1 117.
'
46 me L
~ rI +'?
?J•ti . ? ? ? X I ? ? 1 I ? 1 L ?
4YF r + FRED LINEBERRY RD 5!
11 ?, ? Y f r r?I
r ` - 1' 1, ti `• 3 ,- 1' f .? L-I
f _ r 1 ? ? '? rti
NC ECOSYSTEM
Y
tem, ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
UT WEST FORK
(DEEP RIVER)
STREAM RESTORATION
FIGURE 5(b) - UT POLECAT CREEK
REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP
N RANDOLPH COUNTY NC
1 0.5 0 1 WE (GREENSBORO NC QUAD)
Miles
s

W
O
r
m
U)
•
m v n ;
N
Or
r

? ? C
n n
m
n n_
K
g

v QQ

?
3
m
A
13l x ? v n
o

fJi ? s

V s

N ?
z
? 4

7

M

O n
3

z

ONi
m

A
N

?D
O

N
00

N
fJ D
o_

o

m

in
J
o?
m
? 0
¦

I

-Aft
W E x ?? r V,
I' v m ., e
lit
oil
mpmcr,
m._C X414
OZ C -0 m .p = ?J4 _
?7 1 m (n m
00
r- '
rri
n n Z
+ E.
-0 m
4u
¦

ft 1 11
U
?. Z
W Z
W }
F- W >Z? Q-
Cl) ? O z z
W F- ?
?QO C/)
Cl)
U ? w O? U o
® V Z Q ° ? ° `O
Q LL
w=a, YwU) Lu
0 z?
V Z ?Elf U- Z?
o
Z W U-2 -CU
a
i- W z
=
w ?
3:U? cn
} x
[If w
V
LL
4-
C)
LL O
w o
z
0
LO
ti
00
0
0 co
N O
I` O
O Q N
O
~ O
N Q Q O
0
Q Q
0
F-
w Q w
D
U N?
- W
U) F-
0
0? LO
O D N
CO H 0
Q - - N
F- 0
QUWw
0 Z C/'Cl)
0
0 >% u
?r > U
4- U
co 0
_ O
_0 U
N L
L C
D O 2' c c6
0- m W U
J L
U (0
N O
C (1) 0 N N
o) Q >
r
1 I
1 1
c
N
N
U)
M
W
? O
O O
E U
(1) D
>
c6 fn
W O J
O
o ° E O
U
Q N 0
(1) cu t o
C U E
I? a W 0?
a
a

*
f
.O-
.
40

' y
t q •

yyp±?

m
N

U Q
Z
W Z

F- W w }
> Z F-
-OZ
Z
-
F- Q

Cl) fn V a
O
? 0
w J
o O 0
I a
0
U<W wo
W=O. ?0?J
v Z °g-
Z W Q (D
F- w , J
C/) LL
LU
?Cf) U) Q
} >
O
LL
w
LL

W
z
•
Section 11.0 Design Sheets
•
0
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
O
Zr
N W
z G
Z F, O
Z V i
cm
G °
w N
o °
0
c7
?a
W
W W won
W znm
z wN .
3ww
o?w
r
60
W
J
U
cn
lQf
fY ?
•a
20 O
H
z oc
O w
H ?
O
cc
me
CID z
Z W
0111

V ` ?• V
O
0 O
O O
N ~
W O I
Q
Q
n CO
• Qo
0? ..
Z CO Z
Q 0 IZ
b Cl? .

1
I
1
1
1
1
I
e I
1
I
1
O
r-
OO
N O
w0 1
2 .?
F- a-
F- 1
QI?v
?vrn
M OD
O
cr-
mZ
oa
V ` V
,-At , VV
,
O
~ O
O
O
N
3
I
W
~ CL I
F- ?
Q ?.
00
00

? r
Z C Z
C; °- W
ce
\ T
1
w
? W
` OD
i
cc ?-
O z
U. W
m
co 0a
W W
v W
V
a0
N Q
cc >
H ?
W U)
0 Z
Wav
W
oc
0 3
CO)
W
Z O
N
a "
Z
N
f-)o
V Co W Q
)o ?cL
?
? V N
4.11
V
C Q
z
Q??QG•
Q
w
z
z J 1.4
W
cc LU
¢ w a
CD <n O
U O 6J U H
GEC 7 W U W
F- Z
1 W S
U ¢O C7 cc w

I

W gg
Q ^
W O
It ¢
N LL

U
Y
F-
z"
N
it 0
wav J

M
N

ZW
;
I
L
?L
O
¢
O
LL

N
OD
°
Z W N
F-
a
¢ }
,-
z a
w °r
0 ¢
W
? o 0
LL ?
Q
¢ Y
O ¢
~ O
N li
w
¢ F-
w
w 3 v
o !-
N? n a
° m m
z
w
r
O °

0
d W
z
H
p ?
Y
w
U
O)
O Z N
V LLJ
m
•
0 0
I ?WI
E- X3 133HS 33S 9-9 3NI-lH91t/W
9
z G
Z o 0
9 N
?n
G °
n
o °
lm?
o
ai
O
m
V ?

z
W
Wy 2OW
W N
F
r„
V a 2 n
z w o•
w rn
3Hm
^
N W ..
N J J
` ,
)
O Q F
OL
V
in
F
L9 LLI
O
1i
W
d.
Z
N Z J
Z W
O ?
v N
r i - LaLI
--8
1
I
I '
i
i
i
I
l
I
1
i ?p tr 1 CD
Q)
a
I-- LLj I °Z ON
-'Q U
UW
v? co
a

off
n
.•? Z
Co W
N
W
W
N
N W W
n N
N
0 CO)
dWw
0
OW
Z w
N

Ib

F,
C
- rn CO r
O = rn
O Q / >-

M)
Q)
Q? Q
s
R ?

r
l??ys ?
?S b' b
-? bW
?ir Q(,7
LO 00
0 ?WZ ED w
00 0 ?N
C) _?Q I-
U .
w 0 1 U W
_ N
V- 0")
mCo
z m?
Q oa
b
0
O
U-
00
a
C-0
Z W D
N
J >
' _ \
a
a[
r
z I
w
~ L
0
p
a
O
w
? U LL
Q
2 Y
O
O
y LL
w
¢ F
2 p
w w
3

°v
?
o F-
N a
o
n m
m
Z
O

O o
7G w
z
y
p o
Y
W
O
w
Z
O J
M
LLI
ILL a F}-
N [t W
aC (7 N LLI CL
O
z cc
U O a U N
cc 7 W U W
CO) Y Z W W
2 W
o
z
W
f
W
J
w
Z
LLJ In

7 ?o

O Z
J W
W ZZ
Q
Y cn p
cc 0 CD
a°c a 0

z
x
to
Id
Z
V
V
a
N
O °
V ?
W
W W 2nA
Z WZn
w .2
m
3?
N W ••
N J J
O f
6, 0
0
-j
J
U
S 33S _ 3NI-lHO1dW
'b-X3 133H
IA
Jai
Zi
N?
W
4
co
ZyW
N W
n r
I-
y y
ca co
t?W W
0 co
ZW
N jr

1
I
/
/
I
W _
GUILFORD- COU _ _NT i
FORSYTH COUNT
W '
h ?
Q
C?c?C6
N, (?o
8
V ?A? ? J I
1 I
1
. J?
W
, I
/
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I \'

1
i
Z ?r
? ? I
1 O I
i
1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
I 1
1 '
1 I
I i
1 1
I I
1 I '
I I
I
cy-
I CL I
I Q I
I ? 1
I
I I
0
O
LL

H In
?
co
Z
W D

N
J
H =

¢
a.
r

T
O
W CC
¢
G
F Q U O
0 Y
u-
?
W LL
¢?-
In
w
w3 °v
CD? n o a
T
0 m m
.. O o
w ? Z Y
' W
x
p a ? U
I COUNTY
I 1 GUILFORD __-
FOR - -
I I - - - - SYTH COUNTY
? _ ___? -=------ ----
IN E.
944•
• 6894-
E
I
1 ,
1 .
I
1
1
i
i ,
I
1
I 1
1
1
I ?
I 1 '
I I ,
I I
7 ? I 1
O U O I I
z I I 1
N ? I
I I I
1 I
L LI v Q i 1
v ? I 1
z I I
p-) 00
_ CO ? I
> .. I
J I 1
a z
° 0- 1
I I
1 r•1 1
, ? O I
1
I I
1
q-lO
? I
C Co.
c?
1 ?• I
P? • I
I
• 1 I
? 1 1
'I I
Or
Cb_
VZ? 1 \
W
J
LL
LL
ty
¢
o
X
O O I K`

w
z
O J
W d
(D co 0
z cc
d 0 a.
J 1- Z
Z w W
aW

W ? ^
z w O
> O
co U.
co

Y
?
cc z C.9
w z
?
¢ 0
a 0 -j
J
w

J w
Q
>
p
J

}r ? 6
0 0 0
i a ¢
X QL LL W
= W H O
w Z ¢ W N
z ^ J ? _ ?
dW
o w ?N ?H a r
G _Q I Z 0
z W ? aT
Z C Q M O ~ w0 U LL
N d S 3? V ~ ¢ Y
¢
I,. LLI LL
00
?+ ¢ w
O w 3 °v I-
Z T- ¢ N 3 U
o m n o a
?
`n N
0 LLI W Q o m >
01 c W 2 • ~ o ii C w °
n
0-
4h
< ° w
1 \? • F O 6 p U
J
W z f'
W won J I
z wN? a
U y
(5 ¢ v aO1o fA I -
?W wzn o I
?=W v I
A 3Mm •
_ 1, N J J ? L I
V ° 4a Iw-?' ??' •
Unl I
N
Q I
\ I
\ I-- Go O I
`\ + 1 W Z O. I
\\ Z 1 , `I z o---? Y Q
\\ WH I Q C.7 U
co ?• I
Q \ C? c W N U I
\ F W61 ZOC+n i LL. co
• 3 I
0 n
Q N
CT) z
?N
W W ?\\ • H?
'
LL- co Z \ CO)
D M \ CL LU
_
m W m \\ _' M ?rZ•ING
ca I--
\ 1 \ 1 Q ¢ O
F- H IN M
? I
\ I W
I
m
LLI
3 ?? I x z
ra
w z
\\ Oda o
w U) -j
\\ -. ?'m f? ??, `Ivy W ¢ w
¢ w C_
\\ N ,, i ?? W D z¢
\ T ??? I = Q a V?
\_____ i D \? U v
I Z
I-1----- ----W - I ((?'? TrTT H Y z W a
a
z U ?CO
IOI-z 1 = O W v ¢ v a17i
1 \ ,'\ '^
LLI
`I I- JI
1 I W
Lu C,
I H w
LL, O
11 I J 5 LL
W Z J W
Q - , Q ¢O g
r- w ¢ g
a
J J
a ¢ U
Q C\J
Ln " °- J
I
} d- ?z0
° o
lY I` o')
a0 N
B F~" r
111 Q oa I I
• .. W W N 1
?y
FO
m z I=
p ? " ?'1 1 I
•-?il _?? m ?J I ^
E-X3 133HS 33S 0-0 3NIIHO1bW aJ

yw
IZI?
z
e?
O
? m
m
?a
m
LL
W ?t ?mm
?/?z WNm
Jz Wz?
N J J
OQIW-
r3?W
W
J
U
In
O
¢
• o co
' H o
N ¢ ?
Z W ? N
• g>
z 0
o w -
=o
1-4 a
• O V IL G
Q
¢ Y
O ¢
~' O
N W
W
¢
F
CIA
• w
w3 °v
• F-
LLI o n o a
a o>'
n m
? z •• O °w °
Z • ° °` z x
H ?
Z o a w v
Ha J O
I
31
. I
I
I _ CN

• 7
C
N ?IL
W fFJ
i
I
t '
?, NI1N? ld
\ ? a
\
\ ?1
s
1 QO
M
N
c23
C.7
Ln
Lr)
O
co
a
0
- - - - - - 7
i
(?3
Z
H
N
•
l
a
U
Z
CL
W
z
O J
w
J F
H 2 W
¢ toLU IL
o
W ppY O d
V O 2 U
7 _ W O W
c Y Z W W
QhQ
U 1= a W
OI
w
W
O
W
J
W
5 F- O
Z CD J zW
Y U) <
1= 0
cc a U J J
< j<
I
r?r
?b?
;v
(23

D
z CO O
w X LL w W J N H O
\
N
W z w N
Z a _
o z a ?C w r
z G OH w oO o
Z O K Q Q U U.
Z
?N o?
w ? r
w U.
o x
co
w o
w3 v
o n o a
tn In
oO4 O1 = •• C °w °
-j
z LL o a ° U
WON
W W Mwo Q
Z wN U
G
(? z w o EX_7
W 3Hm
<z^ Cf) N--*,
P? ? ? E SHEE
G-G S
N INE ! Air
MAT SHE"
_
i co -
0
d At I ? .
CIL _
T 1 \ =N
Q I N v
I i \ .1 x
W
I I \ LL
I
I ,\ -mil
I ?
W
1 ¢ •/? • o -j
? J H
-r LL Q
O
I ~ H ¢w
N
y o
I F-
I CO) ,?\ \
F
I W $ a v
W
• ` \?' H Y 2 W W
I• z v QNQ
\, • V ¢ V a W
w ,
Z h z
w
a i W
~ J
I ? ,,yJ L1" y • )
lC)
11 06 ¢¢
> F- O
o')
1 W N
CL ?? C',
1 Q ,\ Q W z J Z
v z H H
m N
w ¢ o g
I
aG a v J J
I
1
? r
I
1 •
?? SNEET EX"5
F - F SEE ??_?
_ Mp,TSH?INE
0 0 1 0 1
i^ _ o
J 0
utiwi W N ^ LL
0
/ H
a W N
N N
Z = J H 2 _
W ??f-rJ\/ O m O C
w ` ? F v a? ? N w T
V1 z Z
t zd ,\ F@ 0w IL z CL:
o0 0
Z s F AL W N F 0 c.? LL
N d H e a - Y
r3 °Co
W LL
0 0 Z It I-
W d$w
_ O
J _ w 3 ?
Ln co
W W 0 m
a m Z W ?- x0 Z w
c7 c? ?, Z < y w
""' Z ( as w csi
LLJ
Mo 0) Q
94 ON
W
W N? U i r0 tY ?-
Q J
Lf) V co
Zz w z^ 0 1 tL' ?? Lfl
W I
w3?a My
N
N W •• 1 i CY)
N J J
w N
1 m , \ LL-
% m
1
1 C
1 i
I '
I ?
1
, I
1. N
O
• I 2 N
1 N • O J
r w w
J H
•, ' N cc
IL cc
s wa
I
1 o z¢
i i ?? w Y J o a
i- a v
I
1 •,? ycn F n z 0W
S
O co Y W
1 \. Y Y 0 O ¢ fQA
1 ` u
I ?' v
1 ; WI
I w
1 • ? J
I %
1 •
1 \ w 0
. 1
1 , • > co o
Z Cu J
Q W
W Z J Z
z "
is Y co 0co
((?? Q O p p
O w 2 S o
0.0
J J
i
i? i
j< I
??.
= o -?-
~ O / G
LU O p
O

#+w
p..?r
!ten

d
z q
W h
w LL
z _ G
aj
W N
?n
G°
o °
? m
O
?a
'^ m
n
z
W won
z^?
W N
z WZ?
cnz
N J J
O ? F
t
w
J
U
U)
zo IM '.
P-1
\
\
\

Ln
z I- m
> N N
J W
0O N
a? m
U LLJ d N
I
.? Q 40 M
m
CO o° 00
U t.0
Q ?
o ro z
CL

i
i
I ,
I
a
O
H co
z¢
W a
N
g> _
a. tr ,-
r
O a ¢
Cl)
0 ~
ui 0
a LL °

O Y
¢
F-
°
O
L'
w
¢ F-
y
w
o
LL, 3 %r
F-
w? n o a
O
?
m
m

0

O °
*

a

d

Z

?
m
p

Y

w

U
CP
! Q
o a ? ?• O\
,
`f) `?• ? dO-•? a d a 6' a
60
ydd CP Z
2 a.
o?
?o
?o
W O
O
z
H ?
.W
1 ? \
i

i
W
Z
O J
w N
LL. a
LL w W
¢ C7 y w a.
O
w -j CL
U O CL U
¢ 7 W U W
F- ZZ W 2
(D LU
Q (D
U ? U ¢ W
o
z
w
cvf
w
J
W
z w a
Q ¢ ¢
> ? O
y
N
O z
Z Cu J W
UY td co p w Cr O
¢ a U -j J
I
r.ww
,. y
pww
0 . 0 0
0
17
=
o
$ _ G
v °
Z 'cr s
al
?n
G °
t_
ae
C7
zz
W W zorn
?/?z wN
Wz
w -?
3Hm
N J J
W
J
U
rn
?SCJ 19
?
,\o
o- ?
C6
• dff
O)6 O??
H
z DC
O tli
O
>aw/
U)
z w
O
J
W O
N ~
1- Z
a W
?E
LU IS
W Z
Z
W
V
d /
O
0 O
0
? I
W C7
~ n I
Q ~
C T
G M 00
?Qo
cr ..
Z m Z
Z
Z T
W >
F-
Z
H L =
W 0 co
Z
> = N
w `-
b,z?
1
I 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
• r
t
I
i
i
• 1
I? ,
1
1
O
r-
00
O
N
. r
W O I
2 .?
H 0
f- I
Q I`Q
:2 vrn
' ? M d0
• - cfl
!Y
Z m Z
-.7
y
O
0 O
O O
N r-
3: W
F- ?
Q ?
Q' t7'7
00
00
t
Ir r
Z CO Z U
a C;
\ Z
co
M
LL. W
z
N N
V W
ao
zH
cc >
W N
W O
aQ
W
N ?
o ?
Cl) 1=
W 0
H ?
CL
z
H
°
°
-j 00
Z W N
J H = ?
2 }
r
o a
W
~ W ??
p
U a

Q p LL

0 Y
0 cc
~°
y N W
W
?b

b
LLJ It
cm

U
~
co n a-
0
m
m
o

o
J ?°

a
a w
w
?,
"'
? w
Y
w
v
O)
co
r m a
O
JO Z V N
?Nm
a
s
P- 417 i (?)
I "-I - co Q_
?Lj O
?A
m
C Q

I?
W
z z
O J
W H
LL
cc LU
in ao
w Y o a
v o a 0i-
cr 7 W U W
co Y Z W W
;z 0 ¢Na
V ¢ U a
I W
?I
W
rn v
Z C)
W 2 J zW
Y ca rn ;
M 2 O
Q a U J J
I
r?
r--

IzIN
E SQ 133HS 33S 9-9 3N I-IHO1dW
9
zz _ G
O K
Z a' 6
N
n
G °
n
o °
O
?a
C7
W
W Won
W znrn
z W lV
?z WZ?
w
3wai
o¢F
W
J
Q
U
I--
Z ?
O W
O
0.
LUF-J
W
N Z Z W
O g v W
N
a
W
1
1
/
/
/
/
1
l
1
1
• i ? ?p ? I C7
CO
' ? Fes- OCp
Q U
UW
? m
1 Q
r
J
W O
M F
H Z
H m
W W
co 0
Z
W
1
?OV
O?
14,
(IV
0) Ct
CO
ad
?y Z
W
N
W
W
N
cc CO
N W W
?
N N
N
W
Co Lli IL LLI cc
O W
Z
H

IV_, x / ?,/' ) r-
I r,

O
?S b' b
? bw
a: -Q.
?n . ?noo p_
v 7
' X G w
O W c_o
cc -N
o JQ U
' w 0 1 U cW
r
?ro00
Z mZ
Q 0a
b
0
CC
O
LL
co
M O
Z W N
g> _
EL
ac

,-
oa
W ¢
00 a
W
? o
L
Q
0 Y
0,
~ O
co LL
W
¢F
co
W

°
3
L,
o F-
co n a
on m m

o

O 0
a

¢ 0
?

p
Y
W
U
W
Z
O J
W ?y
LLLL
L
cr W 0.
CD O
z cc
w y _j 0.
U 4 0.. U
F 2 W 2
LIZ=
0 ° ccQ 1 W

o
?

O J WW
W Z
cco co
Y a? S g
cc -j
< j< I

0 0 0

o
d co
z p[
i in O a0
cri
z z W N
t7 J H =
z 3NI?HO1dW a ~ T
E• ?o
9 N ° -So 133HS 33S 0-0 LVIN 0 U.
O Y
G o 1 I 944 I g
, WLL
o
0
? t - c
_ I 6894 W
0
w 't
CL rn in I I ' N ,? O a
?O ° t 1 o m m
rr 1^? a 1
V ^ I ' ti * O Z Y
I a y w
LL I O i 190 a c U
W w won J I I
_z WNO Q I ?
z I ,
C? Z aoz ^ro
W 3?a - ? I 1
CPO ? / W o I I
N W •• ? I 1
?¢? 1 I
/ I I
N
/ 1 1
I I
I 1
I
• 1 I '
I 1 ,
' 1 I
I 1
t I GUILFORD COUNTY
FORSYTH COUNTY
N W J --? --? I?
COUNT L _ t ?
GUILFORD
TL - FORSYTH COUNT
G co
? I
a. W I ?
I 1
"p: I I
V' I I
I 1
1 1 '
? , I I
Z , 1 1
%
I ?
Z '
\ ?i li
. W t>L 1 = I
1 I
Q ' I ? 1
Z I m
W L I ?t Z
N ' I 1 0y-1
Og / O tJi Q F-
,"", at w
I I
0 ar
w o
co) z
0' CV I 1 °?
12:
FaZ! W W a o
AM I I z W N _j 1-1 Z
1 I
LLI
/? Q d I I
W W Q O? , I U o c
0-) 00 ? t
co) co) z 1 I
?W W ' > m .. 1 I
J
C?7 co Q p Z i
W
1?•1 1 i w
• 1 ? 1 c?I
1
- ' I A'l0 11 ? co o
oj i o WZ w
Co.
cc 0 C19
Qw ? CpO? 1 `? ? I
PI • 1 I
J` ?1 I
Q??00?/oP II II
C) (b
K, (o
9
i
? C.) ?',c LL --
O Q~ ? = Q' 'app ?L) = l?
0
Z d ^
w \?•\G O
w D J O
W z
n J 2 \
LLI \ N
¦' Q>
}
w I1N?J I ° It
O 0 ? y ui T
z G Q? Q z o w 00
0
N 6 ??? F Q 0 v LL
a s c? O¢
F-
0 . 00 ai°L
LLI
?'S ~
W O c~n
r 1 tz ++ 3 0
LL z m CM C.)
n o a
'°n Q H °' 1 z CD
o
O C~ , W O W.4
m m
oc ?, W W w Q 3 1-. (
o
m W a F ?5?. F z w w
a Eb 4 m ai N W Q?0 $W??? o
z CO)
w =o ??` >Z ?a V'COON r o a w
J
ON J N ??
w =WON
w4
V?CP 000 m
z a^ c j W Nf W W
m z Q ¢ 00
W 3c=nw O WQ yC? V H G? FQ '
C PO NJJ OOJ Wd
v d
d Q a W
w ac
N H H d
v) n s . - LL. '
CO) M
\\ o r 1, ,G? N W Z O.
Z
?? WQ Z Y C7
CO)
1-4 Ld
x v 00 Q J
C-6 W ?
\W r- Q to '? oe } to
W W. O In J = °
z\ w O O ? Q
Q \ c7 c H LL W N
\ z o ? I ?e I- U
\ -" + z z LL
W
CO) a W
Qy, 1= 00
o.
0Ln 10-c W NJ ? O3
?S cr q- F. pN W 0-4
0-1 co) CL
W N aWe W. \ \ • aC et 0 aa)i
LL 0 H ?\ .sw.oo+Z4 cv y x W
Q • z C7 \ H x = z tL
W m \\ ?? CO) N OF 0.
x
\\ \ • ,0? gz CO) o
\ ? to
\ e I N
LL, IL
? gal.. , '1 Q z
z w
? \ d O J
w
? r m yd 1 ` ?I ° LU w wa
?\ J C6 , O+ W o z w
\ H
\ , = w x J oa
?, jy06w0, .
?__ o W g a o?
- ----- g-4 - I- --- z ??
_a 9 1y w w
v
W Q ?? _ w
w
z Q ---- N- - -- --?? _ O ; z ¢ N
o 6
H z =? s W ?I ?? O W 0 ¢ a
a w 11 c ',?, °d yo
> N F cc co t
.z N 0 ?y Ya ,?? I w
?„? Tr. J J , ? ? I
I
LLI
i I I (7
P. ,aye I W
V ,
cc z
I- H w ?
LLI Z , I 0
J > No
0 LL
, ro C- Z Q) J
OX
,O y _ x es w z J
1- 90) co
>
,cs 0)
_ I O ?c 0 p
O g
C-0 , NYC J
r- ' a U
N " .?
oL _
_ ?LU
I
o- CV ??c I O
aQ ,
? W o ? I
a '40
00
CO oQC r I r""'
W I•,)
I.- C •• °z ) CO)
Z W Ul
m
O I ?..w
W
E-Sa 133HS 33S 0-0 3NI-lHOlb'W ,?.
0 1 is 1 0
z
i

z w
G
_
O -2
Z
Z ,
N d
? n
r
Y? O
O O
P.
m Ln
O
z
W
W
won
W zN J
Q
U `.
H

¢Um
E5
cn

O

U) ?" • J

?J
W x W O
¦?• / 3c?oi

o w
V 4a H ? M

? V

ro o
O
(?/ 0
' O
C3 O J DD
H
A, • Q W N
J " _
?j • a ¢ F-
V oa. z¢ <r
w (?3 ? Q U LL 0
F ¢
(no
V?/?1 ? Y
W L"
N
w
w 3 v ? i-
1?3 W ? ? c a
Q ° m m
C7 H ° w
Z • H Y
H
M o a "' cxi
? o
cc (:23
I
• I
•
• O I
I
3
I
N
I
• ? I
M I
I
• CV I
O J
I
W
,?. z O I
O I
I
LL. - ? co
I
J Q I
W J ? I
*v LL - - - - - - _ - _ _ Z
x w
y3° = >
N m
N >-
00
O w H
O
LL.
d
I a °? 4
• z
% d } O J ?1
LL i , aF~-z m LL
.00'`9 d \ r d w w U
U) w
.$W Y W
•
j z
zz
a. Cl)
W O J
J F y
jU :E LL
o. N J w? I 2w
W a
N = ¢ 2 = N =
H 2 o j zQ
SO ~ H Y a 0 a 96 0 Q Q W I- ° H ¢ CA)
w I. w
w dQ owe OR N z wa
z NO N U. o py ¢NQ
O ?i J ZO 0. U ¢ V IL
(23
I--
w ,\ •
0
d
OOZg? w o
z
2
w ~ J)
N
N
962 W
V
LLI
U) 0
96 \ O
H
U. a co LL
6
\\ d S w z J wz
cc 0
?-SQ Ic a? 8 8
Q
\ ? I
r--
r

i
t
= co

O
Z
w
i G
U O -2
Z
w "t
cm d

O
N
O °

O1
N co;
O
a
?
C7
z
W W won
PQ
.
J
wN Q
_

(7 Q U o
co
?z WZ? °
W 3
Hw
o?F
Pro
N
I
I
,- 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
CL
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
C 1
I
I
I•
I?
I
I
I
I
1
1
CL '
I
I
I
i
I
1
1
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
T I
F
J'bd,
SEE SHEEt DS-7
M?T?H?INE G rA?
F SEE SHEET DS -5
Mp,TCH?INE F
r?
?I
1
a w
O O
v m O J
° f- w N
?W LL > ¢
LLI IL
?y W N coo
W
o ° z00
s¢
LLI
o a va
or f- 2 Wi
Cl) U aN
V 2 U a
zl
I o
J W
J O
W
LL J
Y F
m g `LI
W co y H O
0) 1
Cv
s
a
O z ° J W
',
¢
IL Y ? co
Cl)
Ub ¢O g
¢ a U J J
F I < p I 00i I
a
O
LL

N
¢
O

Z W sh
N
N
a
¢
T
o a
LLJ ¢ a
N W
U O
O
Q
Y
O
H¢
O
O
W U-
tz
¢
W

°
W ?+ et
G
o n a
o
n m
m

o ..o W
z o
w

a
o ?
W
° Y
W
U
`

0
z n
v= O +
w ?J y m
N
? / Q v
i y
z G 2 d ¢
z •c f..dz W y
°We N d yz0 ? ??
0 1 z
W
von ? • p 'SW?OU* !
D o W
a m Z
Q ?
a n ~
U• X _
Q 2
z a W C. H
W nn W
W ??°om J Q J • ?- -?
z wNW , oLn
CY)
1 N J J
V O?? I a ,? I
In I f?
04 1
1 ?s
I
I _
1 ca 3 6
I ¢ FJ- ?
1 C23 ,0 xl.
1 ?Sw
I ?
m = s
lp", **o
I W ~ yJ sJ?
(a -j
l J`' d
Q ?- 6'70 \
I 0
1 If
• •
' w,00h9Z ,•\ ?
W
,
I IL
I
I 'sW00*s
I
i. N
co
I. c
` I
LL.
0
O
J
O
?
i
lA ¢
W (=7
N

O a
W ¢
O a
0 U W O
Y
O
F- ¢
o
w
W
CC
U)
L
3

¢ F
v

N

?
3

F-
c?
n o a
• p ° m m
W o ? z
U
z Q H
Z
Q p ( U
J g w
G
I?

W N
LL-
Q m

J

I z z
y
+
ccl
W m
(a i

I
I °¢
O.

I N
1 y
ou?
I ?
0,Ivz v
' I
• 1 .Sw 0
I
I
WJZ
1
I O?x?a o°.
'?
\\\
?
.
1 A
LL =QI„I
am6
` \\ \ ?

I

M .
z z

LLI

\\ \ \\

Q
00 0
LLI

LL.
0-1
o Y d O d d~ JV
ul
c O
k?2 rr
V
r s O ¢
> °
¢

J J Z ` .
?
? V
z D H
Q C IL
d I`

N z
O a:
(7 Pm
O o J F V) z
.•JJII WO zz j ?.
O z
'\ m Z \\ O
W w \ 0
U) j \
\ 0.a \\ 0
\ Ic \
\ 6 \
W
z
O J
LLJ
'- Cr d
(q CO) O
z
:) ir
M LLJ _j 0 CL
U O CL 0-
cr 7 W U W
?- z W 2
LLJ
co c -3 co
Q
U ¢ C¢. W
zz
W
(7
W
J
W 0
5 Fo
co LL
z CD J 5W z -j
Y y co
¢ O
cr a V J g
I

-477 1

d
z ap
N
K
i
w
z _ G
Z O
c 4
G °
w ?
o °
F++ m
O ?
?a
C7
Uy
z
W W won
W znrn
z wN
cn w WZ
- 3HW
I_v'11? NJ J
w
J
U
I
1
%
Z m\ ?
O
Z T
I to
11 '
\

I

0
¢
O

M 00
°
¢
Z w 0
N
J N S ?
IL ¢ }
r
O a
w
~ ¢
F
0 U LL

O Y
¢
F-
(n °
1L
w
¢ F

w
co
w 3
?
F-
o a
o
?
m
m
z
o

O ..o
x

¢
z
N
p o
Y
W
U
V
9 ? a
?? CJ O
• Q \? 6, Q
0-1
o \
I o z a
\. p w ?
11+00-UTB- o `
G
J j I I xG0 N) y H? '??.
C7 I'I \G H W O
H \ 1 ? M O i
D I J
Q \ 1Z'1 z
i
C7 )' \ to z Au Z J
I \ Ffy i O tlY J F- }
I \ ILL
i > ¢
I \ J C7 , , ¢ w
¢ wa
\ \ z o z¢
0 a
i i D S J F- Z
\\ co m
Z W W
cc a. LU
12+00-UTB
o
• z
w
J
O w
LU 0
co O
W Z J w
Z
(A o Q
V Z (
It 0
cc aw v 0 O
J
< j<
I
?"..• 0
A? t
I rL
r?
W+?4
U)
Z 1` O'I
} N N
J lD
O N
I I
Q? m
U w a N
06 Q M
= 00 m
co rb
> g tO
p m Z
p 0-

a
Z.
IL
N m
z
0
W
z C
Z c
`a
W N
? r
O
O O
m
C7
?a
W won
Wy 7mrn
!I?? W N?
V W z n
W Q_?
- 3HW
O Q H
I_v'^, N J J
-W611
111 i W
C OLLZ
??e ozH
?ma
0
0

N co
O
Z W C\7 N
J >
N _
F
a
ac }
T
O a
W
N ?
p a

W
p LL
U
Q
CC Y
O
fA O
LL
W
W F
w
3
0
LL, V
H

N
o a
o
? }
m m
z
O O
S w
2 v
Y
O
J a W
? U
W
z
z N
O J
LL
IL > S
N cc w
LU a.
O w o
W Y J O d
F- O O. U
L) 0
2 W U W
F Z W S
ZZQ
V O0 U cc y
W
Raw

0 •?•d `5b6Z
'9'a
3NNVDaVw a Hd-Id?J
O
Z
W
I
p
W
J
W

ZZ LLJ

Q
3 cc cc
? O

cc W
W Z J
V
o CO
Y m
(
(??
p W O
? a U
I
r
con L

d o
z +- aC
0
= x J co
H o
w fn m 0 V
W N
J N 2
} r
W It
z G o z 03
is z jr
a
Z d G ° LL °
W N a
R
? n O y
ri W
O Q F
co
u?3 0
Lo cn ..D
O W O W M o
0
_ O ti N z
O ??_ M N N ti Z N N ti r y
LL l1J HH¢ T W T ¦ ¦ ¦ ~N7 a p U
w WON J ?-- M r ? M ?W..O 11 11 If 11
z aZ? O II II 11 IIW 11 r wu Q m
m m m N m m m
m¢ IS
3 p 3
o9? 3 3 3 3 o p ~
CPO 3
N
N ?.• M e.
ooft ?
N
O I m p
C\1 a
T I I
ai
Q z LL
OOOMWl% ?° N = O
N m I ?-m 0 U
° Q
Y
1
v0 3 1 1 A ?, I ..
I h z
W F I I J W
co
I O ~
Z I O m ILI
W a
1 3
J W I `° 3 o m r
3 O
o
co
O O
a O m m ?' ono ?
3 W Uy0
uj N
~_= OH0
'A W WFO' rN0
r'? ¦.F¦ W. ru °
v ~X?
Z n W
¦
N ?• m
O A M
¦ + .? ..
Ff° N
z m co m r W
M w00 p° m `O mm
W_
r m m Q ?.
3 'c? w
Q Z = °O
C\l + N I ?'
_ O I `•zy Q T 3 '?
+
U. N
° m I M oC a
La U.
v ? 3 ? I
Q ? N v m N M
a ?:z U. N z U. I a N
F
W N W LL W W 3 I 3 II II II
I? d N O
W N O ^ g m m
3 3 ° 3 I I I I II L m m l ry. p p a
W W m Y N N ?..
.1 ca I iso" LL W 64 %
LL U. U. n
u. 4. m W N 000 Z ?p?
ILL U. LL M ILL. m ? c ? m III II I I II ?+, m (a w :3
x LL.
LL CO)
cc c1l) 14 O m N M N T W W R'• z z 2
m m Q c
m m m 3m 3 3 3m
n u u u ?
«.?
W F O Y m m U)
F% Cal m
3m 3m 3m
l• W ,y? 3

z N O
O
X LL

H
co
O

W y oc 0 a
N
z J > 2
a ~ ?-
¢ ?

T
w
z Ww0 r ..
Oa cc ?
W
V O
Zq f- W m O
a°
fV
w _
° n 2 y
O
F O
G O
O ro LL
LLI
Q ¢
F
co
R W 3 V
:3
F
a.
Ow Ln P,
a

Q m m
W
V
Q O 7! Z
W
p ¢ w
LL IL
J
w ?mrn J
z WN? I N
M
N
O
<Zn C13
z W O
W
T
T
1?
w 3

N J J Cd II II

' 11 11
W II
tn I ? m a Y
C4 j
O I 3 0 3 3 Q
p YI
a 3
v

m I
' m
3
O
T
000

wN¢
~__

?
y
f x
w

000
w 1-0
F
U)
c
c

e
\

c m
z
?
U. U.

U. M N

LU m
3~ I m
T
o
m
J *
u
u
n
I
?
LL I ?-
LL I I CO CO

H o
d
I
o
o
a
?r

ifs U.

3
I 3 a
I
?

N. U. U.
U. w
.
i) °N° OD O O M
I II II 11 II
W
I ti. LL.
? U)
?:

o
m m
3
m
3
3
m
3
?

coo m

m ?
?

wH¢
.Jm ( r-?
?
~ Wi7
U. = .I 1r
q'? z z 1

m m t"l

r?

?N 10 LO 't M N
w V W
= j
Z
_
w
d
Z
zg
N
9 O
G o
0
I I,

I I

SL+EL
IIIs Sol T
T SL'LZ+bL
IIIS 90l

°
> r W

2
W
6 I
=W
d ai
f") N
m o

zz
Mo 06 Z-

° W
~
M
r
/ Z W
O~
W V
J O
.
W:v
CJ
V I
'
? ? 84+Z1
/
N
r I IIIS 901

r

C14
?a
>? I

I =<
J WW
> d N
aW
w
I d zo

I
N
'o
I zz ZW

W.tl
u°i6 I r
Z W
I ¢ J
I
6 Q
W
J V
8 L+O L
IIIS 901 I
Q0+041

} ll IS 9013 s

?- 00+0'
L
'I'lls 901 1
p
M
CO. p,
7
t p
M
00
s

Z >r
u? =W
g
N Go
M
3u w
O-o
z
? o0

i
I 06+EZ p W
y
NOOHr Ww a
J
g i a
W C) ` 00+EZ
-Sl00Hr N _ M
o ?
4 1
I
N `C
N M
I
1
T
-
Ln
> N M
Q f-
W
W
J
CL _
W
L7 =
`
\ 0
N
p p
d
P.
w0
Q J ? Q

+6 0
N
M
1 3NVA 001

J

m
j M
m
?
N I Z
06
r 00 0 N
U
OBLL
3NVA SS+OU3
Q ?
`
N OZ+LL
\ 3NVA SWHO

I
CN

L
"?
09+31
/ 3NtlA MHO >r
g W
W

N
Z
=
OZ+SL
m
o U
V 3NtlA SSOHO 150
Z F
?O
O
LU
a M
c
i
W p
R J
/
1
z

W
W= J

O

OEOHO
3NtlA SSOHO

`?
Z
N Y
a
?? f
`

Lo J
Q m

ol

1 OS+bL ?-
I
W O
W
CO) N
I 3NVA SSOU3 C O
I
CL
0: d
0

bL'"LZ+SZ
z OUOd SNISSOUO WV3U1S d d
W SZ H3tl3U SW ON3
z z J vc•La+ea
t7 I O l/ Ills 901 N

I J C
N
0 O
W
O ?- _

J +
010 3ON301dN00

otp+zz
3NVA S
SOUO
O co)
1
LL.
Z
f OO+Ei
cn
x
I
C7
ea,93FGH SW ON3 •VZ H3V3U SW NI939 W N
D
z
W
O
F
I /
? O
d
I 2 W
j ` ? 0
t7 O
I
c d = 0
?
n zz
p I ;
N o
a? N
I
IL 5 LU ?O
N
W
\ U)
v
¢
I y
"_
0 +LL p
J 810 33N301dN03 N ?
v
I N0
Q W
F
6

O
I N
p
Q
J

/ 0
IL

r
00+sZ ¢ .
O
°
Ln
C , 3NtlA SSOHO N
? J

010 30N301JN0O '3NVA SSOHO
I 00+01 ,
- tlZ H3V3U SW NIS39
I
00+OL O I
t i IIIS 001
r-
N
'cl M d G C14" ! O i r d
M i O O
N ?--
co
00 co
00,
co
I 00

w t

i

d1?
z

u

S W
7
Z

W
Zz
V
Z

GO
o O
I
r-
I

Ln

S'ZL+£L 09+

AIH 1
1SN
H
Z
W 9'Z£+£L OZ+ L
z J > JIW ISN O
J = 00+£L,'-06+ L?
a Y 'dIH'1SN O
O Z l
W Q
to m 09+Z
d p 3N" SSOUO
O W

Z W CL a
IL
O L+Z L
N
r g w z O 3N" SSONO
dy O
0.

T
' O
L9+LL Co J
O IIIS OOl
( o w
Q p =
?y„
>r w
W? O H
=w
a._ ¢J
v C7 O
W
m
M 2 r CO)
z
o \J 9L+OL K
W
06 F
Q I ills 901 O-
y
Q.OJ
R
/ `
`
O
V
00+OL

IIIS JOl
O
?-
00+0'i
O
1 y C ' O` i r I. ! IIIS 90Il r-
O
; w Go 00
0 0 0
6
z
N
i
_0
Z 't
N
G°
0 0
O
?a W
n
?m
U
w W z
z a2n
.?
?z
3Ha
IO W ••
N J J
Cl) N
W ?" W
0 N N
H M
_LL 0
N
D°
.o Oc
Q°
D
zW
b g>
` Z
'b
W
~ W
N '• O°•
Y
• I? It
bw W?
I ¢ ~
1I ° cn
O
Q
O
LL
Go
H °
? a
N
y_
1- ? W r
0 ¢ a
V O
it
0 `z , ° 3 N 3 U
co =
°o . D
D ° ° Omm
o. D o.
D D .?. D ? ?° z Y
?w=
o a o v
D ° D ° D
D ? I ° D ° D
D °D o.0.
D o. D °
D ° D ° 0
D ° D ° D
D ? D ° D ° D
?D ? 00 0.0
o. D °D °D
D, D ° 0 0. 0
o. ° D o. 0 ° 0
° I D ° D ° D
D 0 ° D ° D .
°D D o.0 °D
D D D
0 D D
M
W
z
0
N
o?o!?
° ° ° J 3 3 ~
0,0 Z 1Z.- w ?W crc
g= W ?a N a
Z Z W Z C? a
Q Q° g"W ~
D D ao w
o
z
0 ° In M
D p ° rNm
p
0 ?? 0 W W W
NN°
° p N
D o, D
0 m
0 R. l
D
D

D ° D ° D
° I D ° D
D v o 0 0. 0
° D 0 ° D
D D ° D
LL
0 D LL
. D 0 ° 0 0
D ° D W z
c L?
° D D 0 ? o WW
° D Z LL LL z
Q
C D D o. D ?o?
l 0 O O J
D D
0 1 0 0
I>
z _
Z °
?v
w N
G°
OMM4
a
?n
m
a J J

O?
a N N
W ?°
m
w -i
n
wNm Q W W
Z U N N
z Wzn to M
N
? O C/3 U)
;
a LL J
H J J
W w ••
^
^?F
1••?VV??
JII
2 LL
S
S-A 133HS 33S 9-9
W
Z
O
N
V
0

Sys 7?S
b' b
0?
0
Opp p?p??0
0 0?0?0?
3NI?o0
?1 y{y
b?
O 2
W
CL
Q
za
O W
W
Q ?
2 Y
0,
C°
W
SF-
(1)
3
w
xF
co°
0
Q
J
in
Q
LL
J
N
x
cr
ULL
°
d
N
w r
0
0
N o a
° m m
w w
fZ'J Y
U
W
a W v
U
Q
W
LL
LL
m
D F
C0 F- W
D 2U
0
LL LL Z W
O U p? O

O
O fA

Q J

LU
Q g ?W ¢
x W
a ?a y
z 0
cc
o
ZQ W Zj
g V d
?
U
W
7 Ov
co
a W
r N M
0
z
W
C7
W
J
Z
g
a
z
H
i
'LW W W
N N N
OHM

3NI-IHO.LVW
000000
o°o
o°o
000000
o°° o 0
o°° o 0
o°o 0
oooo
00
?/ D 0
0
' O
O
O ?
O
u D? .
0
0 O 0 '
0 4?0
0 O
0 1 41 0

d
z
N
z
z
Z O O
? N
?n
G°
W
ra^
n
V ?
C.ry?y7r X
W W 1uOnQ
znm
z wN
?z WZn
W -m
N J J
O ? H
r3?m
13
?J
W
Z
O
N?c
0
w L N
J
U N N
Cl) " "
Ln (D
LL J
= LL
3NI,H?ld1 1
V' 1
p
Dp ; z ?
p? 1
p p Dp ''
Dp 1
Dp 1
Dp , p
D
D ?
p D ,
D ' D 1
4 14
Y? oDop 1
? 000 ', S
p o?op ',
\ ooh ''
v p
,\ D 1
p 1
D. ? .

1" -
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1 •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
1
1
1
? 1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
O '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1 •
1
1
1
1
, r1 1
y 1
1
1
1
1
1 ?
1
1 ?
1
1
1 ?
1
1 ?
1 ?
1 ,
1 ,
1 n 1
1 1? 1
z
a

°
LL.
o
z?

a w
C.D

N
J >
a¢
z _
}
?cn

w r
a
°w
?w
O
a ?I
U0 a

O
? Y
O 2
~ O
co LL
w
cccn
LO
Lu

0
`M
N
O
n
° o

m
o a

m
O
U
O iG
6
d Z
W
? Y
=
U
oD0 0 .0 popo?
0
'. o
o?oo?op? po??
4p°DoDop°D
0
? 0°QoDo
NHS ?? opo0
se,g?d
"0''
Lt
w
LL
LL
co
co

a W

o
O
Z
C

Z
Z
U
J LL 2
O U
O Z LL
O?
GM
O
r
a w
J
Z
g ¢ w
= ?U
?? R
y
Z ?
o
l7

z

J Z W

F
-J
O O-

g?
F-
0
U
CL
a
'z
2

IL

in M
F

to -
Fz

a QQ
W
r N
w w
Z Z
N N co)
w
Z
N

1
1
0 0 1 0 1
Id
i G
Z O k
e
e
? cm
N

G °
0 0
Q
o
?? w

O J J
1:4
U
a 0
(n U)
Z
LLI O Lo
tp N
on
W w J .. ..
W znm Q W W ?
Z wa
n U N N \
? z W z O co Cl)
,4;
rn lLJ
N J J

M LL
3NI,XHt 1dW
?'n 133HS a3s p D
1

i
i

I
I ?
I
I
1 O
I
CL
F
O
2
O
LL
Q
J
w co
O
a
co ¢
W m a
N

a. m

z r
cn
w
sW o0 0
O ?W
a ULL
Q
CC Y
O Q
Fo
0) LL
w

.j 0
LLJ

N o a
n
O m m
N
o a O w
2
Y

S '

a w

Cl)
w0 U
w
U
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
n
.I
CIL _
_ ° Lu .J
W I I-I I I- -I ' , I I I_?.i? I_ I'1"I I_I I_I
'?Z ti I ? -II 1111 'I - 'll 11{II_ Ilao
N
T w
N •----- ?-Li - IJ-LI? _ iii _ , C
00 = IW W z
?Lu CO M W W
?, - i o cr?
C/) 0
o oQ
D D ???, D
\ ?'\ Z LL CC LL Z z
W a o oA
J O F- O fA H
? ?
-I- -I I 3 WW QW WE W
O Q Q _ I co o co
0
D -_ z o Q o o
N ? f I I I w o a W g? v a
O
?/ I I I,.l z Q W W
H J F J
m° ? off a a
{? / W
I I_I I I I I N
V
4 IQ
. 0 _ I I I ? N N N
0 ? I I
00
I-
- 0000 ? ICI
W , I I I
0 D O I W W
0 0 0 0 z z ?
N ODD 00?,
N N A
0 is \-- \\ 1 I\? . x `N? ?\ ?
?? -? E-n 133HS 33S 0-0 3NIIHO1dw

z
f?i
= G
Z
W N
? n
G°
o °
rah
V n
W4 0?
W W znm
z_ W fV
fZ E °i
?? WZn
+
3~0
o?w
ib, CA
Qo

J'
GGV-?
tt,, -- J
V) (n (?VV
O Lf) -?
W N N •
N N
N N
co Cl)
LL -i
2 lL` -??
Q?
a
\,
1?
W
Z
O
NI

a
O
I
• I
•
•
C\l
% •
L I

a
c?
Z
N
H
f !
I
I

I
i
?% I

•
I I
I
I
- a 3NI-?H?1dW
- 133HS 33s a
?n

O
LL
Go
N O
z w N
CL
r
Za z¢
O W 0 ?
LL
Q O
0Y
O Q
~ O
• < CO U.
xF
?m
W
LU 0
a
ccri o a
o m m
o s ° w ?
2 Y
w U
a a N W
J O. O U
I I
1 n
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
C• I
I
I
I
I
1 n
I i-L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I

?- 3
CS3
ell*
S
W
LL
LL
m

W z
Z

W O W W
? LO L 2 LLOQ
Z
W
2

W
4 U
O
J
O Z fA
o
U
, Q y
z '
. o
a = xN LU

°
°z
w
°z w Z
O
"
a
g g>
0 ?

J
-J j W
a o
m 0z
co -
It
r N C7
W W W
N N N

0 1 0 6
d O
Z f0 0
j co
co w
W QZ W N
J > _
i
w o r
¢ r
°z _ G oW zo a
p O LLI
8 LL.
°
H
Z
Z d. i
? N O Y
n CDo
°^ w ti
o p °? F
O
w
W3 0
y? N
Ln o a
a in r:
7 a W W O m
m
U
a4 O N < m
•Ty O Ln O d p U
^a W V) N
W Won J
Mwo
?/?Z wC, U NN
~ G
V J •Z WZm ° N ~ co cn
W 2x LL J
C90
J J
o?w 2 LL -7
F V
,o
N
G-G SEE SHE , .
MAT GHLINE ?
G
I
I
1 ?
T
L I ?
W
I ?
I `1
%
I
I I;
I
I ?
i `
1 ?
1 ?
I
d '? w
J_ I w
1 ` LL
' c~i? s F w
u? s
` 2 0 ¢ CW7
I O F!
• ? LL Q 10z W
' I W D O O z N
I W p o v o ° J
1 I J o z off Q
z x w CCU ¢ cc
g z w 4ia y Wa
1 m z O
I z zO zW 0 a
I ?" m g H
F
•I z o z
I J H J w
m o> ¢ ai
r N (h
W W W
Z Z Z
N N N
I
® 1
I
1
1
', F - F SEE SHE
? ? MAT CHINE ? .
4
• 1 0 1 0
0
S
O
H O
O
f7 N
S ?
U O N
N 3 U
o a
o m m
° w w
z Y
w
a
N
d p U
F
Z
I- W
O w m
O C= CD
m O
S
U 00m
Z p pwy
LU =wa
O
W Z W
> 5>
J Fj
~ 0
co
.-
U M
L w
V N
P? I
W
Z Z
O ~
Q
°C
w w
n.
N O
0 OC
U n.
b~
U Z
w w
w
2'w
oe a
a w
e+Me+
4 V
f^
0
V

• • •
•
Section 12.0 Appendices
0

UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
•
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
0
E UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
PHOTOLOG for UT West Fork Deep River - Main Stem-Reach 2 (a & b)
•
•
Photo 1: Main Stem - Reach 2a, facing downstream
toward meander and undercut; located just upstream
of UT-B confluence.
Photo 2: Main Stem - Reach 2b, middle portion of
the reach (between the ford crossing & its confluence
with UT-C); facing downstream. Severe erosion of
left bank.
Photo 4: Main Stem - Reach 2a, facing downstream
from UT-B confluence.
Photo 5: Main Stem - Reach 2b, facing downstream
toward ford crossing.
Photo 6: Main Stem - Reach 2b, facing downstream
end of reach (Royle property line; fence spanning
stream).
0
crossing (facing upstream).
PHOTOLOG for UT West Fork Deep River - Unnamed Tributary A (UT-A)
•
•
der (tail
0
Photo 1: View upstream of headcut at upper end of
UT-A.
of large pool) at upper end of UT-A.
Photo Z: racing downstream toward large pool at
lower end of UT-A.
Photo 4: View upstream from confluence with UT-B.
PHOTOLOG for UT West Fork Deep River - Unnamed Tributary B (UT-B)
n
U
•
Photo 2: View downstream of severe undercut (right
bank) located along middle portion of UT-B.
Photo 6: View upstream from Main Stem -Reach 2a
confluence (located at center of photo).
0
Photo 3: View upstream from UT-A confluence.
Photo 4: Facing upstream (upper portion of UT-B).
Photo 1: View upstream of upper end of UT-B.
Sharp meander is located in upper-center of photo.
rnoto _): view upstream ot middle portion of - - -B
near power line tower (within power corridor).
PHOTOLOG for UT West Fork Deep River - Unnamed Tributary C (UT-C)
•
Photo 3: Facing upstream (upper portion of UT-C).
•
r1
?J
Photo 1: View downstream from top of UT-C.
Channel origin located in lower-center of photo.
Photo 4: racing upstream (lower reach).
Note grade control at bottom of photo.
PHOTOLOG UT for West Fork Deep River - Unnamed Tributary D (UT-D)
•
•
Photo 1: View downstream from top of UT-D. Royle
property line located along fence at top of photo.
Photo 2: View upstream of pipe outlet (upper-center
of photo, upper-UT-D). Outlet is covered with
sediment and stone.
rnoto j: view aownstream ot lower portion of UT-
D. Cross section 13 is in view (tape spanning stream
in upper section of photo).
Photo 4: View downstream of pipe inlet (center of
photo, upper-UT-D). Inlet is filled in with sediment
and stone.

downstream from pipe crossing.
Photo 6: View upstream from Main Stem - Reach 2b
confluence.
is
•
Appendix 2.
Supplemental Ecological Technical
? Resources Report and Categorical
Exclusion documentation
UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
• UT West Fork Deep River
Stream Restoration
Supplemental ERTR and CE Documentation
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) intends to perform stream
restoration on several properties along UT West Fork Deep River and other tributaries.
The project occurs in Forsyth and Guilford Counties.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation completed a stream feasibility study
for the project in 2005. Since the completion of this document, the EEP is required to
provide greater documentation in support of securing federal funding for its projects.
This information serves to supplement and/or update information in the previously
completed feasibility study to meet the federal funding requirements.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Prior to the beginning of the environmental resource inventory fieldwork, available
literature was reviewed to gain an understanding of the project vicinity. National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (Kernersville, NC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic maps (Kernersville 7.5 Minute Quadrangle), aerial photographs, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soils
• maps, and aerial photography were reviewed to determine the potential presence and
likelihood of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project study area.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) records and North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and habitats were also reviewed to
determine protected species known to occur within Forsyth and Guilford County.
Additionally, the records at the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were
reviewed.
The site was visited on May 14, 2008. The project study area (PSA) was walked and
visually surveyed for significant features, including but not limited to, potential habitat
for protected species, wetlands/waters of the U.S., terrestrial communities, and water
quality of study area drainages. Wetlands in the project study area were determined using
the "Routine On-Site Determination Method" as defined in the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
EXISTING TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Vegetative terrestrial communities in the PSA were distinguished by plant species,
location in the landscape, past disturbances and hydrologic characteristics. For the
purpose of this report, only habitats directly within the project study area are
summarized.
• UT West Fork Deep River Page
1 of 7
Supplemental ERTR October 2008
Based on the field review, there are two different community types likely to be impacted
• by the proposed stream restoration project. These community types include: Remnant
Bottomland Hardwood and Disturbed/Pasture land.
Remnant Bottomland Hardwood- This community resides along the banks of UT to
Westfork Tributary. This community existed within the 30-50' buffer of the stream that
had not been disturbed by livestock grazing and mowing. The following flora was
observed in this community type within the PSA: beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar
(Lioriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styracuflua), river birch (Betula
nigra), white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), hickory (Carya glabra),
maple (Acer Rubrum), dogwood (Corpus florida), black cherry (Primus serotina), and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Disturbed/Pasture land- This community type dominates the PSA mostly in the
southern reaches. This community contained mowed and maintained pasture land as well
as power line right of ways.
WATERS of the UNITED STATES
Streams located within the PSA all drain to West Fork Deep River. The aforementioned
stream is located in the Cape Fear River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030003, and NCDWQ Stream Index # 17-3- (0.3). West Fork Deep River is currently
classified as Water Supply IV (WS-IV). Water from streams with this classification are
used as a water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing where a designation of
• WS I, II, or III is not feasible. Additionally, these waters are protected for Class C uses.
Typically, WS-IV streams are located in moderate to highly developed watersheds. West
Fork Deep River is currently listed on the NC Impaired Waters List (303 (d)). It is
impaired from its source to a point 0.3 miles downstream of Guilford County SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Rd). Fish and benthic samples were collected in 2004, and resulting biotic
indices from this data concluded that there was an impairment of unknown etiology.
All of the drainages within the PSA were evaluated using stream guidance from the NC
Division Water Quality (Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams). SEPI scored all of the drainages on the tract, and based on the
NCDWQ rating system, the drainages were determined to be jurisdictional streams.
Streams identified as Main Stem UT West Fork Deep River, UT-A, UT-13 and UT-D
were determined to be perennial, and UT-C was determined to be an intermittent channel
which the US Army Corps of Engineers would require compensatory mitigation (i.e.,
important channel) if impacted by a development project.
Attached to this information are the stream data sheets for each of the drainages located
on this restoration site.
There are no wetlands on the proposed restoration site.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
• UT West Fork Deep River Page 2 of 7
Supplemental ERTR October 2008
The list of federally endangered and threatened species known to occur in Forsyth and
• Guilford counties was reviewed, and evaluations were performed to determine the
likelihood of the presence of each species within the project study area. Additionally,
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) GIS Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence layers were queried for federally listed species in the PSA.
No occurrences of individuals or population occurrences of T/E species were found
(NCCGIA 2006). The PSA consists largely of remnant bottomland hardwood and
disturbed/pastureland communities.
•
In letters dated May 27, 2008, updated scoping letters were provided to the US Fish and
Wildlife Services (USFWS) as well as the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). NCWRC provided standard comments on the project. A copy of this letter is
attached to this document. USFWS has yet to provide comments on this project as of
August 6, 2008.
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared
recovered, and removed (de-listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered
wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law
protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and
provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb".
The following lists the federally-protected species for Forsyth and Guildford Counties. A
summary of habitat preferences and findings for the above-listed species is as follows the
table.
Table 1: Forsyth and Guilford County Federally Protected Species
Common Scientific Habitat Biological
Name Name Status Historic Status Present Conclusion
Haliaeetus
Bald Eagle leucocephalus BGPA Current No No Effect
Clemmy T
Bog turtle muhlenbergii (S/A) Current No No Effect
Red-
Cockaded Picoides
Woodpecker borealis E Historic No No Effect
Small-
anthered Cardamine
Bittercress micranthera E Historic No No Effect
Small
whorled Isotria
pogonia medeoloides T Current No No Effect
T=threatened, E=en dangered, T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance
BGPA= Bald Eagle Protection Act, wh ich replaced the Endangered status as of August 2007
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a white
head and dark brown body. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in
is UT West Fork Deep River
Supplemental ERTR
Page 3 of 7
October 2008
color and can be identified by the flat wing soar. Eagle nests are found in close proximity
• to a clear flight path to water (within a half mile) near the largest living tree in an area
that has an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can sometimes cause
eagles to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle
begins in December or January and typical food includes fish, coots, herons, and
wounded ducks.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) GIS Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence layers were queried for listed species in the PSA. No
occurrences of individuals or population occurrences of bald eagle were found (NCCGIA
2006). Additionally, no individuals were encountered during the field assessment. The
distance from the study area to the nearest lake (Oak Hollow Lake) is approximately 2.0
miles. Due to the above reasons, it is apparent that the restoration will have no effect on
the bald eagle.
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) - Bog turtles are 3 to 4 %2 inches in length and
range in color from light brown to ebony. This turtle has a conspicuous bright orange,
yellow or red blotch found on each side of the head. The bog turtle is typically found in
mossy, bogs and marshy meadows, and small wetlands along creeks (NCNHP, 2006).
The project study area is comprised of fragmented riparian forest, roadside/disturbed
land, and former agricultural land.
• Bog turtles inhabit slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of sphagnum bogs, calcareous
fens, marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub swamps;
the habitat usually contains an abundance of sedges or mossy cover. The turtles depend
on a mosaic of microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter
(USFWS 2000). "Unfragmented riparian systems that are sufficiently dynamic to allow
the natural creation of open habitat are needed to compensate for ecological succession"
(USFWS 2000). Beaver, deer, and cattle may be instrumental in maintaining the essential
open-canopy wetlands (USFWS 2000).
Habitat for this turtle includes bogs, marshy meadows, and wetland areas along creeks.
No habitat for the bog turtle was found along the PSA, and no individuals were detected
during the site assessment. Habitat requirements of the bog turtle are not located within
the project study area, and therefore, bog turtles are not expected to occur in the project
study area and implementing this restoration project will pose any impacts on the species.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - The red-cockaded woodpecker is 18
to 20 centimeters long with a wing span of 35 to 38 centimeters. There are black and
white horizontal stripes on its back and its cheeks and under parts are white. Its flanks are
black streaked. The cap and stripe on the side of the neck and the throat are black. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the black cap. After the first post fledgling molt,
fledgling males have a red crown patch. This woodpecker's diet is composed mainly of
UT West Fork Deep River Page 4 of 7
Supplemental ERTR October 2008
insects which include ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, and corn ear worms
• if available. About 16 to 18 percent of the diet includes seasonal wild fruit.
For nesting/roosting habitat, open stands of pine containing trees 60 years old and older.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers need live, large older pines in which to excavate their
cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are most commonly used, but other species of
southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods, or
that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine
and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10
inches or larger in diameter. In good, moderately-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient
foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker consists of old open pine stands for nesting
and younger pine forest for foraging. No habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker was
found along the PSA as the project's terrestrial communities are remnant bottomland
hardwood forest and disturbed/pasture. No individuals were detected during the site
assessment. The on-line maps of the NC Natural Heritage Program were assessed on
June 5, 008, and this review did not any occurrence of red-cockaded woodpeckers within
one (1) miles of the proposed project. Habitat requirements for the red-cockaded
woodpecker are not located within the project study area, and therefore, construction of
the restoration project will have no effect upon the red-cockaded woodpeckers are not
IS expected to occur in the project study area.
Small-anthered Bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) - This small flowering plant
reaches 8-16 inches tall, white flowers with anthers 02 inch long and petals .05-08 inch
wide; distinguished from the similar Cardamine rotundifolia by its much smaller nearly
round anthers (instead of oblong), smaller flowers, and more angulate and nonclasping
leaves.
Habitat for the small-anthered bittercress consists of seepages, wet rock crevices,
streambanks, sandbars, and wet woods along small streams. The small-anthered
bittercress has been found only in the Dan River drainage basin.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
All populations are found within the Dan River Drainage (NC Natural Heritage Program,
2006). The UT to West Fork Study area lies within the Cape River River Basin. The on-
line maps of the NC Natural Heritage Program were assessed on June 5, 008, and this
review did not any occurrence of small-anthered bittercress within one (1) miles of the
proposed project. The drainage requirements are not met to support the small-anthered
bittercress, and therefore, construction of the restoration project will have no effect upon
the small-anthered bittercress.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - Small whorled pogonia is a perennial
with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem 9.5 to 25 centimeters (cm) tall
• UT West Fork Deep River Page
5 of 7
Supplemental ERTR October 2008
terminating in a whorl of 5 or 6 light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed
• and measure up to 8 by 4 cm. A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the
top of the stem. Flowering occurs from about mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers
apparently lasting only a few days to a week or so.
In North Carolina, this species is typically found in montane oak-hickory or acidic cove
forests. The understory structure and composition of occupied sites can be quite variable,
ranging from dense rhododendron thickets to open/sparse shrub and sub-shrub strata.
Herbaceous cover tends to be sparse, however at least two sites are characterized by
fairly dense stands of New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis). Sites currently or
historically known to support small whorled pogonia range in elevation from 2000 to
4000 feet.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the small whorled pogonia consists of montane oak-hickory or acidic cove
forest. No habitat for the small whorled pogonia was found along the project study area
as terrestrial communities located on the restoration site are remnant bottomland
hardwood forest and disturbed/pasture. No Isotria sp. were observed during the site
assessment. The on-line maps of the NC Natural Heritage Program were assessed on
June 5, 008, and this review did not any occurrence of small whorled pogonia within one
(1) miles of the proposed project. Habitat requirements for the small whorled pogonia
are not located within the project study area, and therefore, construction of the restoration
project will have no effect upon the small whorled pogonia.
• HISTORIC CONCERNS
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted in the original
feasibility study. The SHPO were provided with an updated scoping letter referencing
the original inquiry for the project in 2003. This updated scoping letter described the
project and had maps noting the location of the proposed project. In a letter dated June
11, 2008, the SHPO has stated that they are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. A copy of this scoping letter and comments by SHPO are
attached to this document.
An office visit to the SHPO, the Office of State Archaeology and Architectural Surveys,
to review the relevant quadrangle map was conducted on May 5, 2008. Maps for both the
Office of State Archaeology and Architectural Surveys were reviewed. There were no
known archaeological sites, historic properties nor previously surveyed structures noted
on the USGS quadrangle maps for the PSA.
Supplemental CE Documentation
The PSA soils include Chewacla in Guilford County, NC. The Natural Resource
Conservation Service for Guildford County was contacted regarding prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of statewide and local importance. This person suggested
• UT West Fork Deep River Page
6 of 7
Supplemental ERTR October 2008
that a review of the NRCS Web Soil Survey, administered by the Natural Resource
• Conservation Service, would provide the need information.
This website noted that in Guilford County, NC the Chewacla soil was listed as a Prime
Farmland if (the site) is drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing season. The property of concern is the Royle Tract. In
discussions with EEP, the decision was made the Royle Tract is not protected from
flooding and is frequently flooded during the growing season. Therefore, the project will
not impact prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide and local
importance.
•
UT West Fork Deep River Page 7 of 7
Supplemental ERTR October 2008
rr ,
t7,1 tq
F
/(/AI 0
U--, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [Q
June 6, 2008
Mr. Philip Beach
SEPI Engineering Group
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
RE: Unnamed Tributaries West Fork Deep Creek, Potential Stream Restoration Project,
Forsyth & Guilford Counties
Dear Mr. Beach:
This correspondence is in response to your letter of May 28, 2008. Biologists with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the area.
• The NCWRC is authorized to continent and snake recommendations which relate to the innpacts
of this project on fish and wildlife pursuant to Clean Water Act of 1977, North Carolina
Envirownenntal Policy Act, US National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act (16
U. S. C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat 884), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-6674) and/or Federal License of Water Resource Project Act (Federal
Power Act-16 U.S.C. 79 la et seq.) as applicable.
The project includes an unspecified amount of stream stabilization, "laying back" and other
potential stream improvements and possible restoration in this headwater area of the Cape Fear
River basin, These properties have been indicated to include incised and eroding streams that are
somewhat lacknig in dimension, pattern and profile and adequate woody buffers.
No listed threatened or endangered species are known for the area. Biologists with this agency
are aware of generally poor stream habitats due to historically poor stream protection in this area.
Svnilar situations are known to the west in the Abbotts Creek (Yadkin River basin). Natural
stream channel and buffer improvements that restore biologically fiuictional headwaters should
enhance water quality and provide wildlife benefits.
only autoclnthonous plants should be used for the project. State-of-the-art stream (and wetland)
natural design calculations and designs should be used for these improvements. Minimum 50'
intermittent and minimum 100' undisturbed and permanently protected forested buffers are
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
•
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
UT 1Vest Fork Deep River Restoration -Page 2 - June 6, 2008
recommended. Xrregardless, maximum available forested buffers should be provided and
permanently protected with conservation easements (preferably) and/or deed restrictions.
Please be advised that this office only reviews sites for animal species. You should also contact
the NC Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for their review and
comments about the site and proposed mitigation activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed project during early planning
stages. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336-769-9453.
Sincerely,
r
Ron. Linville
Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
E-copy; Bryan Tompkins, USFWS
Sarah McRae, NHP
Sue Homewood, DWQ
John Thomas, USACOE-RRO
0

d? SfATF°
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Petcr B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor t;)ft?celof ?1Eglnf?nd 1-listnry
LisUeth C. Evans, secretary 1)isisma of" i. to at Resources
Jeffrey J. Croce, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
June 11, 2008 ,IUPI I .j
Philip Beach
SEPI Engineering Group
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: West Fork Deep River Stream Restoration, Forsyth and Guilford Counties, ER 03-1575
Dear Mr. Beach:
Thank you for your letter of May 27, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no Iiistoric resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no continent on the project as proposed.
• The above continents are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comnnent,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. Iu all future
conummnication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
yPeter Sandbeck 1
•
Loeadon: 109 Past Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 Telephone/Pax: [phone]/607-6599
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
E
•
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document. Part 1: General Project InCkmation
Project Name: U.T WV-,SS v- -der -EAQG?,
Count Name:
EEP Number: 02-5 S
Pro sponsor: ,a 2- _ G--C-IP
Project Contact Name: W",;
Pro ect Contact Address: c _ AN ?U A',ZL& QC- o?iFoo$
j
Pro
ect Contact E-mail:
-
- 5 E4,JW;
EEP Project
Ka
na er: t v%G">,a e Aw et l
7777777777
Project De
scriptioif:? 7

,
77
?t'sTV??riaN ?' C ?1+4NCr¢.n.?G-NT QL?a.J(? ?' WrcSt

Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
? Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
•
•
•
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question
`Coastal Zone Mana ement Act CZMA Response
1. Is the project located In a CAMA county? n yes
0
2. Does the project Involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of ? Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ,?., N
L7N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? ? Yes
?N
/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management ? Yes
Program? [] N
/A
Comprehensive Environmental Res onse Com ensation and Liability Act CE
1. Is this a "full-delivery' project? RCLA
[] y?
0
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been ? Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? [? N
1 ?J IA
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential ? Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ?
I/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ? Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? El
MOM/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ? Yes
waste sites within the project area? ?
t
'N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? ?
L
? Yes
El ,
Ye
Ml /A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area? ,?_,_, ,Y

2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? L?
? "?o
Yes
El
M No
l" /A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? ? Yes
? es
iA
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Pro ert Ac uisition Policies Act Uni
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? for m Act
? Yes

2
Does the
roject
i
th i K
.
p
requ
re
e acquisition of real estate? ? Yes
? N
A
3. Was the roe
p p rty acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? ? "
Yes
? Nj/
A
4
Has the owner of the
t
b -
.
proper
y
een informed:
. E] Yes
prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
. what the fair market value is believed to be? ?
?
' N
L
f IV/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
•
•
C?
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question
American Indian Reli lour Freedom Act AIRFA Response
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ? Yes
Cherokee Indians? o
2. Is the site of religious Importance to American Indians? ? Yes
[?N
Ly IA
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic ? Yes
Places?
? No
[7KIA
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? ?Yes
F1 Up
^r4/A
Anti uitles Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? M yes
0
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects ? Yes
of antiquity?
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ? Yes
El NP
[ UA
4. Has a permit been obtained? ? Yes
? No
?A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? El Yes
0
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? ? Yes
?N
(y'N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ? Yes
?N
L1/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? LJ Yes
El ND
Ly'N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Hab€tat es
listed for the county? ? No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? ? Yes
0

3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
? N/A
Yes
wj
0

4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" ?
? N/A
Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? N

5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
? /A
Yes
? N

6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
? /A
Yes
, ? N
'
L d N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
•
•
!r ?
?J
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" Yes
b the EBCI? o
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ? Yes
project? ? N
IA
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ? Yes
sites? ??, N
/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired? es

2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally ? No
? Ygs
important farmland? o

3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? ? N/A
s
0
? N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any es
water body? ? N
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? es
? No
? N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation? ? Y s

2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? ? Yes
? N
!/A
Ma nuson-Stevens Fishe Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
1. Is the project located In an estuarine system? Ha
n bitat
Yps
0
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? ? Yes

[? lyo
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the ? Yes
project on EFH? ?
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? ? YYe
s
L e
'N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAH-Fisheries occurred? y
? Yes
,?
LK
N/A
MI rator Bird Treat Act META
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the META? ?
Y
s
e
L+ 0
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ? Yes
s
?A
Wilderness Act

1. Is the project In a Wilderness area? O
Y Mi o
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? Rt
A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
•
Appendix 3.
• Project Site NCDWQ Stream
Classification Forms
• UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442) February 2009
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Pro1ject: i!T West ?oC k
Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: F
W Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermitten! County: Other
if ? 19 or perennial if a 30
Lb '? t ?, ?p (c? e. g. Quad Name:

m. ueomor noio(Subtotal = " %7)
1a. Continuous bed and bank
2. Sinuosity
?
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence Absent
0

- b
0 Weak
1

1
1 Moderate
2

2
2 Str, ng
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 - 1 2

5. Activelrelic floodplain
0
1 3

6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
9 a Natural levees 1 .
1 + 2
10. Headcuts 1 2 I

11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1 3
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0
5

13. Second or greater order channel on existing . 1.5
USGS or NRCS map or other documented I No = 0 =

evidence. es
3
a AA-_-AAl x•-i..... - _
. _ ..__._.__ . .................- 111 manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 - 1 2 ,
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or ?
Water in channel -- d or grovring season 0 1
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 p
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 j 5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 es =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal=_ )
zu°. Fibrous roots in channel
21°. Rooted plants in channel
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves 3
3.
0

.5 1
1
1 0

1 5

24. Fish 0 1 2

25. Amphibians
26. Macrobenthos (note di
i 0
0 0.
0.5 1
1
vers
ty and abundance
)
E??
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus.
[:29 . Wetland plants in stre
b
d

0
0.5
--
1
0.5
1
-
2
1
.5
3
am
e FAC = 0.5; FA CW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 9 n• nthPr = n
?• woos vn wu presence or upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
0
•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: V f , -to Wg'( Ofk Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least inlerrrrltent County: Other
if>:19 or erennial if? 30 fiat ?? e.g. Quad Name:
eomor oloav (Subtotal =
V. Continuous bed and bank Ahsent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 St ng
?3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3, In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting _
0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches _

7. Braided channel
8. Recent alluvial deposits

9 a Natural levees
10. Headcuts 0

0
y

0
0 - ?

1

1

1 ?

2
2

-
2
2 3
3

3
3

3
3
11. Grade conlrols 0 0.5 1
5 y
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 .
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
o =
Yes = 3
aoc uiuuussmns in manuai
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = -:h7 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
16
L
aflitt 0

0 1
- 2
-
O 3

3
.
e
er 1.5 i 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0. 1
5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 .
1
5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 _
.
Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= __p
)
20". Fibrous roots in channel 2
21 b. Rooted plants in channel ? - 1
22. Crayfish

-

0

0
5

1 0
- -0
1
5
23
Bi
l . .
.
va
ves 1 3
24
Fish
. 0 0
5 1 _
25. Amphibians 0 .
0.5 1 1.5
1
5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
5 .

27. Filamentous algae; periphylon .
2 1.5--
3
28
Iron oxidizin
b
t
i
/(
ungusus. _
.
g
ac
er
a 0 0 5 1
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV =2.0-,
ther =
-? ?••? ?.? a lc pi usence or upiano plants, I tern 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wettand plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project Latitude:
?? ?J? rk
Evaluator: Site: VT Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermiltent County
if ? 19 or erennial if? 30 { e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomo holog (Subtotal = Z t ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence _
0 _
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
_
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits --- - 1 3
9 a Natural levees 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 _ 1.5
_
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. _ _
Yes = 3
nna.rinquC uin:nes are not rareo; see orscussions in nranual
B. Hvdrolonv (Stihimfat = ;? 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
-
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or

Water in channel dry or growing season
m
0

1 -
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 Q 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0
C. Bioloov (Suhtntal = 9
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21°: Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves - _- 1 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1
5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 .
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; penphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1
5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed _
.
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; ., er =
'---- -•• ^- r,- --••w .,. F,-.,-, uc.n - .wuaaa - tilts pu5ence or aquatic or Weilana plants: -`
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
r ?
?J
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: U I W tWf r? Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: G Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least irlteww7lent ^ County:
it? 19 orperennial+T? 30 V e.g. Quad Name:
11
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ?? ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 " 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence _ 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 , 2 3
5. Activetrelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
_
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
_
10. Headcuts 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.
5 1 1.5
12. Natural vatley or drainageway 0 _
_
0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
a.
N = 0
Yes = 3
an-u auc -.1- ...1 wLAMUU'see uiscusslunS In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
. 14. Groundwater flow/discharge p 1
15: Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0 1
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
16. Leaflitter 1.5 i
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.;
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal C )
2 3
0.5 0
1 _ 1.5
1 1.5
Yes = 1.
20'. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 Cg 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 -
2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians _ 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1
5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 _ - .
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1 5
29 °. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
norms cu ana ci rocus on the presence or upland plants, Item uses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Kim- 1-- k- -u -;A- -. 1 - .- - - - Sketch:
0 --
•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = 1 7..?)
la. Continuous bed and bank _ Absent
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
2. Sinuosity 0 _
1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 ( 3
5. Active/rella floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3
7. Braided channel 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9a Natural levees 0,, 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1) 1.5
12. Natural valley or draklageway 0 0.5 1 - 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
a,
CNo 0
Yes = 3
Date: Project: ?/?S t f k Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Vr Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent county' other
`
if 219 orperennialif>_30 38 ?jV.? GFQ ag.Quad Name:
?u umtvssons in manual
R. Hvdrnlnnv (Ri ihtnfnl = I r
14. Groundwater flood/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or

Water in channel -- d or growing season 0
1 2

3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.$ 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or pile's (Wrack lines) 0 0. r 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ;Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 106 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 Z 1 0

° - - ---------------
-
21
. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0,5 `1 1.5
23. Bivalves 'y 1 2 3
24. Fish 10
0.
_ 1
1.5

25. Amphibians
0
1 _
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = .75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- --- ,.,..,..v, - V„ tic viubtmw or aquatic or raevana plants.
Notes: (use hack side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
r?
L J
Appendix 4. Reference Reach Site
Photographs

• UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
•
r
U
O
w
a?
V
Sr
7
Q?
it
O
w
40.
O
0
O
..C
a?
U
U
U
U
N
U
x
0
w
0
0
a
N
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
0
w
a?
?i
O
O
a
N
U
?i
N
U
i-r
N
U
0
w
0
0
a
d'
O
O
a?
U
U
N N
N O
U
x .o
o a
w a
w
+t" a
D O
M LL o
N
O (3)
a ?LL
0
r?
Qj
i.i
v
t?l
[[??O
Z/1
V
Cd
i.i
W
F+1
a
A
W
r
O
O
O
w
,
,
1y 'w i" ? ?Gi
asp .x 440

ZVI
? r Y
?
rw++• ' ?i 3
R

4

O*kt
b . ';
?
1 ;w}
f.
l f p
jj.
, 410,

Sam.
€
? ?_ ?
'?`i
?•F
,
-? 1. ?
Pte' -t ?,y
?

F

x •?
! 11''TT
7
dJ
U
,Uy
?i
i-i
cC
U
U
O
N
O
O
a

Q?
U
U
?-1
?-1
U
Cd
U
O
O
O
QI

?
I t ?
?t X11 i' f?
{
,{ ? } d
tr[ !
l yA
' 3-:
?
YMy Yi ?
?'

14
R
?v
:
:I Y V t ,41

t y . n '
i a , °x •fy? I P' i*
A. ? ?? ? ? '??
yet
1S
4

4
'? .ail : ?yy.;
?
3
?
?? t?
•-'?.Ih1'-°' • S i ? 1 ?
l?
4
?
U
U
?i
?-I
Cd
U
U
O
H
O
O
a
4-1
il
t-1
U
U
U
O
H
M
O
O
N
O
Z
U
N
0
a
d
> W
c
CD
O
o
Y m
O O
LL
N
N LL'
F- C
D LL
11
u
•
Appendix 5.
EEP Floodplain Requirement Checklist
0
. UT West Fork Deep River
Final Restoration Plan (EEP Project No. 442)
February 2009
"-N-
OSVSI[em
%?1eI ell
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping
program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects. The form is
intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The
form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
Project Location
•
•
Name of project: UT to the West Fork of the Deep River
Name if stream or feature: UT West Fork Deep River
(Stream name is Kni ht Road Branch on DFIRM Panel 6894
County: Forsyth / Guilford
Name of river basin: Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county: Forsyth County
Guilford County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site: 6894
Consultant name: SEPT Engineering Group
Phone number: 919-789-9977
Address: 1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
UTWestForkDeepRiver_FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist 20080917 Page 1 of 4
Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
• orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500".
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Reach Length Priori
Main Stem - Reach 1 2,094 Preservation Ve Enhancement
Main Stem - Reach 2a 363 Restoration - Priority 2
Main Stem - Reach 2b 1,669 Restoration - Priority2
UT A 382 Enhancement Level I
UT B 427 Enhancement Level I
UT C 180 Enhancement Level I
UT D 372 Restoration - Priority 2/3
Floodnlain Information
•
•
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
Xr Yes r No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redelineation
r Detailed Study X Detailed study with BFE / floodway in Forsyth County
Limited Detail Study
X Limited Detail with BFE in Guilford County
F Approximate Study
F Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
r AE Zone x
r Floodway x
r- Non Encroachment
X
r None
F A Zone
r- Local Setbacks Required
r- No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how man feet:
UTWestForkDeepRiver_FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist 20080917 Page 2 of 4
•
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-encroachment/setbacks?
X Yes I- No
Land Acquisition (Check)
X State Owned (Fee Simple)
I- Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
r- Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department
of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neil y, (919 807-4101)
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
Xr- Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to NFIP (attn: Edward
Curtis, [phone] x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Guilford County - Warren Simmons 336-641-3784
Phone Number: Forsyth County - Jeff Kopf 336-747-7453
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
F No Action
is F No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
r` Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name:
•
Title:
Signature:
Date:
UTWestForkDeepRiver FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist 20080917 Page 3 of 4
Criteria for Flooding Requirements
Grading less than 5ac:
Notify LFPA
• Not Regulated, No Community
Set-backs Grading more - No Impact Study
than 5 ac: - LOMR if.
Site BFE not< Establish Oft < Rise < 1 ft
Defined W/Community BFE data. - CLOMR & LOMR if
Set-backs P. Rise > 1 ft
Regulated
(SFHA) No Floodway
BFE defined (1 ft No-Rise)
Floodway defined
(0 ft No-Rise)
Non-Encroachme
Area (Oft No-Ri
•
•
- No Impact Study
- CLOMR, LOMR if Rise not met
- LOMR, if Rise < 0.1 ft
Summary of Scenarios
Zone FHA FE loodway Comm. loodplain Criteria
(map) Or Non- et-back
Encroachment
,B,C o No No o a. Notify Floodplain Administration
FP Dev. Permit maybe required
Yes No No No a. If grading < 5 ac, notify LFPA.
Yes No No es a. If No-Rise = 0 ft, LOMR not required
. If Rise > 0 ft, LOMR is Required
If Rise > 1 ft, CLOMR is required
E, es es No /a a. No-Rise Study
1-A30 . CLOMR if > 1ft
LOMR
EFW es es es /a a. No-Rise Study
1-A30
I
. CLOMR if > 0 ft
LOMR
r.
UTWestForkDeepRiver FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist 20080917
Page 4 of 4