20071864 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20071102

Q 7- 1 g 6 4
RESTORATION PLAN
CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06027-E)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
IN THE BROAD RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03050105
Prepared for:
r~
~~
~~cosyste111
~,_.. i.~~~~ t.
RROC.RGM
~~ t~ ~6~ ~
a. ~Y°~~
r~'~ V ,~ Z00~ GG ~
~.~aFP~lR~ WATcR ~JU
1PlL`v~~~rp~~~~~~,~~ ~ NCH
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
Prepared by:
'\~4t;,!1ii ~ZL ~C~~~a1 ~'
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
And
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Springs, North Carolina 27592
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)
May 2007

~~
~~~~ ;' ~
OCT 1 8 2001
6•
Y.....-• ..............
October 8, 2007
Mr. David Schiller
Contract Affairs Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Restoration Plan Review for Cane Creek Restoration Site -Full Delivery Project
Broad River Basin - CU# 03050105
Contract No. D06027-E
Dear Mr. Schiller:
On August 6, 2007, Restoration Systems submitted to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
the restoration plan for the Cane Creek Restoration Site Restoration Plan. The plan proposes to restore
4600 linear feet (lf), enhance (Level II) 5078 If, and preserve 1506 If of stream. The plan also proposes
the restoration of 4.4 acres of riverine wetland and 5 acres of non-riverine wetland. The goal of the
proposed restoration and enhancement is to improve water quality, flood attenuation, and aquatic and
terrestrial habitat to the site as well as provide connectivity to a State Nature Preserve northeast of the
Site.
Representatives from EEP and Restoration Systems met onsite to discuss the restoration plan on August
8, 2007, as well as, a meeting on August I5, 2007, at the offices of EEP to discuss the plan further. Final
copies of the Restoration Plan were submitted to EEP on October 5, 2007. The EEP has completed its
review of the restoration plan and has no additional comments at this time. Please proceed with acquiring
all necessary permits and/or certifications and complete the implementation of the earthwork portion of
the mitigation project (Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with your 401/404 permit
applications. .
For the purpose of obtaining approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan for this project, I
. have also attached a memorandum confirming that Restoration Systems is the Owner and Financially
Responsible Party, and has full operational control for all matters pertaining to construction of this
project. Please sign and attach this memorandum to -the Financial Responsibility/Ownership form of the
• erosion and sedimentation control plan application. Failure to do so may delay approval of the plan.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at [phone] or
email at guy.pearce cr,ncmaiLnet.
i erely,
Guy C. rce
EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
cc: file
.
~f,5 tGY'[,Gt~~...
~-6T ~lt:~?~~i,('1,4~1,i..
~'~'t~~P_.C.~I,IL~ ~~lZ-~" _S ~Gt~P.. ~~~
NCQENR
sJar~f, (~rtifi-~a Er^<,y~~rm ~~h~ , rrnnrr arnpr:,m I~~?M..~~ `, ,,;., ~_.,r~„ Ral ,~~ k!(?7F.go ~~~; c~~n 7i~ ~,~?~ „r;.

•
RESTORATION PLAN
CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
• (Contract #16-D06027-E)
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Restoration Systems, LLC is developing stream and wetland restoration plans for the Cane Creek
Restoration Site (Site) designed specifically to assist in fulfilling the restoration goals of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
. The Site is located in northern Rutherford County within 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 030501050600201ess
than 0.2 mile south of the Rutherford/McDowell County line along the eastern edge of Highway 64. The
Site encompasses approximately 38.1 acres consisting of 8830 linear feet of existing stream (will be
increased to 11,184 linear feet of stream as the result of Site mitigation activities), riparian buffer along
Cane Creek and unnamed tributaries to Cane Creek, and 9.4 acres of drained hydric soils. Approximately
46001inear feet of stream restoration, 5078 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level II), 1506 linear feet
of stream preservation, 4.4 acres of riverine wetland restoration, and 5.0 acres of nonriverine wetland
restoration are being proposed at the Site. Once implemented, mitigation activities described in this
document will ultimately proved approximately 6,748 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 4.4 riverine
• wetland mitigation units (WMUs) and 5.0 nonriverine WMUs.
Site drainage features provide water quality functions to an approximately 8.7-square mile watershed
(measured at the Site outfall). The watershed is characterized by agricultural land, timber land, and
sparse industriaUresidential development. Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the
drainage basin surface area. The Site consists of Cane Creek and three unnamed tributaries to Cane
• Creek, adjacent floodplains, slopes, and hydric soils.
Restoration, enhancement and preservation of Site streams and wetlands will result in positive benefits for
water quality and biological diversity in the Cane Creek watershed. Targeted mitigation efforts will
• achieve the following goals:
• 1. Remove nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with agricultural practices including
• a) cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and
adjacent to the Site and b) provide a forested riparian buffer to treat surface runoff.
. 2. Reduce sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank
• erosion associated with vegetation maintenance and agricultural plowing up to Site streams, and
b) planting a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams.
• 3. Reestablish stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
gradelbank stabilization structures.
4. Promote floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
• floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, dredged, straightened, and entrenched tributaries,
thereby reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; and c) revegetating Site
• floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters.
• 5. Restore onsite wetlands, thereby promoting flood storage, nutrient cycling, and aquatic wildlife
habitat.
• 6. Improve aquatic habitat with bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
• 7. Provide a terrestrial wildlife comdor and refuge in an area that is developed for agricultural and
timber production.
• 8. Provide connectivity to a State Nature Preserve northeast of the Site.

•
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page i
• Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Siie

9. Provide approximately 4.4 riverine WMUs.
10. Provide approximately 5.0 nonriverine WMUs.
11. Provide approximately 6,748 SMUs.
These goals will be achieved by:
• Restoring approximately 4600 linear feet of stream channel through construction of a stable E-
type channel (Priority I), thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Enhancing (Level II) approximately 5078 linear feet of stream channel by supplemental planting
with native forest vegetation and removal of invasive species.
• Preserving approximately 15061inear feet of stream channel along a stable, forested reach.
• Restoring approximately 4.4 acres of riverine wetlands by reconstructing Site tributaries within
the floodplain, filling ditched channels, rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native
wetland forest vegetation.
• Restoring approximately 5.0 acres of nonriverine wetlands by filling ditched channels,
rehydrating soils, and planting with native wetland forest vegetation.
• Planting a native forested riparian buffer adjacent to restored streams and within Site floodplains.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
This project complies with interagency guidelines outlined in Information Regarding Stream Restoration
with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain -Draft (USAGE et al. 2007), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE
et al. 2003), Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), and Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). Specifically, Site selection, restoration goals, and monitoring
procedures/objectives comply with project design considerations outlined by interagency guidance.
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the Site. The
plan includes 1) details of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and forest studies; 3}
restoration plans; and 4} monitoring and success criteria.. Upon approval of this plan, ecologically
relevant construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented as outlined. Proposed restoration
activities may be modified during the civil design stage due to constraints such as access issues, sediment-
erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints), or other design considerations.
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page ii
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................i
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ............................................................. ..1
1.1 Directions to the Site ..................................................................................:................................ 2
. 1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation .......................................2
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................................... ..2
2.1 Drainage Area ......................................................:.......................................................................2
• 2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality ...........................•...................................................2
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ............................................................................................. ..2
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................................3
. 2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 4
2.6 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................6
2.7 Interagency Guidance ................................................................................................................ ..6
• 2.7.1 Site Selection .................................................................................................................... .. 7
• 2.7.2 Project Design Considerations .......................................................................................... ..7
2.7.3 Site Monitoring ................................................................................................................. ..7
2.8 Potential Constraints .................................................................................................................. ..7
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundaries ................................................................................ .. 8
2.8.2 Project Access ................................................................................................................... .. 8
• 2.8.3 Utilities ....................................................•-•-----............................................,..................... ..8
2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................. .. 8
3.0 SI TE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ............................................................................ ..8
3.1 Channel Classification ............................................................................................................... .. 8
3.2 Discharge ................................................................................................................................... ..9
3.3 Channel Morphology ..................................................•---•--.....................----............................... ..9
• 3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................................... I 1
• 3.4.1 Stream Power .................................................................................................................... 11
3.4.2 Shear Stress .........................................•-------...................................................................... I 1
3.4.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ...................................................... 12
3.5 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................................. 13
3.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 14
4.0 REFERENCE STREAM ........:........•------.......................--•----......................................................... 15
• 4.1 Watershed Characterization--• .................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Channel Classification ............................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Discharge.....--• .....................................................•---------............................................................ 15
• 4.4 Channel Morphology ................................................................................................................. 15
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................................... 16
4.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................................. 16
• 4.7 Reference Forest Ecosystem ...................................................................................................... 16
5.0 SI TE WETLAND (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ........................................................................... 17
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..:........................................................................................................... 17
• 5.2 Hydrological Characterization ...........................................................................•--..................... 17
5.3 Soil Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 17
5.4 Plant Community Characterization ...................................................................•-•--•--................ 18
• 6.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN ....................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Project Goals ............................................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Restoration Plan ......................................................................................................................... 19
• 6.2.1 Stream Restoration ............................................................................................................ 19
62.2 Stream Enhancement (Level II) .................. ................... 2I
6.2.3 Stream Preservation .......................................................................................................... 22

•
Detailed Rest oration Plan Table of Contents pag e i
• Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

6.3 Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................................................................... 22
6.4 HEC-RAS Analysis ................................................................................................................... 22
6.5 Wetland Restoration .................................................................................................................. 22
6.6 Floodplain Soil Scarification ..................................................................................................... 24
6.7 Plant Community Restoration ............................................ .........................
............................... 24
6.7.1 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................................... 24
6.7.2 Nuisance Species Management ......................................................................................... 25
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 26
7.1 Stream Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................................. 26
7.2
...........................................................
Hydrology Monitoring Plan ............................................ 26
7.3 Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 26
7.4 Contingency ............................................................................................................................... 27
7.4.1 Stream Contingency .......................................................................................................... 27
7.4.2 Hydrologic Contingency ................................................................................................... 28
7.4.3 Vegetation Contingency ................................................................................................... 28
7.5 Reporting Schedule ................................................................................................................... 28
8.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 29
TABLES
Table 1. Project Restoration Structures and Objectives ............................................................................... l
Table 2. Drainage Areas ..............................................................................................................................2
Table 3. Soils Mapped within the Site ......................................................................................................... 3
Table 4. Drainage Areas ..............................................................................................................................3
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Rutherford County ......................................................................4
Table 6. Morphological Stream Characteristics Table ...............................................................................10
Table 7. Stream Power (S2) and Shear Stress (i) Values ...........................................................................13
Table 8. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ...........................................................................14
Table 9. Reference Forest Ecosystem ........................................................................................................17
Table 10. Planting Plan ..............................................................................................................................25
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Existing Stream Data
Appendix C. Bankfull Verification Data
Appendix D. Site Photographs
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location .......................................................................................•-•--•-•---..............Appendix A
Figure 2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Map .......................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 3. Watershed Map ............................................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 4. Soils and Existing Conditions ......................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 5. Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile ..................................................................Appendix A
Figures 6A-C. Restoration Plan ..................................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile ...................................................................Appendix A
Figures 8A-B. Typical Structure Details .....................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 9. Planting Plan ................................................................................................................Appendix A
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page ii
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

•
•
RESTORATION PLAN
CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06027-E)
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
Restoration Systems, LLC is developing stream and wetland restoration plans for the Cane Creek
Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") designed specifically to assist in fulfilling the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
restoration goals. The Site is located in northern Rutherford County less than 0.2 mile south of the
Rutherford/McDowell County line along the eastern edge of Highway 64 (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Site encompasses approximately 38.1 acres of land that is used for agricultural purposes.
Approximately 8830 linear feet of the existing Cane Creek and three unnamed tributaries to Cane Creek
and 9.4 acres of hydric soils exhibit restoration potential as riparian (4.4 acres of riverine and S.0 acres of
non-riparian) wetlands. Agricultural practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian
vegetation and relocation, dredging, and straightening of onsite streams have resulted in degraded water
quality, unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced
storage capacity and floodwater attenuation. Table 1 outlines project features and objectives.
Table 1.- Project Restoration Structures and Objectives
Restoration Existing Designed

Segment/
Station Range Restoration Priority Linear Linear
Comment
Reach ID Type Approach Footage/ Footage/
Acrea a Acrea e
Enhancement Entails planting riparian buffers
Cane Creek 0+00-50+78
Level II -- 5078 5078 with native forest vegetation
and invasive species control.
Entails restoration of a dredged,
0+00-9+25 Restoration I 1220 925 straightened, and rerouted
channel on new location.
Tributary 1 Will preserve a relatively
0+00-15+06 Preservation -- 1506 1506 stable, forested reach and
provide connectivity to a state
nature reserve.
Entails restoration of a dredged,
Tributary 2 0+00-18+71 Restoration I 610 18? I straightened, and rerouted
channel on new location.
Entails restoration of a dredged,
Tributary 3 0+00-18+04 Restoration I 415 1804 straightened, and rerouted
channel on new location.
Entails reconstructing site
Riparian/ tributaries, filling ditched
Riverine -- Restoration -- -- 4.4 channels, rehydrating
Wetlands floodpiain soils, and planting
with native forest vegetation.
Nonriparian/ Entails filling ditchs,
Nonriverine -- Restoration -- -- 5.0 rehydrating soils, and planting
Wetlands with native forest ve elation.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 1
Detailed Restoration Plan

1.1 Directions to the Site
From Rutherfordton, North Carolina:
- Travel northeast on Highway 64 East for approximately 11 miles
- The Site is approximately 0.2 miles south of the Rutherford/McDowell County Line on the eastern
side of Highway 64
- Latitude, Longitude of Site: 35.5342°N, 81.8541°W (NAD83/WGS84)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation
The Site is located within the Broad River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit 03050105060020 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water
Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-08-02) [Figure 2, Appendix A]). The Site is not located within a
Targeted Local Watershed (NCWRP 2003).
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
Cane Creek has a watershed area of approximately 8.7 square miles at the Site outfalI (Table 2 and Figure
3, Appendix A). The upstream watershed is dominated by forest, agricultural land, and sparse
industrial/residential development. Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the upstream
watershed land surface. Onsite elevations range from a high of 1020 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) on slopes at the top of the Site to a low of approximately 960 feet NGVD at the Site
outlet (USGS Dysartsville, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).
Table 2. Drama e Areas
Reach Draina a Area
Acrea e S ware Miles
Tributary 1 253 0.4
Tributary 2 82 0.1
Tributary 3 45 0.1
Cane Creek (at Site outfall) 5548 8.7
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality
Cane Creek and its tributaries have been assigned Stream Index Number 9-41-12-(0.3), a Best Usage
Classification of WS-V, and are "Fully Supporting" their intended uses (NCDWQ 2005). Streams with a
designation WS-V are waters protected as water supplies, which are generally upstream and draining to
Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as
waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Unlike other WS classifications, WS-V waters have no categorical restrictions on watershed
development or wastewater discharges and local governments are not required to adopt watershed
protection ordinances.
Cane Creek and its tributaries are not listed on the NCDWQ final 2004 or draft 2006 303(d) lists
(NCDWQ 2006a, 2006b).
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Site is located in the Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills ecoregion of North Carolina within USGS
Cataloging Unit 03050105 of the Broad River Basin. Regional physiography is characterized by low
mountains and rolling foothills, gently rounded to steep slopes, and moderate gradient streams with
bedrock, boulder, cobble, and gravel substrates (Griffith 2002).
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 2
Detailed Restoration Plan

Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Soil Survey of Rutherford County, North Carolina
(USDA 2005) are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A) and are described in Table 3.
Detailed soil mapping conducted on January 25, 2007 by a licensed soil scientist indicate that restorable
portions of the Site are underlain by hydric Wehadkee soils (inclusions within areas mapped as the
Chewacla soil series). Floodplain soils have been impacted by plowing, land clearing, agricultural
production, in addition to landscape alterations associated with dredging and straightening of strearrt
channels.
Table 3. Soils Mapped within the Site
Soil Series H dric Status Famil Descri tion
This series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly
Fluvaquentic drained, moderately permeable soils of floodplains adjacent to
Chewacla Class B D},strochrepts stream channels. Slopes are generally between 0 and 2
percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs at 0.5 to
1.5 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Wehadkee
(inclusions This series consists of very deep, poorly drained and very

within
Class A Typic poorly drained soils on flood plains along streams. Slopes are

Chewacla Fluvaquents generally between 0 and 2 percent. Depth to season high
series) water table occurs at or near the soil surface.
Typic This series consists of very deep, well-drained soils on gently
Fannin Nonhydric Hapludults sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes. Slopes are
enerall between 30 and 50 ercent.
This series consists of gently sloping to strongly sloping, very
Skyuka Nonhydric Ultic deep, well drained soils on stream terraces. Slopes are
Hapludalfs generally between 2 and 8 percent. Soft bedrock occurs at a
de th of more than 72 inches.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Land use within the Site watershed is dominated by forest, agricultural land, and sparse
industrial/residential development (Table 4). Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the
upstream watershed land surface.
Table 4. Drainage Areas
Land Use Acrea a Percenta e
Forest Land 5378 96.9
A ricultural Land 105 1.9
IndustriallResidential Develo ment 25 0.5
Impervious Surface 40 0.7
Total 5548 100
• Onsite land use is characterized by agricultural land utilized primarily for row crop and hay production
and hardwood forest (Figure 4, Appendix A). Riparian vegetation adjacent to Site streams is sparse and
disturbed due to plowing and regular maintenance. Row crop areas are subject to the broadcast
. application of various agricultural chemicals. Iri addition, the Site hydric soils are evidence of the
. historical presence of palustrine wetlands. Soils within these areas have been disturbed due to agricultural
activities including regular plowing and vegetation maintenance, in addition to the removal of
• groundwater hydrology inputs from the rerouting and straightening of Site tributaries.

Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 3
• Detailed Restoration Plan
•

2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in North
Carolina as posted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at htt :/n /nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, four federally protected species are listed in Rutherford County. Table 5
lists the federally protected species for Rutherford County and indicates if potential habitat exists within
the Site for each species.
Table 5. Federall Protected S ecies for Rutherford Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Present Biological Conclusion
Within Site
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Yes May Affect, Not Likely
to Adversel Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis nan~ora Threatened Yes No Effect
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened Yes May Affect, Not Likely
to Adversely Effect
White irisette Si rinchium dichotomum Endan ered Yes No Effect
*Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
The scope of project work includes stream enhancement (Level II), stream channel restoration, stream
preservation and wetland restoration (riverine and non-riverine). In addition, the contractor will establish
haul routes and material storage areas throughout the easement. Earthwork (grubbing, grading, filling)
will accompany the stream restoration efforts and, to some extent, the wetland restoration effort.
Fortunately, these land-disturbing activities will be concentrated in the agricultural landscape where row
crop production of squash is the predominant land-use activity; however, some earthwork will occur
immediately adjacent to existing streams within forested communities. To ensure that adequate field
investigations were performed to determine if listed species or their habitat were present, natural history
and morphological descriptions of each listed species were researched before conducting field
investigations. Intensive field investigations throughout the entire easement were conducted on August 2
and August 8, 2006. These surveys included an evaluation of all habitats as well as searches for evidence
of listed species. The investigator is Randy Turner, who has more than 35 years direct experience in field
survey methodologies. The investigator has found numerous populations of rare species over the years.
Indiana bat
Indiana bat summer roosting habitat consists of caves, tree hollows or trees with large, exfoliating bark
such as bitternut and shagbark hickory. Foraging habitat includes stream valley in close proximity to
roosting or nesting sites.. Methodical, walking surveys of all forested habitat within 500 feet of the Site
were conducted along roughly Parallel transects. Searches covered a band of forest at least 500 feet deep.
The goal of the search was to look for any caves, large bitternut (Carya cordiformis), shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata), or other species with exfoliating bark that could serve as a roosting location for the
species.
Biological Conclusion: Since the work to be undertaken will not result in removal of any roosting or
hibernacula sites (suitable habitat) and since intensive walking surveys confirmed the absence of suitable
roosting sites throughout the Site or within close proximity to Cane Creek, it is reasonable to conclude the
project will have No Effect on the species.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
This small herbaceous member of the birthwort family (Aristolochiacea) occurs in a several county area
in the western and central piedmont. The species is closely allied with H. lewisii and H. heterophylla. An
interesting soil-plant correlation appears to exist between the species and soils of the Pacolet series (or
Madison and Musella), which are sandy-to-gravelly substrates. The habitat where this species occurs is
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 4
Detailed Restoration Plan

often associated with escarpments into drainages including acidic hardwood embankments. It is often
reported in association with Kalmia latifolia.
Although no soils of the Pacolet, Madison or Musella series occur within the site, surveys were conducted
at streamside habitats within mixed hardwood forest fragments, because the investigator is not convinced
that the soil-plant relationship is absolute. The only members of the birthwort family. growing within the
construction limits of the project are Asarum canadense and Aristolochia sp., although an abundance of
Hexastylis arifolia was observed within the forested hillside community along the eastern boundary of the
site, but outside the Site.
Biological Conclusion: Intensive surveys throughout all suitable habitat within the Site confirms that the
species is not present; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on the
species.
Small-whorled Pogonia
The small-whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family. It is a perennial with a smooth, hollow
stem approximately 4-10 inches tall terminating in a whorl of green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed and measure up to 3 by 1.5 inches. A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top
of the stem. The hollow stem is an important morphological element when attempting to distinguish the
Isotria medeoloides from other Isotria species and even Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana).
Flowering may occur from about mid-May to mid-June, but then the population may lie dormant for an
unspecified period of time, which is similar to other members of the orchid family and is thought to be
associated with complex soil-fungal relationships. Habitats where this plant has been observed include
montane oak-hickory or acidic cove forests, but it has also been found in an apple orchard. Sites currently
or historically known to support this species range from 2000 to 4000 feet in elevation. Except for the
crane crane-fly orchid, Tipularia discolor, intensive surveys confirmed that no other orchidaceous species
occur within the Site.
Biological Conclusion: Intensive surveys of the entire easement confirms that small-whorled pogonia
does not occur within the Site. As a consequence of such efforts, it is reasonable to conclude the project
will have No Effect on the species.
White Irisette
This herbaceous member of the Iris family occurs on rich, basic soils. It grows in clearings and along the
edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope runoff has removed much of
the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites. The irisette is dependent on some form of
disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat. Vegetative portions of the plant are dichotomously
branched. Small, white flowers occur from May through July.
Biological Conclusion: Surveys throughout the Site carefully examined all suitable habitat for
individuals of this species.Based on the results of intensive surveys, it is reasonable to conclude the
project will have No Effect on the species.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on March 7, 2006 and no
element occurrences are documented at or near the Site. One Significant Natural Heritage Area, Lone
Mountain, and several Natural Communities including Chestnut Oak Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, Low
Elevation Rocky Summit, and Piedmont/Mountain Low Alluvial Forest occur immediately northeast of
the Site at the State Nature Preserve. In addition, one Significant Natural Heritage Area, Biggerstaff
Mountain, and several Natural Communities including Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Chestnut Oak
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 5
Detailed Restoration Plan

Forest, and Low Elevation Rocky Summit. occur approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Site near
Yellowtop Mountain.
Designated Critical Habitat for federally protected species does not occur in Rutherford County.
2.6 Cultural Resources
Archaeological surveys were completed at the Site on September 13-15 and 19-22, 2006 by Legacy
Research Associates, Inc. to locate, document, and conduct National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility evaluations for archaeological resources that may be affected by this project.
A review of state and local survey data was completed prior to the archaeological survey. Files at the
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and collections held at the North Carolina State
Library in Raleigh, North Carolina were reviewed. Research identified no previously recorded
archaeological sites within 1 mile of the project. However, based on the topographic and hydrological
situation, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) determined there to be a high
probability for the presence of prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites within the project
boundaries.
One archaeological site, 31RF176, was recorded within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) during
the survey. The site consists of a Woodland period lithic and ceramic scatter located on the first terrace
above the Cane Creek floodplain east of US Highway 64. The terrace features a cultivated squash field.
Site 31RF176 is recommended as being potentially eligible for the NRHP based on the landform,
abundance of artifacts, and the high probability of subsurface features. The archeological Site is located
just outside of the Site and will not be disturbed by ground disturbing activities. There is a small portion
of this archeological Site that is located within the project easement boundary that will be protected in
perpetuity.
In consultation with the NCSHPO, Restoration Systems LLC developed a mitigation plan to help protect
this valuable archeological site and to avoid impacting site 31RF167. The plan of action includes the
following tasks:
1. Locate and flag the boundary of site 31RF167
2. Install orange construction safety fencing around the area prior to commencing construction
3. Dry-excavate the stream south of the existing channel in the dry. Building this section of the
stream in the dry allows for little or no sediment loss and allows more flexibility for contractor
mobilization.
4. Upon completion of dry channel excavation and stabilization, construction of the northern stream
channel will take place. Machinery will work from the northern banks of existing stream to avoid
encroachment upon site 31 RF 167.
5. Once the construction activities have been completed and the Site is stabilized, the construction
safety fence will be removed and the easement area will be planted with riparian vegetation.
2.7 Interagency Guidance
This project complies with interagency guidelines outlined in Information Regarding Stream Restoration
with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain -Draft (USAGE et al. 2007), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE
et al. 2003), Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), and Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). Specifically Site selection, restoration goals, and monitoring
procedures/objectives comply with project design considerations outlined by interagency guidance.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 6
Detailed Restoration Plan

•
2.7.1 Site Selection
Site selection considerations including 8-digit Cataloging Unit; 14-digit Hydrologic Unit; physiographic
• region; wildlife habitat uplift; biological, chemical, and physical. integrity; and flow regime were
considered during Site selection and design. In addition, the Site is located in a Targeted Local
• Watershed (06010108010020), awater supply watershed, and based on a meeting with North Carolina
. Wildlife Resources (NCWRC) representatives, is upstream from a reach of Threemile Creek that supports
naturally reproducing populations of rainbow trout.

Based on recent guidance from USAGE and NCDWQ (USAGE et al. 2007), the primary Site selection
metric is flow regime and/or the historic presence of a stream prior to ditching or other impacts. This
guidance suggests a minimum drainage basin of 50 acres, the presence of a defined valley with latitudinal
i and longitudinal slope, and soils conducive bf natural stream formation.
Stream restoration reaches are characterized by drainage areas ranging from 0.02 to 5.1 square miles (10
to 3264 acres) which are situated in steeply sloped alluvial/colluvial floodplains. Although some Site
tributaries are characterized by drainage areas smaller than 50 acres, mountain streams such as Site
tributaries frequently originate at spring heads, which are perennial. Onsite tributaries support
characteristics (benthic macroinvertabrates, defined valleys, substrate different from the adjacent
• landscape, and hydrologic flow) indicative of a perennial flow regime.
` 2.7.2 Project Design Considerations
Site evaluations and goals focus on functional uplift associated with project implementation. Agency
id
gu
ance indicates that in the Mountain and Piedmont regions, deforestation, stream channelization,
• and/or damage to the riparian buffer are most often targeted as potential restoration sites. Decreasing
sinuosity and bank destabilization are primary indicators of increased sediment input and unnatural
sediment transport, leading to degradation of water quality and habitat (USAGE et al. 2007). In addition
• elevated water temperatures and lack of well-developed structures and pools have a direct effect on
• resident and downstream trout populations.
• 2.7.3 Site Monitoring
• In Mountain and Piedmont settings it is widely accepted that restoring historic pattern, dimension, and
profile to impacted stream reaches and replacing structures will result in improved stability, water quality,
. and habitat (USAGE et al. 2007). In these systems, measuring physical properties of pattern, dimension,
and profile is typically appropriate for estimating function. Stream monitoring and success criteria
associated with this project conform to these fundamental tenets.

• 2.8 Potential Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities on the
• Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities and
• restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species, historic or archaeological resources or critical
habitats, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding Site constraints was
. acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Site conditions that have the potential to restrict the restoration
• design and implementation were documented during the field investigation.
• Habitat for Indiana bat and small-whorled pogonia is present within mature forest portions of the Site.
Mature forest within the Site is proposed for preservation or supplemental planting; therefore, Site
restoration activities will benefit habitat for these species by restoring and providing additional forest
. habitat within the remainder of the Site.

Investigations on behalf of Section 106 were conducted and a site was identified, which must be avoided
• during construction activities. Avoidance measures have been identified and were submitted to SHPO for

• Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 7
• Detailed Restoration Plan
•

their approval. SHPO responded by letter on November 27, 2006 concurring with the archaeologists
recommendations that no further archaeological investigation be conducted.
No other evidence of natural or man-made conditions was identified that have the potential to impede the
proposed restoration activities.
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundaries
The Site is located within five parcels owned by Restoration Systems, L.L.C., Mr. Miles Whisnant, Mr.
Charles Harris, Mr. Clifford Strassenburg, and Mr. William Curry. A permanent conservation easement
totaling approximately 38.1 acres encompasses Site restoration activities.
2.8.2 Project Access
The Site is located immediately adjacent to Highway 64. A transportation plan, including the location of
access routes and staging areas will be designed to minimize disturbance to the maximum extent feasible.
The number of transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long
distances through the Site interior.
2.8.3 Utilities
A powerline is located adjacent to US Highway 64; however, Site restoration activities will not disturb
the powerline.
2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
The HEC-RAS analysis indicates that the restoration design will result in a no-rise in the 100-year
floodplain water surface elevations outside of the Site. The results of the analysis affirm that hydrologic
trespass to adjacent properties will not occur. The HEC-RAS is discussed in more detail in Section 6.4
(HEC-RAS Analysis).
3.0 SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Cane Creek, which is targeted for enhancement (level II), is afourth-order, bank-to-bank stream system
characterized by eroding banks, excessive sediment transport, and a disturbed riparian buffer. Due to its
large size, potential for upstream impacts, and mature streamside vegetation Enhancement Level II has
been selected as the proposed mitigation alternative for this reach. Three unnamed tributaries to the Cane
Creek (Tributaries 1-3), targeted for restoration, are first- and second-order streams that have been
dredged, straightened, and rerouted within the Site.
Current Site conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient
and sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain
pools, an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks, and sediment loading). In addition, the lack
of deep-rooted riparian vegetation and continued clearing and dredging of Site streams have exacerbated
erosion adjacent to Site channels. Site restoration activities will restore riffle-pool morphology, aid in
energy dissipation, increase aquatic habitat, stabilize channel banks, and greatly reduce sediment loss
from channel banks.
3.1 Channel Classification
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996a). This classification stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics.
Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-depth ratio, sinuosity,
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Existing Site reaches are classified as G-type
(entrenched, low width-depth ratio) streams with the exception of Tributary 3, which is classified as an
Eg-type stream (moderately entrenched, low width-depth ratio). Each stream type is modified by a
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 8
Detailed Restoration Plan

•
number 1 through 6 (e. g., ES), denoting a stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1)
bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4} gravel, 5) sand, or 6) silt/clay. Locations of existing stream reaches
and cross-sections are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A). Stream geometry measurements under existing
conditions are summarized in the Morphological Stream Characteristics Table (Table 6) and Appendix B.
G-type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio) streams are generally in a mode of degradation derived
from near continuous channel adjustments resulting from very high bank erosion. Bed and bank erosion
typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution from a stable E-type channel into a G-type (gully)
channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension of the G-type channel into an F-type
(widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue to widen laterally until the channel is wide
enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel at a lower elevation so that the original floodplain is
no longer subject to regular flooding. Existing stream characteristics are summarized below.
3.2 Discharge
Cane Creek has an approximately 8.7-square mile watershed at the Site outfall and a bankfull discharge of
134 cubic feet per second. Site Tributaries 1-3 have drainage areas of 0.4, 0.1, and 0.1-square mile,
respectively and bankfull discharges of 14.0, 6.0, and 4.0 cubic feet per second, respectively.
3.3 Channel Morphology
Site streams have been impacted by land clearing, erosive flows, plowing, and manipulation of channels
including straightening and rerouting. Plowing and deforestation for row crop production near stable
streams typically leads to channel adjustments including increases in bank erosion, width/depth ratio,
stream gradient, and sediment supply. hz addition, these impacts may lead to decreases in channel
sinuosity, meander-width-ratios, and sediment transport capacity (Rosgen 1996b). Onsite streams are
expected to continue to erode and deposit sediment into receiving streams until a stable stream pattern has
been carved from the adjacent floodplain.
Dimension: Site streams have been dredged and straightened and are classified as G-type reaches
with the exception of Tributary 3, which is classified as a Eg-type reach. Cross-sectional areas of
Tributaries 1-3 currently range from 17.5 to 167.7 square feet (compared to 3.2 to 10.3 square feet
predicted by this study). Channel incision is indicated bybank-height ratios ranging from 2.3 to 7.4. The
channels are currently characterized by eroding banks as the channels attempt to enlarge to a stable cross-
sectional area as described in the evolutionary process outlined above.
Pattern: Straightening of the channels has resulted in a loss of pattern variables such as belt-
width, meander wavelength, pool-to-pool spacing, and radius of curvature. The channel is currently
characterized by a low sinuosity of 1.0 to 1.1 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance) with no distinct
repetitive pattern of riffles and pools present.
Profile: The average water surface slope for the dredged and straightened reaches measure 0.0112
for Tributary 1 and 0.0243 to 0.0244 for Tributaries 2-3 (rise/run). These values are nearly equal to the
valley slopes resulting in sinuosities of 1.0 to 1.1. Typically, dredging and straightening will oversteepen
a channel reducing channel length over a particular drop in valley slope, as is depicted in this case. In
addition, dredging and straightening channels disturbs perpendicular flow vectors that maintain riffles and
pools, resulting in headcuts, oversteepened riffles, and loss of pools.
Substrate: Channel substrate is characterized by gravel-sized particles typical of this region of
North Carolina with the exception of Tributary 3, which is characterized by sand-sized particles.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 9
Detailed Restoration Plan

Table 6. Morphological Stream Characteristics Table
Cane Creek Stream and Westland Rec}nratinn SI}c
Exislting Channel
Variables
Tributary 2
Tributary 3 REFERENCE PROPOSED
Stream Type G4 Eg5 E4 E4
Drainage Area(mi~) 0.13 0.07 0.3 0.07-0.13
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 6.0 4.0 11.5 4.0 - 6.0
Dfinenslon Varlables
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Ap„) 4.8 3.2 8.5 4.1
Existing Cross-Sectional Area (A,,,,,m) 41.3 - 104.2 17.5.47,3 7J -9.3 4.1 •4.1
Bankfull Width W
(
) Mean: 5.0 Mean: 5.6 Mean: 8.4 Mean: 5.0
o„ Range: 4.3 - 5.5 Range: 5.1 - 6.0 Range: 8.1 -8.7 Range: 4.5 -= 6.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (D
) Mean: 1.0 Mean: 0.6 Mean: 1.1 Mean: 0.8
p„ Range: 0.9.1.1 Range: 0.5 - 0.8 Range: 0.9 - 1.2 Range: 0.6 - 1.0
Bankfull Maximum Depth (D
) Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.4 Mean; 1,1
,,,,, Range: 1.1 - 1.4 Range: 0.9 - 1.3 Range: 1.3 - 1.4 Range: 0.7.1.4
Pool Width (W~) Mean: 11.3 Mean: 6.5
No distinctive repetitive pattern of riffles and pools due to Range: 10.7 - 11.8 Range: 5.2.9.1

Maximum Pool Depth (D
J - staightening activities Mean: 2.1 Mean: 1.7
~ Range: 1.9 - 2.3 Ran e: 1.4 - 2.4
Width of Floodprone Area (Wr
) Mean: 6.7 Mean: 15.0 Mean: 87.5 Mean: 150
y, Range: 6.0 - 7.0 Range: 10.0 - 20.0 Range: 25 - 150 Range: 80 - 200
Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio W Mean: 1,4 Mean: 2.7 Mean: 10.7 Mean: 30.0
Range: 1.18 - 1.63 Range: 1.96 - 3.33 Range: 2.9 - 18.5 Renge: 16 - 40
Width /Depth Ratio (W
/D
) Mean: 5.2 Mean: 9.6 Mean: 8.4 Mean: 7.0
p„
s„ Range: 3.8 - 6.3 Range: 8.0 - 11.2 Range: 7.1 • 9.7 Ran e: 5.0 - 10.0
Max. Do„I D
„ Ratio Mean: 1.3 Mean: 2.1 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.4
p Range: 1.2 - 1.3 Range: 1.5 - 2.6 Range: 1.2 - 1.4 Range: 1.2 - 1.8
Low Bank Height /Max
D
r Ratio Mean: 5.3 Mean: 3.2 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0
.
~, Range: 3.9.7.4 Range: 2.3 - 4.1 Range: 1.0 - 1.0 Range: 1.0.1.3
Maximum Pool Depth /Bankfull Mean: 2.0 Mean: 2.2
Mean Depth (D a/Do„) Range: 1.9.2.1 Range: 1.8 - 3.0
Pool Width 1 Bankfull No distinctive repetitive pattern of riffles and pools due to Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3
Width (W~o/Wp„) staightening activities Range: 1.3 - 1,5 Range: 1.0 - 1,5
Pool Area /Bankfull Mean; 1.6 Mean: 1.6
Cross Sectional Area Range: 1.5.1.7 Range: 1.1 •2.1

Pattern Variables
Pool to Pooi Spacing (Lp
)
Mean:
42.3
Mean:
25.0
., Range: 23.2 - 89.3 Range: 15.0 - 50.0
Meander Len th Lm
9 ( )
No distinctive re
etiti
ti
N
di
i
i Mean: 58.9 Mean: 35.0
p
ve
att
f
iffl
d
l o
s
nct
ve repet
tive Range: 36.5.87.9 Range: 25.0 - 55.0

Belt Width (Wo,n) p
ern o
r
es an
poo
s
due to staightening activities pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
Mean:
37.0
Mean:
20.0
Range: 19.0 - 60.0 Range: 10.0 - 35.0
Radius of Curvature (R~) Mean: 12.9 Mean: 11.0
Range: 7.0 - 26 Range: 10.0 - 20.0
Sinuosity (Sin) 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.3 - 1.4
Pattern Ratlos
Pooi to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 5.0 Mean: 5
Bankfull Width (L.~. fNp„) Range: 2.8 - 10.6 Range: 3.0 - 10.0
Meander Length/ Mean: 7.0 Mean: 7.0
Bankfull Width (L,,,Mre,r No distinctive repetitlve No distinctive repetitive
Range:
4.3 - 10.5
Renge:
5.0 - 11.0
Meander Width Ratio pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities patlem of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
Mean:
4.4
Mean:
4
(WeeuN/e„) Range: 2.3.7.1 Range: 2 - 7
Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 1.5 Mean; 2.2
Bankfull Width(Rc/We„) Range: 0.8-4.3 Range: 2-4
Profile Varlables
Average Water Surface Slope (S,~,) 0.0243 0.0244 0.0161 0.0049
Valley Slope (SV„„Y) 0.0267 0.0244 0.0229 0.0064
Riffle Slo e S
P ( nm,) Mean: 0.0284 Mean: 0.0078
Range: 0.0148 - 0.0492 Range: 0.0049 - 0.0147
Pool Slo e S
P (oow)
N
di
ti
ti
i Mean: 0.0013 Mean: 0.0025
nc
o
s
ve repet
tive No distinctive repetitive
Range:
0.0.004
Range:
0 - 0.0049
Run Slope (S„„) pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities Mean: 0.0448 Mean: 0.0123
Range: 0.0.2453 Range: 0 - 0.049
Glide Slope (Bola,) Mean: 0.0057 Mean: 0.0025
Range: 0 - 0.0299 Ran e: 0 - 0.0093
Profile Ratios
Riffle Slope! Water Surface Mean: 1.76 Mean; 1.6
Slope (S„m,/S,w) Range: 0.92 - 3.06 Range: 1.0 - 3.0
r^ool Slope/Watei Surface Mean: 0.08 Mean: 0.5
Slope (S ~5,,,,) No distinctive repetitive No distinctive repetitive Range:. 0 - 0.25 Range: 0.1.0

Run Slope/Water Surface pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities patlem of dffles and pools
due to staightening activities
Mean:
2.76
Mean:
2.5
Slope (S,,,/S,.,) Range: 0 - 15.2 Range: 0 - 10
0
Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.35 Mean; .
0.5
Slope (S ,;,,/S,~,) Ran e: 0 - 1.86 Range: 0 - 1.9
Exlsiting Channel
Tributary i REFERENCE PROPOSED
G4 E4 E4
0.40 0.3 0.4
14.0 11.5 14.0

Dlmenstion Variables
10.3 8.5 10.3
62.7.167.7 7.7-9.3 10.3.10.3
Mean: 9.8 Mean: 8.4 Mean: 10.6
Range: 6.9.12,0 Renge: 8.1 -8.7 Range: 9.6.11.1
Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.0
Range: 0.9.1.5 Range: 0.9.1.2 Ran e: 0.9.1,1
Mean: 1.8 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.3 - 2.1 Range; 1.3.1.4 Range: 1.3 - 1.9
No distinctive repetitive Mean: 11.3 Mean: 13.8
patlem of dies and pools Range: 10.7 - 11.8 Range: 10.8. 15.9
due to straightening Mean: 2.1 Mean: ~ 2.2
actlvites Range: 1.9 - 2.3 Range: 1.8 - 3.0
Mean: 14.9 Mean: 87.5 Mean: 150
Range: 9.0 - 18.0 Range: 25 - 150 Range: 80 - 200
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.30 - 1.64 Mean: 10.7
Range: 2.9 - 1 B.5 Mean: 14.2
Range: 7.8 - 18.9
Mean: 9.6
Range: 4.6 - 14.0 Mean: 8.4
Range: 7.1 - 9.7 Mean: 11.0
Range: 9.0 - 12.0
Mean: 1.8
Range: 1.3 -1.9 Mean: 1.3
Range: 1.2 - 1.4 Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.3 - 1.9
Mean: 3.8
Range: 2.9 - 4.6 Mean: 1.0
Range: 1.0 • 1.0 Mean: 1.0
Range: 1.0 - 1.3
Mean: 2.0
Range: 1.9 - 2.1 Mean: 2.2
Range: 1.8 - 3.0
No distinctive repetitive
patlem of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities Mean: 1.3

Range: 1.3.1,5 Mean: 1.3

Range: 1.0.1.5
Maan: 1.6
Range: 1.5 - 1.7 Mean; 1.6
Range: 1.1 - 2.1
Pattem Varlables
Mean: 42,3 Mean: 53.0
Range: 23.2 - 89.3 Range: 31 - 106
Mean: 58.9 Mean: 74.0
No distinctive repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools Range: 36.5.87.9 Range: 53 - 117
due to staightening activities Mean: 37,0 Mean: 42.0
Range: 19.0.60.0 Range: 21 - 74
Mean: 12.9 Mean: 23.0
Range: 7.0.26 Range: 21 - 42
1.1 1.5 1.3 - 1.4
Pattern Ratlos
Mean: 5.0 Mean: 5
Range: 2.8 - 10.6 Range: 3.0 - 10.0
Mean: 7.0 Mean; 7,0
No distinctive repetitive
patlem of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities Range:

Mean: 4.3 - 10.5

4.4 Range:

Mean: 5.0 - 11.0

4
Range: 2.3 - 7.1 Range: 2 - 7
Mean: 1.5 Mean; 2.2
Range: 0.8 - 4,3 Range: 2 - 4

Pro81a Variables
0.0112 0.0161 0.0113
0.0123 0.0229 0.0147
Mean: 0.0284 Mean: 0.0181
Range: 0.0148 - 0.0492 Range: 0.0113 - 0.0339
Mean: 0.0133 Mean: 0.0057
No distinctive repetitive
patlem of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities Range:

Mean: 0.0.0819

0.0048 Range:

Mean: 0 - 0.0113

0.0283
Range: 0 - 0.0107 Range: 0 - 0.113
Mean: 0.0057 Mean: 0.0057
Range: 0 - 0.0299 Range: 0 - 0.0215

Mean: 1.76 Mean: 1.6
Range: 0.92 - 3.06 Range: 1.0.3.0
Mean: 0.08 Mean: 0.5
No distinctive repetitlve
pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities Range:

Mean: 0 - 0.25

2.78 Range:

Mean: 0.1.0

2.5
Range: 0 - 15.2 Range: 0 - 10.0
Mean: 0.35 Mean: 0.5
Range: 0 - 1.66 Range: 0 - 1.9

3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
3.4.1 Stream Power
• Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to inflowing water and sediment load.. One form of
• instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to aggradation, or
deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the stream to transport
sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or stability thresholds for materials
• forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or degradation occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream power can be
. used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment transport of streams.
Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream power) or per unit of channel bed area.
i The total stream power equation is defined as:

~ = PgQs
where S2. =total stream power (ft-lb/s-fl), p =density of water (lb/fl3), g =gravitational acceleration
• (ft/sZ), Q =discharge (ft3/sec), and s =energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of water ('y = 62.4 lb/ft3) is
equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg. A general evaluation of power
for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge and water surface slope for the reach. As
• slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase, stream power increases and more energy is available for
• reworking channel materials. Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus
stream power. Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular,
over-widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will decrease
• stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to aggradation of the
stream bed.

The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream power.
Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power and relatively
coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto adjacent floodplains have
lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable. Stream power assessments can be
useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and the deposition or erosion of sediments from
the stream bed.
3.4.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing water exerts
on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment supply (size and
amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the stream bed and bank on
water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the ability of a stream to efficiently
transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the bed is
defined as follows:
i=yRs
where ti =shear stress (lb/ftz), y =specific weight of water, R =hydraulic radius (ft), and s =the energy
slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily provide a
____
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 11
Detailed Restoration Plan

good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local variability and
instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on channel form and irregularity.
For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed from the following equation:
Tmax- l.Si
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tmax = 2.6ST(I~ /Wbkf) 0.5
where R~ =radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope, dimension, and
pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity increase to maintain adequate
shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have higher shear stress values than required for
bedload transport will scour bed and bank materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with
lower shear stress values than needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel
aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the available power
divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and vegetation. The stream power
equation can thus be written as follows:
o~=PgQs=iv
where c~ =stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), i =shear stress, and v =average
velocity (fbsec). Similarly,
~ - Wbkf
where Wbkf= width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.4.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the resisting
forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aegradation is a function of relative magnitude of
these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of open channels is only imperfectly
understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have yet to be developed for
conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical
formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1) maximum
permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The former is advantageous
in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power cannot be measured directly and
must be computed from various flow parameters. However, stream power and shear stress are generally
better measures of fluid force on the channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1} existing dredged and
straightened reaches, 2) the reference reach, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Important input values and
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 12
Detailed Restoration Plan

i
•
•
r
r
i
•
output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress) are
presented in Table 7. Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated for the existing Site
stream reaches, the reference reach, and proposed conditions.
In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system; the proposed channel should
exhibit stream power and shear stress values so that the channel is neither aggrading nor degrading.
Table 7. Stream Power (S2) and Shear Stress (1:) Values
Water
Surface Total Shear
Discharge Slope Stream Hydraulic Stress Velocity
(ft2/s) (ft/ft) Power S2 SZ/W Radius ^) (v) 1: v timer
Existin>; Conditions
Tributary 1 14.0 0.0112 9.78 1.00 0.86 0.60 1.36 0.82 0.90
Tributaries 2-3 _
5.0 0.0243 7.58 1.52 0.59 0.89 1.22 1.08 1.33
Reference Reach 11.5 0.0161 11.55 1.38 0.80 0.81 1.35 1.09 1.21
Conditions
_Tributary 1 ____ __14.0__ __0.0113__ 9.87 0.93 0.8_2 0.58 _ 1.36 0.78 0.86
Tributaries 2-3 5.0 0.0049 1.53 0.31 0.66 0.20 1.22 0.25 0.30
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the existing, dredged and straightened, G- and Eg-
type reaches than for proposed E-type channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by bank
erosion, channel incision, low width-depth ratios, and bank-height ratios ranging from 2.3 to 7.4;
degradation has resulted from a combination of water surface slopes that have been steepened and
channels that have been straightened and rerouted across the floodplain.
Stream power and shear stress values for the proposed channels should be lower than for existing
channels to effectively transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting, resulting in
stable channel characteristics. This results from a reduction in channel size and water surface slope in the
design channel as compared to the existing, eroding channel. In addition, the project will effectively
reduce valley slope, by redirecting proposed channels down the historic floodplain/valley, thereby
reducing stream power and shear stress even further.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are slightly higher than for the proposed
channels; however, the discharge and water surface slopes are higher for the reference reach resulting in
higher stream power and shear stress values. The reference reach is characterized by fully forested
riparian fringes and is therefore able to resist stream power and shear stress of these magnitudes.
However, the proposed channels will be devoid of deep rooted vegetation; therefore, proposed targets for
stream power and shear stress values should be slightly Less than predicted for the reference reach.
3.5 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Current research also estimates the bankfull discharge would be expected to occur approximately every
1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996a, Leopold 1994).
The Site is located in the Mountain Physiographic province; therefore, regional curves for the Mountains
(Harman et al. 2001 } were utilized and verified by regional regression equations, Cowan's roughness
equation method, and reference stream data.
_ _.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 13
Detailed Restoration Plan

$ased on available Mountain regional curves, the bankfull discharge for the reference reach averages
approximately 13.3 cubic feet per second (Harman et al. 2001). The USGS regional regression equation
for the Blue Ridge-Piedmont region indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach at a 1.3 to
1.5 year return interval averages approximately 30 to 38 cubic feet per second (USGS 2003), which is
way above estimates based on field indicators and regional curves as discussed below (Appendix C). In
addition, a stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of Arcement and Schneider's
(1989) weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component values and applied to the following
equation (Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge estimate.
Qbkf = [ 1.486/n] * [A*R2/3 *S 1 /2]
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water surface
slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull dischazge for the reference reach averages
approximately 36.7 cubic feet per second, which is also way above estimates based on field indicators and
regional curves as discussed below.
Field indicators of bankfull and riffle cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-
sectional area for the reference reach. The Mountain regional curves were then utilized to plot the
watershed area and discharge for the reference reach cross-sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull
approximate an average discharge of 11.5 cubic feet per second for the reference reach.
To verify regional curves and USGS regression models, two gauged streams (Jacobs Fork and First Broad
River} were analyzed to determine a return interval for momentary peak discharges. Momentary peak
discharges (return interval between 1.3 and 1.5 years) were calculated from the USGS gauge data and
plotted against the regional curve (Appendix C). The stations were within close proximity to the Site;
however, stations with a similar drainage area were not available; gauged streams had drainage areas of
25.7 and 60.5 square miles, respectively, compared to the 0.3-square mile onsite reference. Jacobs Fork
plotted just below and First Broad River plotted just above predicted discharges based on mountain
regional curves (Harman et al. 2001).
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site
will be based on bankfull indicators found on the onsite reference reach, which resulted in an area 86
percent of the size indicated by Mountain regional curves. Table 8 summarizes all methods analyzed for
estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 8. Reference Reach Bankfull Dischar a Anal sis

Method Watershed Area
s uare miles) Return interval
(ears) Discharge
(cfs)
Mountain Regional Curves
(Harman et al. 2001)
0.3
1.3 - 1.5
13.3
Blue Ridge-Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
0.3
1.3 - 1.5
30 - 38
Manning's "n" usin Cowan's Method (1956) 0.3 NA 36.7
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.3 l .3 - 1.5 11.5
3.6 Vegetation
The Site is characterized predominately by agricultural land with mature hardwood forest adjacent to the
preservation reach (Figure 4, Appendix A}. Agricultural areas are regularly maintained and plowed for
row crops leaving soils disturbed and exposed to the edges of the stream banks. Riparian vegetation
adjacent to Site streams is predominantly disturbed.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 14
Detailed Restoration Plan

• The preservation reach (upstream reach of Tributary 1) is characterized by mature hardwood forest.
Species include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white oak (Quercus alba), dogwood (Corpus
Florida), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), eastern red cedar
. (Juniperus virginiana), mockernut hickory (Carya alba}, red maple (Ater rubrum), northern red oak
• (Quercus rubra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), hickory (Carya sp.),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana).

4.0 REFERENCE STREAM
The reference stream reach is located onsite on the preservation reach (upstream reach of Tributary 1)
• (Figure 4, Appendix A). Distinct bankfull indicators were present within the channel. In addition,
dimension, pattern, and profile variables have not been altered or degraded, allowing for assistance with
the proposed restoration reaches (Figure 5, Appendix A).

4.1 Watershed Characterization
The reference stream watershed is characterized almost entirely by mature hardwood forest and is located
just downstream of a North Carolina State Nature Preserve. Alterations, development, and impervious
surfaces within the watershed are minimal.
• 4.2 Channel Classification
• Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify the reference reach based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996a). This classification stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. The
• reference reach is characterized as an E-type, sinuous (1.5) channel with a gravel dominated substrate. E-
type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (1.3 to
. greater than 1.5). E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a
. sinuous flow pattern. In North Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-
developed alluvial floodplains (Valley Type VIII). E-type channels are typically considered stable;
however, these streams are sensitive to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel disturbance, and
• may rapidly convert to other stream types.
• 4.3 Discharge
. The reference stream has an approximately 0.3-square mile watershed and a bankfull discharge of 11.5
cubic feet per second based on bankfull indicators.

4.4 Channel Morphology
Stream cross-sections and profiles were measured along the reference stream (Figure 5, Appendix A).
h
T
e stream reach is transporting its sediment supply while maintaining stable dimension, pattern, and
profile. Stream geometry measurements for the reference stream are summarized in the Morphological
Stream Characteristics Table (Table 6).
. Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicates a bankfull cross-sectional area of 8.5

S square feet, a bankfull width of 8.4 feet, a bankfull depth of 1.1 feet, and awidth-to-depth ratio of 8.4.
R
i
l
eg
ona
curves predict that the stream should exhibit a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately
. 9.9 square feet for the approximate 0.3-square mile watershed (Harman et al. 2001), slightly above the
8.5-square feet displayed by channel bankfull indicators identified in the field. However, this is within
the range of statistical error for present Mountain regional curves. Since the reference reach was located
on the Site and bankfull indicators were present, proposed conditions at the Site will be based on bankfull
indicators found on the reference reach, which resulted in an area 86 percent of the size indicated by
Mountain regional curves. For a more detailed discussion on bankfull verification see Section 3.5
(Bankfull Verification).

• Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 15
. Detailed Restoration Plan

The reference reach exhibits abank-height ratio of 1.0, which is representative of a stable E-type channel.
Irt addition, the width of the floodprone area ranges from 25 to 150 feet giving the channel an
entrenchment ratio of 2.9 to 18.5, typical of a stable E-type channel.
Pattern: In-field measurements of the reference reach have yielded an average sinuosity of 1.5
(thalweg distance/straight-line distance). Other channel pattern attributes include an average pool-to-pool
spacing ratio (L~P/Wbkf) of 5.0, a meander wavelength ratio (L,,,/Wbkf) of 7.0, and a radius of curvature
ratio (~/Wnkr) of 1.5. These variables were measured within a stable, forested reach, which did not
exhibit any indications of pattern instability such as shoot cutoffs, abandoned channels, or oxbows.
Profile: Based on elevational profile surveys, the reference reach is characterized by a valley
slope of 0.0229 (rise/run). Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide slopes to average
water surface slope are 1.6, 2.5, 0.5, and 0.5, respectively. Steep run slopes result from structure drops
(log jams, bed rock, or course material) at the bottom of the riffle, Ieading to deep pool formation at the
upper extent of the pool. Design channel profiles should mimic the reference profile, with structures
being located at the base of the riffle and steep drops occumng in the run facet.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by gravel-sized
particles.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
Channel stability assessments for existing and proposed conditions, and the reference stream are outlined
above in Section 3.4 (Channel Stability Assessment).
4.6 Bankl'ull Verification
Methods to verify bankfull are outlined above in Section 3.5 (Bankfull Verification). Ultimately,
proposed conditions at the Site will be based on bankfull indicators found on the onsite reference reach
(preservation reach upstream reach of Tributary 1) (Figure 4, Appendix A), which resulted in an area 86
percent of the size indicated by Mountain regional curves.
4.7 Reference Forest Ecosystem
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which to model
restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically
stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (predisturbance) conditions of the
restoration site. Quantitative data describing plant community composition and structure are collected at
the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data for design of the restoration Site planting scheme.
The RFE for this project is located on the Site preservation reach (upstream reach of Tributary 1) (Figure
4, Appendix A). The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts
will attempt to emulate. Tree and shrub species identified within the reference forest and outlined in
Table 9 will be used, in addition to other relevant species in appropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990)
community descriptions.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 16
Detailed Restoration Plan

•
Table 9. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Cano S ecies Understo S ecies
American beech (Fa s randi olia) do ood Cornus orida)
white oak ( ercus alba) ironwood (Ca imrs caroliniana)
s camore Platanus occidentalis) eastern red cedar Juni erus vir iniana
mockernut hicko Ca a alba) mountain laurel Kalmia lati olia)
red ma le (Ater rubrum) doghobble (Leucothoe ontanesiana)
northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
black the Prunus serotina
ersimmon Dios yros vir iniana
hickory (Carya s .)
5.0 SITE WETLAND (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual, the presence of three
clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology) are
required for a wetland jurisdictional determination.
Hydric soil limits were mapped in the field during January 2007 by a Licensed Soil Scientist. Based on
field surveys and groundwater models discussed below, jurisdictional wetlands do not currently occur
within the Site restoration areas (Figure 4, Appendix A). Areas within the Site, which historically
contained jurisdictional wetlands, have been significantly disturbed by compaction due to agricultural
practices; relocation, dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site streams; ditching of fields; and
removal of vegetation and are currently effectively drained below jurisdictional wetland hydrology
thresholds.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Areas of the Site targeted for riverine wetland restoration will receive hydrological inputs from periodic
overbank flooding of the restored tributaries, groundwater migration into the wetlands, upland/stormwater
• runoff, and, to a lesser extent, direct precipitation.
Hydrology of areas targeted for nonriverine wetland restoration occur outside of the tributary floodplains
• and will primarily be driven by precipitation with additional inputs from upland/stormwater runoff and
slope seepage. Cane Creek is a controlled flow stream; the existing Cane Creek floodplain is acting as a
terrace; therefore, Cane Creek will not provide hydrological input to these areas.

5.3 Soil Characteristics
Restorable portions of the Site are underlain by hydric Wehadkee soils (inclusions within areas mapped as
the Chewacla soil series). Soils have been impacted by plowing, land clearing, ditching, agricultural
production, in addition to landscape alterations associated with dredging and straightening of stream
channels. Atypical profile is as follows.

Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 17
• Detailed Restoration Plan

Soil Profiles (Boring Log)
Wehadkee
Hydric Soil as Observed in the Field
Texture
0-
10 -
20 -
30
A Loamy Clay
Btgl Loamy Clay
Btg2 Sandy Loam
Btg2 Sandy Loam
Depth in inches
Wehadkee
Hydric Soil as Described in Rutherford Co. Soil Survey
(USDA 2005)
Texture
0-
Ap Silt Loam
10 -
20 -
30-
Depth in inches
Bgl Silty Clay Loam
Cgl Sandy Loam
• 5.4 Plant Community Characterization
Historically, Site wetlands may have supported communities similar to a Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest (riverine wetlands) and a Nonriverine Wet Hardwoods Forest (nonriverine wetlands) (Schafale and
• Weakley 1990). Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest communities typically occur on floodplain
ridges and terraces other than active levees adjacent to the river channel and are intermittently flooded.
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are typically located on poorly drained interstream flats not
• associated with a stream.
Despite the landscape position difference between the riverine and nonriverine areas of the Site,
vegetative communities are similar and historically may have been dominated by species contained within
the reference forest located on the Site as outlined in Section 4.7 (Reference Forest Communities).
Typical species of these communities, according to Schafale and include cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac~ua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), American elm (Ulmus americana), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), loblolly pine
(Pines taeda), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and shagbark
hickory (Carya ovata). Understory species typically include ironwood, flowering dogwood, red maple,
pawpaw (Asiminia triloba), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
6.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN
6.1 Project Goals
Restoration of Site streams and wetlands will result in positive benefits for water quality and biological
diversity in the Cane Creek watershed. Restoration of onsite streams and wetlands will achieve the
following goals:
1. Remove nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with agricultural practices including
a) cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and
adjacent to the Site and b) provide a forested riparian buffer to treat surface runoff.
2. Reduce sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank
erosion associated with vegetation maintenance and agricultural plowing up to Site streams, and
b) planting a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 18
Detailed Restoration Plan

S
i
•
•
3. Reestablish stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade bank stabilization structures.
4. Promote floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, dredged, straightened, and entrenched tributaries,
thereby reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; and c) revegetating Site
floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters.
5. Restore onsite wetlands, thereby promoting flood storage, nutrient cycling, and aquatic wildlife
habitat.
6. Improve aquatic habitat with bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
7. Provide a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area that is developed for agricultural and
timber production.
8. Provide connectivity to a State Nature Preserve northeast of the Site.
9. Provide approximately 4.4 riverine WMUs.
10. Provide approximately 5.0 nonriverine WMUs.
11. Provide approximately 6,748 SMUs.
These goals will be achieved by:
• Restoring approximately 4600 linear feet of stream channel through construction of a stable E-
type channel (Priority I), thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Enhancing (Level II) approximately 5078 linear feet of stream channel by supplemental planting
with native forest vegetation and removal of invasive species.
• Preserving approximately 15061inear feet of stream channel along a stable, forested reach.
• Restoring approximately 4.4 acres of riverine wetlands by reconstructing Site tributaries within
the floodplain, filling ditched channels, rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native
wetland forest vegetation.
• Restoring approximately 5.0 acres of nonriverine wetlands by filling ditched channels,
rehydrating soils, and planting with native wetland forest vegetation.
• Planting a native forested riparian buffer adjacent to restored streams and within Site floodplains.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
6.2 Restoration Plan
The complete restoration plan is depicted in Figures 6A-6C (Appendix A). Components of this plan may
be modified based on construction or access constraints. Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1)
stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration, 3) soil scarification, and 4) plant community restoration. A
monitoring plan and contingency plan are outlined in Section 7 (Performance Criteria) of this document.
6.2.1 Stream Restoration
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new location that
approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference
conditions. Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded channel and the proposed, stable channel are
listed in Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics (Table 6).
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan are expected to be developed during the next
phase of this project. Erosion control will be performed locally throughout the Site and will be
incorporated into construction sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Site are unconsolidated, alluvial
sediments, which do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance; therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses
and immediate planting with disturbance-adapted shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 19
Detailed Restoration Plan

process. h1 addition, onsite root mats (seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed
after disturbance.
A transportation plan,- including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed to
minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent feasible. The number of transportation
access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long distances through the Site's
interior.
6.2.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
Tributaries 1-3 are located within a floodplain suitable for design channel excavation on new location.
The streams will be constructed on new location and the old dredged, straightened, and rerouted channels
will be abandoned and backfilled. Primary activities designed to restore the channels on new location
include 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4)
installation of channel plugs, and 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel.
Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-width
corridor, which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading will be
stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled. These segments
will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction of the
underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon completion of
construction activities.
After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be developed and the
location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile. Pool locations and relative
frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local variations in the floodplain profile.
Floodplain Bench Excavation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove the eroding material and collapsing
banks, 2} promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the erosive potential of flood
waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull benches may be created by
excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling eroded/abandoned channel areas with
suitable material. After excavation, or filling of the bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is
expected to be stabilized with suitable erosion control measures. Planting of the bench with native
floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood
waters, filter pollutants, and provide wildlife habitat.
Channel Excavation
The channel will be constructed within the range of values depicted in Table of Morphological Stream
Characteristics in Table 6. Figure 7 (Appendix A) provides typical cross-sections, plan views, and
profiles for the constructed channel.
The stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted with
shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or overhanging the
constructed channel is encouraged.
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer
bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments, available root mats, and/or biodegradable,
erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote more rapid development of
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 20
Detailed Restoration Plan

s
•
i
~'
i
•
s
an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or collected onsite and inserted through the
root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.
Channel Plus
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs will consist of low-
permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive
energy of surface flow events across the Site. Dense clays may be imported from off-site or existing
material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for plug construction. The plug will be of
sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and channel bed.
Channel Backfillin~
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will be
performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will be filled to the
extent that onsite material is available and compacted to maximize microtopographic variability,
including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear depressions may
be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical areas may be obtained by
excavating shallow depressions along the banks of these planned, open-channel segments. These
excavated areas will represent closed linear, elliptical, or oval depressions. In essence, the channel may
be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral pools adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled
channel sections. These pools are expected to stabilize and fill with organic material over time.
Vegetation debris (root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the backfill
area upon completion.
6.2.1.2 In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-stream
structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include the installation of log vanes, J-hook vanes, cross-vanes, and or a
step-pool structure. Details for the structures are depicted on Figures 8A-8B (Appendix A).
6.2.1.3 Forded Channel Crossing
Landowner requirements will necessitate the installation of channel fords to allow access to portions of
the property isolated by the conservation easement and stream restoration activities. The approximate
location of the proposed channel fords are depicted on Figures 6A-6C (Appendix A). The fords are
expected to consist of a shallow depression in the stream banks where vehicular and livestock crossings
can be made. The fords will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip-rap or suitable rock and will be
large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the fords will be at
a minimum I5:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable material,
which is free of fines (Figure 8B, Appendix A). The bed elevation of the fords will equal the floodplain
elevation above and below the fords to reduce the risk of headcutting.
6.2.2 Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream enhancement (Level II) on Cane Creek will entail planting riparian buffers with native forest
vegetation and removal of invasive species, where necessary. Particular attention will be directed toward
providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer bends of each stream meander. Riparian
buffers will extend a minimum of 30 feet from the top of stream banks to facilitate stream recovery and
prevent further degradation of Site streams. In addition, water quality functions and aquatic and wildlife
habitat associated with stable riparian corridors/streams will be improved.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 21
Detailed Restoration Plan

6.2.3 Stream Preservation
Preservation is being proposed on the forested/upstream reach of Tributary 1 (Figure 6A, Appendix A).
Based on preliminary analysis and field investigations, this reach is stable due to a lack ofhuman-induced
impacts and awell-developed riparian buffer. These areas will be protected in perpetuity through the
establishment of a conservation easement including a minimum 30-foot forested buffer adjacent to each
bank of the stream. The easement will provide a natural riparian corridor between the Site and a State
Nature Preserve.
6.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
Channel stability assessments and sediment transport analysis for existing and proposed conditions, and
the reference stream are outlined above in Section 3.4 (Channel Stability Assessment).
6.4 HEC-RAS Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to predict the
feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or
adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with
provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential
for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year storms
under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities have been
implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak flood flows for Site
features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program and regional
regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry and cross-sections are digitized
from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a professional surveyor) using the HEC-
GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are adjusted as needed based on field-collected
data. Once corrections to the geometry are performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation Model) data
and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces. were obtained along Site
features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both onsite cross-sections and detailed topographic
mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic
characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the computed water surface elevations will be
calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for Site restoration
activities. A primary objective of the stream and wetland restoration design is maintenance of a no-rise in
the 100-year floodplain; therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) are not expected to be necessary at this time. However, coordination with FEMA will
be conducted, if necessary, prior to initiating Site construction activities.
6.5 Wetland Restoration
Alternatives for wetland restoration are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system which will
provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds, and will
create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Restoration activities are expected to restore a
minimum of 4.4 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and a minimum of 5.0 acres of jurisdictional
nonriverine wetlands (Figures 6A-6C, Appendix A).
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by drainage ditch excavation, vegetative
clearing, and earth movement associated with agricultural practices. Wetland restoration options should
focus on the removal of fill materials, restoration of vegetative communities, filling drainage ditches, the
_ _ ~ ,. _
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Sile page 22
Detailed Restoration Plan

i
i
i
•
reestablishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations, and redirecting normal surface
hydrology from ditches back to Site floodplains. In addition; the construction of (or provisions for)
surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an important component to
groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the restoration of 4.4 acres of
jurisdictional riverine floodplain wetlands that will receive overbanking from the three restored tributaries
(Tributaries I-3). An additional 5.0 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine wetland will be restored within the
Site. These areas of hydric soils will not receive overbanking from Site tributaries or Cane Creek; Cane
Creek is a controlled flow stream. The existing Cane Creek floodplain is acting as a terrace; therefore,
Cane Creek will not provide hydrological inputs to these areas.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
The existing Tributaries 1-3 depths average 3-5 feet, while the depth for the proposed Tributaries 1-3
average approximately 0.6-1 foot. Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels have been drained due to
1) redirecting tributaries from flowing across hydric soil depressions to flow directly into Cane Creek, 2)
lowering of the groundwater tables, and 3) a lateral drainage effect from existing stream reaches.
Restoration of historic flow patterns across the floodplain and reestablishment of channel inverts are
expected to rehydrate soils adjacent to Site streams, resulting in the restoration of jurisdictional hydrology
to riverine wetlands.
In addition, drainage ditches are effectively removing wetland hydrology within the interstream flat.
Filling of these ditches is expected to rehydrate hydric soils within the Site, resulting in the restoration of
jurisdictional hydrology to nonriverine wetlands.
Redirecting Roadside Drainage
Roadside drainage, which historically would have percolated through Site soils has been captured and
directed through a drainage network across the Site. Redistribution of roadside drainage will rehydrate
nonriverine hydric soils, as well as treat potentially harmful, nonpoint pollutants prior to discharging into
water supply watershed mainstem channel.
Excavation and Grading of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to the existing channel and area ditches have experienced both natural and unnatural
sediment deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during dredging, straightening,
and rerouting of Site streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain. Major flood events may have also
deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from onsite eroding banks and upstream
agricultural fields. The removal of these spoil materials and/or filling of onsite ditches with spoil material
represents a critical element of Site wetland restoration.
Hydroph tt~ etation
Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as land clearing,
agriculture, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will be revegetated with native
vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse
plant assemblage. Section 6.7 (Plant Community Restoration) provides detailed information concerning
community species associations.
Reconstructing_Stream Corridors
The stream restoration plan involves the reconstruction of Tributaries 2-3 and the downstream reach of
Tributary 1. The existing tributaries were rerouted through the fields into Cane Creek; the tributary
lengths were shortened by excavating a linear channel through the most direct path to Cane Creek.
Restoration activities revolve around diverting this stream flow through the floodplain. Existing channels
will be backfilled so that the water table may be restored to historic conditions. However, some portions
of the existing channels may remain open for the creation of wetland "oxbow lake-like" features. These
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 23
Detailed Restoration Plan

features will be plugged on each side of the open channel and will function as open water systems. They
are expected to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife as well as create small pockets of open
water/freshwater marsh within the Site.
6.6 Fooodplain Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent important
components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex surface
microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools, oxbows, and
hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout these
systems. As discussed in the stream reconstruction section, efforts to advance the development of
characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed. After
construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical
asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated
on complex floodplain surfaces.
6.7 Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to
diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for
mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to
develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during community restoration
activities.
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate,
and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events.
Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the channel throughout the meander belt-
width. Shrub elements will be planted along the reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer
bends. A combined Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest and Nonriverine Wet Hardwoods Forest
community is targeted for the Site wetland restoration areas and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
is targeted for the remainder of the Site (Figure 9, Appendix A). The following planting plan is the
blueprint for community restoration.
6.7.1 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish vegetative community patterns across the landscape. The
plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of proposed Site preparation,
and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of regional seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year} will facilitate availability of various noncommercial elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side assemblage will be
planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 10 depicts the total number of stems
and species distribution within each vegetation association. Planting will be performed between
December 1 and March I S to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the
spring season. A total of 31,822 diagnostic tree and shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 24
Detailed Restoration Plan

Table 10. Planting Plan
Bottomland Piedmont/Low
Forest/Nonriverine Mountain Alluvial Stream-side
Ve etation Association Wet Hardwoods Forest Assembla a TOTAL
Area acres 6.7 17.7 5.6 23.13
Number Number Number % of
S ecies lanted* % of total lanted* % of total )anted** total Number lanted
Swamp chestnut oak

(Quercus michauxii) 683 15 -- -- -- -- 683
Cherrybark oak

(Quercus a oda 683 15 -- -- -- -- 683
Sycamore

Platanus occidentalis 683 I S 1204 10 -- -- 1887
Hackberry

(Celtis laevi ata} 683 I S -- -- -- -- 683
American elm

(Ulmus americana) 683 15 -- -- -- -- 683
Green ash

Fraxinus ennsylvanica 456 l0 -- -- -- -- 456
Pawpaw

(Asimina triloba) 364 8 1204 10 -- -- 1568
American beech

(Fagus grandifolia) __ __ 1805 15 -- -- 1805
Mockernut hickory
(Ca a alba/tomentosa -- -- 1805 15 -- -- 1805
Northern red oak

(Quercus rubra) __ __ 1805 I S -- -- 1805
White oak

( uercus alba) __ __ 1805 I S -- -- 1805
Black cherry
(Prunus serotipa -- -- 1204 10 -- -- 1204
Persimmon

(Dios yros virgipiana) __ __ 1204 10 -- -- 1204
Silky dogwood

(Corpus amomum) 319 7 -- -- 4570 30 4889
Black willow
(Salix ni ra) -- -- -- -- 4570 30 4570
Buttonbush

(Ce halanthus occidentalis) __ __ __ __ 3046 20 3046
Elderberry

(Sambucus canadensis) __ __ __ _ 3046 20 3046
TOTAL 4554 100 12,036 100 15,232 100 31,822
T riantea at a oenstty of otsv stemsiacre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
6.7.2 Nuisance Species Management
Prior to the revegetation phase of the project, nonnative floral species will be removed, if necessary. At
this stage of project development, no nonnative species have been identified at the Site; therefore, the
methods for eradication of nuisance species have not been determined. However, if control if necessary,
it is likely that both manual removal by cutting and grubbing, in addition to chemical herbicide treatment
will be required.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 25
Detailed Restoration Plan

The Site will be monitored over the course of the 5-year monitoring period for potential nuisance species
such as beaver or other nonnative floral species. Appropriate actions will be taken to ameliorate any
negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water management as necessary.
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until agreed upon success criteria
are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, hydrology, and vegetation.
7.1 Stream Monitoring Plan
Annual fall monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble
counts, and a water surface profile of the restoration reaches. This will include 3000 linear feet of
longitudinal profile and a minimum of ten cross-sections. The data will be presented in graphic and
tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average
depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface
slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate composition. A photographic record of preconstruction and
post-construction pictures will also be compiled. Preconstruction photographs are included in Appendix
D.
Photographs of the enhancement (level II) reach will be taken for each year of the monitoring period and
on the preservation reach in the first year.
Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996a) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure
of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring Plan
A minimum of 4 groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after
hydrological modifications are performed at the Site. In addition, a groundwater gauge will be installed
within a reference wetland. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland restoration
area (USEPA 1990).
H dy rology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing
season, during average climatic conditions. During growing seasons with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of
reference). These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are
marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be
performed.
7.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with USEPA guidelines
enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE 2003), and CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only (Version 4.0) (Lee et al. 2006). A
general discussion of the restoration monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant
growth should be included in each annual monitoring report.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 26
Detailed Restoration Plan

After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting
and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain
the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling
of vegetation will be performed between June 1 and September 30, after each growing season, until the
vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to 14 sample plots (1 O meters by
10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site. Best professional judgment may be necessary to
establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot,
vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth
of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of
"Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree Species include planted species, species identified
through visual inventory of an approved reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community, and species
outlined in Schafale and Weakley (1990).
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the first
three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be surviving in year
4 and 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5.
7.4 Contingency
7.4.1 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair and/or
installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The
method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with
success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream success, include 1) structure failure, 2)
head-cut migration through the Site, and/or 3} bank erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that onsite structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream banks
and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but exhibit flow
around, beneath, or through the header/footer pilings will be repaired by excavating a trench on the
upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures which have
been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of header/footer pilings, will be removed and replaced
with a structure suitable for onsite flows.
Headcut Migration through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through onsite measurements [i.e.
bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage
caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation
of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane weir) and/or restoring stream
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 27
Detailed Restoration Plan

geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include
channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative
transplants, and/or willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs at the Site resulting in elevated width-to-depth ratios,
contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be implemented: Bank
erosion contingency measures may include the installation of cross-vane weirs and/or other bank
stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a
channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable values.
7.4.2 Hydrologic Contingency
Hydrologic contingency may include floodplain surface modifications such as construction of ephemeral
pools, deep ripping of the soil profile, and installation of berms to retard surface water flows.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology may be implemented and monitored
until hydrology success criteria are achieved.
7.4.3 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots
over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting will be performed with tree species approved by
regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation
success criteria.
7.5 Reporting Schedule
The first year monitoring report will be submitted at the end of December after Site implementation.
Monitoring will continue for five years or until agreed upon success criteria are achieved, with a report
submitted by the end of December for each monitoring year.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Sile page 28
Detailed Restoration Plan

8.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients
for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering, 37, 473-
475.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological Society
(map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman, W.A., G.D. Wise, D.E., Walker, R.M, Cantrell, M.A., Clemmons, M., Jennings, G.D., Clinton,
D., and Patterson, J. 2001. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.0. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. North Carolina Water Bodies Report
(Orilirie). Available: http://dem.ehnr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.htm1 [March 6, 2006]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available: http://h2o.enrstate.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCategories4-7.PDF [April 17, 2007]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 29
Detailed Restoration Plan

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006b. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review
(online). Available: http://h2o.enrstate.nc.us/tmdt/documents/2006303dList PublicReviewDraft.pdf [April 17,
2007]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2003. Broad River Basin Watershed
Restoration Plan (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/pdf/restplansBroad 2003.pdf [March 6,
2006]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996a. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Rosgen, D. 1996b. Classification of Natural Rivers: Reply to the comments by J.R_ Miller and J.B.
Ritter. Catena. 27:301-307
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, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Soil Survey of Rutherford County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2003. The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3: A
Computer Program for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods for Ungaged Sites.
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168. United States Geological Survey.
Cane Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site page 30
Detailed Restoration Plan

Appendix A. Figures

• '•' 05.,.x., me ~, ' Y ~-~"J 3\ ~ r
~~ ~- o ~~ ~
r°
l~'. ' -, /mss` r..° ~i ~~ 3 j ~O ° ~ .
~ _ ~°~ -
~ ~~ ~ ~ .' ~ t r" I ,
~ ~ ~~ - ;
g >
~- ~,
- ~ k~ _. -" __~ _ _ ~ - 226 •~. ' ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ -~ ~'
_ 1 ` ° \ ~
., ~~ - ~ /Dyge~ vine 1...~_ - ~ ~ -~~~~•~, '~ ` '~,~4' ~ ~ ~) 1
w~.. o., ` Q~ 4E~FpR O ±. ~:n\~ S _ ~ ~ / 4;. o >c~•, P
t~l EvI ! ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~'~1~'
rtt uey! ~s I - ,t
~~ ~ 1v ~~ ha ~ ~
~ 1 . ~ ~, ~ Cane Creek _'~ . , E ~ _ _
M ~,.~ ,~ ~` - ~~ ~~
""~ - ~ ' Site Location ~~ x~l t~ ; ~
_ SVM1E ('.I~rFn ~A~
-' ;^ ~ ~ ..L - 0.2 mile south of •~~ -~ ~ _; M9""~ kvw •~~ p Cc
'~ ~~`4; 5,x•E "~ i• McDowell/Rutherford County line t i e ~i`~ , /' a«~a..v
~ `21 = ~ on eastern side of Highway 64 ~ •~." _ E I ~~~ ~~1~ ~~ c ~-t ~ < ' ~ ~ ~: na g ~~~
~ \ O, I (((
~_~_ - f ~'~4 7s 579?'N. Rl-8S41 "W ~ ~ '~ ~~. ~!~ ~"k.` i ~ 4nr '": 'Y>`
~ ~;. (NAD8tl4'u S89) _ .tiro ~Ijeavbl.,.. ~o +e ~}, '~x ~6 J4, ~~
• -.acts xi4(v. '~.. `st'ns"-~ ~ wqqs ~ ... `~/. ~i °'~. ~io'um.,,. n yy en~/ • .. \L~".~q„,
,
J ~ •4 i" 4y ~~ ~. qa~~ ( \ '1 d 1,vsaRisvF_Ii
c ~ W. rj0 _ ~ ~b _ ~". ~ tea, / iuvua~~ ~ ~ avF ram B ~ M ~~
,~ _' 1 ~~- a ~,, ~
~~^~~. ~ w..r>NHa ~-'~ s'~ •. ~l ?-ksw.nml~` ~,° I r,^" .~;~,~1
• `a ~~~ ~( ,~Gy1k~M°S» ~ ort~ $ lE ~ ~/ \~`~~~ ~ ~~ ~^ •~~-~ ^ J tv.~. b ~A~3'
i ~i t~ _ 1
_ ~ 3; .. w2 , j 'mE~Ar \a. ~~ut _ }1~,/St_ trod.
-.~,% '~ ~y ~1' w xa I cwe3 o.e \ ~.t Lu9an 'J ~ ~ /~.n }~,~~ ~. A ~ J ~~P~-.
.* ~'~ ,~ ~ ~"°t a i~ ~ Vim`' ~ ~9 ; ~'
,~ /~ ~ ~~ ~ as o'.- ~ ,•e ' .b . ~l
9 a ~ a ~ "~ _
• k611N 1 ~' 'NLt;.H 4A ~~~y~ ~. ~~'l-~ ~ ,___. ~ 3 .. , 1, /1 ~~
i•AM! Iwht~ ~ E ! ~ - ~ \ ~., ya 'p a ~'~~ Y{ f~yg5r ~~ -~.iL`} ~
(( 4'/'IL^ ~ r'~ / f ~I `SE/ "+' ~.(`-~ ~ ~ I sAlk ~ r 1 ~" yr
_ E;a iAA ~~/ \{4 221\° ~~ _ ~ ` ~ ~ ~\J-'U ~.,I tF~„F v t< ~~ --.1~~\`~` -`~g4~, .~ ~':-.\.~
. % ~'~ ~ ~ ~6V~~'_. Ill-'-. A -`YrhOum zF°. ,. ~ ~ ~~
I 3n/ $ . `7 4 91t _ aG, N~ ~ ~tf Rr ab ~*y .Mi Oi LS Po .~~pr / :s~~. ~
'U o~-. y ~ €~, a. e~ '.,, Ip A / ~"~5 p~~.,' ~; ,'~ j \us c' s ~ \ '\b'._
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Rmgwn dso" ~'~q _ ` ~ .,.e"'"caW f _~r"` ~ s ~,`~ aF ~$ - / ~ro ~~ ~~
• j....~a~uK~r,. ac .~^F ii; t~et¢Qt f 'a~e7 e'. ~ _.~Y''''~~ 4 .~ e~.k -, .J s~~~ ~ ~/'~ / r. g~
~ ~ 1 -u ~ 118 \ gF Spindale o~ _. ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~~ f ~ :~.
F~ a~~'a" ~Ri .f~ , ' .f,~~ ` ;,''~F ~s~a`~, 3 0~:~ ,~awas o ~ ~~ ;f° '`
i
.~
\~i~ till ~ fa?/s/"• b E' 'i ~.. .r. ~~ylr '~~ I~' ~~ b3w ~u°"ov ~ \ ~ n:n~ti>_•s,.l
• (; /P ~~ ~ ~ ~t,Q b p i - ~~rp /~' /!~~\ 5. Tuk o- ~~ It nt. ~..
i E~ .~ ~, :. ,trn c ~.G
"£f <L,Forest ,p
• (~k ~ sJ~" g lI City s
- ?' ~: _
1 mi. _ 0 1 mi. 4 mL °` - -• --° ~a x ~--R-7a-:~a~e«y 5 y, ~~.,_ i;" y~~ '~~~*~
• Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gaetteer , p.55. t~n-u .a ., 5 ' ~ :.n~~.
~ Se,+d_
M~.h
Dwn by y
SITE LOCATION CLF FIGURE
~,., E
• v ~I ~` ~ h~ ~~~ CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE °a1e ap~u zoos
~.4
Rutherford County, North Carolina pl~~eC,.
~,mtn.,.~,•~~~. ,_ 06-022
•
it •

B ~ C Mont t ~~D ~O'eB; 1n+t~ar ~, _ I - - Enola ~ -
G s~ W E ~ t Pleasant
:evi11A ~' ~ - kid est -Grove // 6~
v` may. Old Fort ~>`~idence 8rindletown ~ _
LE Gravestone
~~~-~`~813 to Molfrtt ~ Glen ~~ ._~_ S Righ Pk ~ /
~lr Swannafioa ~ H~II ~ '~ ~ '9'y'' - - ~,.
Cn - ~~~' Dysartsville , ~c
a S,vannanea ~;l -Sugar' r" ~ ~ / Banu
i)' i
~. _ _ ~ ~/ r:- --
. ~ ~ ~tn l , .-.~ ~ , <y„ \ p-,~ Henry
Fairvrew J ~ ~ ~ 6Vhitehouse ~ '+.~ ~ _ I
~hermal City I Talucal ulls
Little Pisgah Mtn ~ ff Casar ~ ~-rc roac
Ge n~ /
/- \ ` Shingle Union>j I Be3wood
Hd;Iaw \ o
-Goodlurk Ba~ ve Reck ~ .l/ Sunshine ,
~s ~ Gilkey ,West«rinster Hollis ~
Sugarloaf Uree ~~_ - ~- Logan :iv I Fallston
'Lake Lure - Polkville \ _ ,
Fruitland •'-'~~ Mtn i`~ RUT ~`
~/~ ,-~ , I-'h R O R D I ~awndale
'`yville I
in Honoe ~ Sunny ~ Ruth
S O ~ ~ View ~ * utherfordton ~ ~ H< pti~weil I Shoals ~ellwo~
_ _ BFC'~ ~ ~ ~ M~ca1f c /~ Waco
fur eRidge ~ _ Pea\ Sp d21z V L ~ !-\~
ana -~' Ridge FOreSt City ` Ellenboro~ /.Washburn'
~nderson~rille / ~
' ' ~ MiI1 Ale,cander , jn~rr+FF?r~ src /"~Stubb~
/ Spring Mills ,`~,~attimore ,`'-,~'.
~FH Fldt oCk D'enieltown ~ r ~
1 r F7 O I I~ \ ~ "Moore oro Shelby _'
>r 1 r\ C; Caroleen~ ~ ~,
Avor,dele Boiling ~~ `
Saluda Sandy iains ~ Henrietta ~ / S rin s ~
Columbus p 8
Harris
Valhalla Lynn Green Cliffside^ ~r
Creek / / 1 Patterson
J'~ Mel oses O~ `~ Tryon - ~ Springs
t•~~.~/r y~ - ~~ .. . ~. _ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 1 Earl 2~
V ~ - -. -, ~ ~ G~over~
Cane Creek
Site Location
14-digit USGS Unit
03050105060020
R~~~ NA
OATH CA
S
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 75 mi.
7:625,000
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map -1974 State of North Carolina
Dwn by
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP cLF FIGURE
m ~ a ~cz~c~a Dale'.
',, ~ , , CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE aptu 200
Rutherford County, North Carolina
,, ~,raCl o6-ooz

+s~ m 9-~1 ca J~a
l II ter, R'e>•
~ _.: Jib r~ ,ti - _ ~ I ~f . ~, ~,~ ~. ~ fr _jl t ~_~ `4 ~-_` - - al r-
.. ~ i:~~' `bY Aft vlLL `
i r ..,
~. f~M1r~~~~~,111111 _ Ia 'sl '4~_ i l}'jj _ ,,, ~ Eol
t l
r~ • ~~ - yid V - -' ~ ` ~ -a~ n~ ~ .
1 r
1 ~ ' ~ , ~` v~1 ' 7
`A f ry~;-,~--, sABa1 - ~r~ - ` ,~ - -
~ 1 r
w y ; f~rl ;`/ ~ r ~ I ~ J
~~ '~p~ yy~. ~ "l ) _ ad. - ,~~ _ - (~ yam' ,~!'-_'
~ r' `.'"'t_,~ F!/ ~ ~ i'_ \ ~QeA ! ~"c~ l ~ _ ~ ~ ,may ~ 1t .
c^"
'
~ .- ~` -
r, _~r--"{ _ 1`it'~~ - .. _ jr;`, F~ ~ ;yid, f; 'v~
z{ L ~ f - 7 4 ~
_~f~ ~;'~ Lon~ki tioo~ au~svra" - - ~ i J9,'~ 'c ~' 1 r'r " ~ - '~~
a:
t*' ~
..~.~ !\_c Sj ~fig~t, r ~ ~- , ,'tmn>.einr a _' Yf,INSttiLt Ob ~ yDC~rua ~/ i~. ~ Nay .
~. f xrturmcr~KV ~ ~ ' ~. 9IC1HE'1tPOR1Y t.o; ,i,, /,;~~ ~~. a
~/ 7(r jj / ./~% la2a.~
~~_ ~ _ ~ ~ .a - ~.~~ •i pl,.f - -
t ~,w_ - '~i ~ -"~~' ~, ' -'r~;. - ~ ~ Legend
} ~ ~- '"~~~"""EtR ~J~' ~ r-~1ir; ~ ~ , ~ O Approximate Easement
~' `f,~ - ,' , } ~ . ' ` ± ~ ~. C ~''- .. _ v ~ -~~ Drainage Areas
r , } / ~ rY -n ~~ i $ .• ~ i ~~: ~ I__ , ® Tributary 1 = 0.4 sq. mi.
- ~ ~ Tributary 2 = 0.1 sq. mi.
'"" y,~
rr. _. .. _
Feet I vp3 . i _ ~ _~~tt•* - Q Tributary 3 = 0.1 sq. mi
0 1,200 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 ~'~' ~ Cane Creek = 8.7 sq. mi.
~ C
own. oy FIGURE
Pxinm Envirnnmental, lnc. WATERSHED MAP aF
_~ 2726 Rowland Pond Drlve /\
,\ Willow Spring, NC 27592 CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE °a'81Jj'
1919) 215-0fiW April 2007
(979) 3113839 fax
~ Rutherford County, North Carolina Protect
Auiom Environmental, Inc. 06-022

own. by. FIGURE
'~~ ~ ~`~ A[iom Env Ya nmenial, Inc.
SOILS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS c~F
~ ~ .~^~ 2126 Rowland Pond Drive
;!~~ Willow5pring,NC2)692 CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE Date. May 2007
[phone]
~`.. \\= (979)]!1-]B]9 fax Rutherford County, North Carolina Project'.
Azicm Envrtonmenlal, Inc.
06-022

200
16D
160
1 ao
120
10o C
ao
sa
ao
20
Cmss Section 1-~.~
.v,,,~
Reference Pattern
Lp-p = 42 (23 - 89) ft
Lm=59(36-88)ft
Wbelt = 37 (19 - 60) ft
Rc=12.9(7-26)ft
Lp-plWbkf = 5 (2.8 -10.6)
LmlWbkf = 7 (4.3 -10.5)
WbeltlWbkf = 4.4 (2.3 - 7.1)
RclWbkf =1.5 (0.8 - 4.3)
SIN =1.5
Pattern Le end
Top of Bank
Thalweg
------ Cross Section
D
0 20 40 50 8D 1DD 120 14D 160 160 200 220
95
D 5 10 15 20 25
Station
102
100
99
97
c
o~
m 9a
w
93
92
90
0

100
150
Station
200
250
300
350
C.rQas.~Se. ~},ie n1_Riftls
Abkf = 7.7 ft
Dave = 0.9 ft
Wbkf = 8.'r ft
Dmax = 1,3 ft
Bank Height =1.3 ft
W/D = 9.7
FPA = 25
ENT = 2.9
Stream "type = E
.roes S .~tion 2 -Pool
Abkf.=1;?,9 ft
Wbkf =10.7 ft
Dmax = '1.9 ft
Cr°ss Se ;tion 3 -Pool
Abkf =1 X1.1 ft
Wbkf =11.8 ft
Dmax = ;?.3 ft
Profile i~Reference Reach)
Save = 0.0161 rise/run
Svalley = 0.0229 riselrun
Sriffle = 0.0284 (0.0148 - 0.0492) riselrun
Spool = 0.0013 (0 - 0.0040) riselrun
Srun = 0.0448 (0 - 0.2453) ri~.elrun
Sglide = 0.0057 (0 - 0.0299) riselrun
Profile Le end
-------- Reference Bed
Reference W~Iter Surface
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTESIREVISIONS
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
forth Carolina
Title:
Reference
Dimension, Pattern, and
Profile
Scale: NA '. FIGURE N0.
Date: ~
May 2007
Project No.:
06-022
C 101
0
:_
~ 100
a~
w ~
Cross Section 4 - Riffl .
Abkf=9.3ft
Dave =1.2 ft
Wbkf = 8.1 ft
Dmax =1.4 ft
Bank Height =1.4 ft
WID = 7.1
FPA =150
ENT =18.5
Stream Type = E
100
~ 99 Floodprone Area
~ 98
+:~
m
~, 97 Bankfull
W
ss
ss
D 5 10 15 20 25
Station
99
~ ~ Bankfull
0
~ 97
m
W 9s
103
102
~ 101
0 100
~ ~ Bankfull
N
W ~
sl
ss
0 5 10 15 2D 25
Station
Cross Section 2 --~
9e
0 5 10 15 20 25
StatlOrl

b
V

0
era
O
m
O
~~0

u
u J`
m
a
v
Be in
ague Creek
nhancement Level II
ta. 00+00
a
o
Redir ct .
~, Dltch~r ma e ,
Across F~oodgplain
;~o
t ~.
I
,~"~
~`
~`
s+
ti
i
! m
n ~
~ ~
f
r
t
E~ o
f.
~ w
.`
m~ tl~~
1
l
,,~,~, ~ ~
1
i
+~,
i
,, `
~ t
N ~. ~
r^
1
Mitigation Legend
Easement Boundary 38.1 ac
Stream Restoration 4,600 ft
-- -~ - Stream Enchancement II 5,078 ft
- - - Stream Preservation 1,506 ft
® Riverine Wetland Restoration 4.4 ac
® Nonriverine Wetland Restoration 5.0 ac
Old Channel Backfill i
General
Major Contour
Minor Contour
~-f Existing ~~hannel to be Backfilled
Bridge
,~
",
rt G
a
\~
+~'
..,
~'
r
r
~'
.,~,
~~
~~
~~
0
~~

~,
~~

P f1

U
~

w
n
o:
4~.

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
I NOTESIREVISIONS ~
Be in Stream
Tri6gutary 1
Pres rvatlon
Sta. ~0+00
~jl
,~
•h ,~'~ ~ °'w~
~J ~
i
^~ r
~~ 1~0
~~5
,~5~° ~~
0
t~" ~~ o`
s i
~ /
I
995 ~ ~
a ~
i~
i
S
1
r
rDas
r
r
'~•
J
.. ~
`~ ' c
i
~ s
i
' ~ yRtr~h
i
~ ~~
a ~w zoo
~~ ~~
~ SCALE UJ FEET
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration
Plan
scale: FIGURE N0.
1 in. =160 ft.
Date:
May 2007
Project No.:
06-022

tart Strea
estQratlonmrributary 2
Sta. 80+00
rh
b
G1
• rr w r~~~
1
I ~~
I r.-~
I r ~^o
~ ~~ ~~
~l
~~ t ~~
~ !
I
~1
Arch ofogical J I 1 ~
Avoi~ance ~ ~
Area
1 ,f

tart Stria
est ration~ributary 3
Sta, SO+00
a
970
~~

916

I ~~
e r
G ~ /
N I
!y
~~
t~
~~ -' - `.
paF 5
I
I
t~ 955
~~~
t
0 ~~ ~ ~
r
r
~F,
,i
't
t
t
4
5
1
1~
;~~=_
r ~~~
t r` %~
.~'
,~
~~
a
t
a
a
V`
~,
i
i
~ ~
~'
i
,, i
i
t
1
1
~° ~ ~
~ s
~~ 1
•I
~~ ~,
•! {p V
~~
~~6 91 ~

End Stream
Tributary 1
Prese~ ation Sta. 15+06
gtart 5tr~am .
Sta OOao$n Tributary 1
4
I y~°
~e t
~;
6
i
t
~,
f~
f
rid ^~e~
t ess.~atic
Sta.4~+2
~.
i-
~~ i°~F
rc>'
~.
/ C~``
~,
nC;
~;':r
M
Tributary 1
Restoration Tributary 2
r ~ Sta. 18+71
r
Beall gnfnen~
i

---
Easement Boundary
Stream Restoration
Stream Enchancement II
Stream Preservation
Riverine Wetland Restoration
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration
Old Channel Backfill
Channel Ford
Step Pool Drop Structure
Driveway Realignment
38.1 ac
4,600 ft
5,078 ft
1,506 ft
4.4 ac
5.0 ac
o ,o0 2~
~~
SCALE IN FEET
1
Axiom Environmental, Inc..
NOTESlREVISIONS
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration
Plan
Scale: FIGURE N0.
1 in. =16o ft.
Date' ~1
May 200 yV~
Project No.:
06-022
General Legend
Major Contour
Minor Contour
~--f Existing Channel to be Backfilled
C; Bridge

970
StartQStr~arr~,
Sta tOr0~+04 ributary 3
o~
~ General Legend ~
Major Contour
Minor Cor>Itour
e---a Existing C1~annel to tie $aokfilled
fridge

G
S^
nd Stream
estto~ti~on Tritwtary 3
i
4
,~
t
t
~~ t
t a
~ ~'
~, '
'~ ~
\`~ ~
~ ~ t
ii -
t,~,
~ ~,~~ '~~
~~~ Ala
~~l y tr
/~
( ~ ~
~I, ~
,,
,~ l~ ` ~ ~ y
,, ~A ~
~ 1 ~
I`~
r~( p
~~
( ~ X54,
' ~~' i
;~
. ~'
~~ t
/~ 'U ~ ~
~,
-~ ,
`-~
~~ }
~ ! n
~ ` ~ ~n
r (;; ti
(1
~h
y 1
r % `
~~ ,
1 ~'~
~(/'
`\ ', `°;:
~ ~- ,
c}
~ 955 c
~5
~U
c
s~
Driveway
Reallignmeni
Mitigation Legend
Easement Boundary 38.1 ac
Stream Restoration 4,600 ft
- Stream Enchancement II 5,078 ft
- - - Stream Preservation 1,506 ft
® Riverine Wetland Restoration 4.4 ac
® Nonriverine Wetland Restoration 5.0 ac
Old Channel Backfill
~ Channel Ford
- - - Step Pool Drop Structure
Driveway Realignment
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
~ NOTES/REVISIONS ~
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
~ ~~ ~
955 nd
y ane Creek
nhancement Level II
ta. 50+78
955 ~gfi
Title:
Restoration
Plan
c ~a 200
~:~
SCALE M FEET
Scale: FIGURE N0.
1 in. =160 ft.
Date:
May 2007 /'~ ^
(V" `(
,"
Project No.: \./
06-022

Y V ~
i'~
_ ~
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
NOTES:
1. POOL-IO-POOL SPACING IS ~61511F~DfADL1
CENTER OF POO1 BEND TO CE1~TRt OF PODL9E#ID.
Paocc
rLOOo
~ ~ NOTESIREVISIONS ~ ~
MAX 1 1 SLOPE
tAIL 0.~
RIFFLE
OESIGI
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES.
t. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY IOCATMG
THE RADII AND SCR~MG THE CENTER LME FOR EAOH POOL KENO. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE tHE LAYOUT OF TI# CHANNEL
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENTUWY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREE5
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE-0UT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
Project:
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
7. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
USED TG BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
2. BANK PS2DTECTION SHALL CONSIST Of NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING.
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH Wbkf fl. Wbot ft. Driff fl. Dthal fl. D of fl. W of fl. ! Wthal fl.
Tributary 1 10.6 9.1 1.5 0.2 1.9 13.8 0.5
Tributary 2 and 3 5.0 0.6 1.1 0.2 1.7 6.5 0.0
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
Title:
PROPOSED DIMENSION,
PATTERN, AND PROFILE
Scale' FIGURE N0.
NA
Date:
May 2007
Project No.:
06.022
TYPICAL CHAIVNEI. Pi~OFILE
TYPICAL CHANNEL ALAN VIEW

NOTE,
HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE. AMGUTAR80ULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 2J' ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION.
~ CHANNEL
~ ~ BANK
~ `O$ ,~
~ FniER
~ ~
1
A 1 ~ ~ A
1 I
I I
/ ~ E%ISTING ~
/ CHANNEL ~
(((/// /
/ HEADER
~ STONE ~
® 1
~ ® © I
~ I
I 1
I 1
I FOOTER 1
STONE ~
l ELEVATIONA-A ~
I III 1~ ~ HEADER BACK FILL
CHANNEL 1 III II 1 STONE TOGRAOE 1-
BANK )Il II 1 I CHANNEL
1 1 \ 11 1 5~ FLOW --. DE TH
1 1 1 i I I~ EXIST. _
I 11 11 I I 1 GROUND
~ 1; ~ JI I
~ )
FODIER
I pO~L ~/ ~ STONE fILTERFABRIC
I
1
PLAN Vff W
PROFILE B•8
?YPICAL J-HOOK VANE
REACH ARM LENGTH (FT.) CHANNEL DEPTH (FT.)
TRIBUTARY t 70.0 1.5
TR1BlITARffS2AND3 7.0 D.B
NOTE:
HEADER AND FOOTER STONESARE URGE, ANGULAR $OULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM Df 2t' ALONG THE SHORTEST DIAENSION.
CHANNEL I~ CHANNEL
BANK•--~I i I BANK
1 ~ FILTER
I FABRIC ~
I ~
A I I A
I ® 1
I I
I I
20-30 20.3D
I HEADER STONE
I 1 ..
(DOTER
STONE -
HEADER STONE
FOOTER STONE
HEADER STONE
FOOTER5TONE
aocx Flu
(M57 STONE)
WHERE NEEDED
BACK Fill
TO GRADE
~OW
~.~ EXIST.
\\\\\\A ~ GROUND
NOTES.
1. EXPOSED VANE OCCUPIES 113 OF THE BANKFULL WIDTH OF
THE CHANNEL.
2 SUPPORT PILINGS SHALL 8E PENCIL SHARPENED. UNTREATED.
PEELED. A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES IN TOP DIAMETER, ANO 8 FEET LONG.
3 LOGS SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE HARDWOOD SPECIES. RELATIVELY
STRAIGHT WITH A MINIMUA1 DIAMETER OF 151NCHES AND
APPROXIMATELY 35 FEET IN LENGTH.
4. USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS
VEGETATION
TRANSPLANTS
OR LIVE STAKING
IDPLAIN BANKFULL STAGE _ _
- ~- - - - 70'a.to`~y r
6 FT
MIN
CROSS SECTION
~o
~ \1
V
BURIED gD
LOG~~ 2D•
PLAN VIEW
SUPPGRT
PILINGS WI
GALVANIZED
SPIKES OR
TIE RODS
TYPICAL LOG VANE
~ / I ~ FLOW SUPPORT N4 REBAR
~/ 1¢ ~ I TREAMBED PILING- ~ (1121)
u(~CK ql I FILTER FABRIC ~ \\
~ CLOSE•UP Of SUPPORT PILING
(p57STONEI rf
WHERE NEEDED J PROFILE B•8
PLAN VIEW FILTER
FABRIC

r -1•

!' ~
• SUPPORT PILINGS SHOULD BE CUT
SLIGHTLY BELOW THE TOP LOG.
DRIVE REBAR
• AFTER PLACING LOGS
,
TYPICAL CROSS-VAN E -- BADKFILL ~ THROUGH LOGS AND BEND ENDS.
VANE LOG •REBAR MAY BE REPLACED WITH LAG
OF T
T
T

Ih~4' MIN. WI
BOL
HE ENGINEER.
H APPF;OVAL
SECTION A•A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Srale: FIGURE N0.
NO SCALE

Date:
May 2D07
Pro)ect No.'
06-022
VEGETATION
TRANSPLANTS
OR L1VF STAKING
ELEVATION A-A STONE

PoLL SCOUL HOLE TO MINIMUM DEPTH
NOTE:
HEADER AND FOOTEf
MEASURING A MINIMU
STREAM FLOW _
t
1
J~
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
~ NOTESIREVISIONS ~
.`
•
AGGREGATE 1 3 CLASS A STONE
BASE COURSE
CLASSASTONE ~ CHANNEL BOTTOM
PLAN VIEW
PERMANENTCNANNELFORDDETAIL PERMANENT CHANNEL FORD-~]ETAIL
ABRIC
NTIRF CTR! IfTI IRF
FINISHED
FLOUDPLAM
ELEV
NOTES:
7. KEEP FORD CROSS FALL WITHIN 1.2°k OF STREAM GRADIENT.
2. FILL VOIDS BETWEEN 24" MININUM DIMENSION 80ULDERS
WJ AGGREGATE BASE COURSE CLASS A TO CREATE DRIVEABLE SURFACE.
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Sate FIGURE N0.
NO SCALE

Date:
May 2007
Project ND.:
06-022
OF CLASS 1 STONE
PRORLE B~B
FINISHED
FLOODPl1dN
ELEV. -~
FILTER
FABRIC
2-0' MIN.
DIMENSION
BOULDERS
SECTION A•A

Planting Plan Legend
Easement Boundary 38.1 ac
----- On-Site Streams ~I
J Streamside Assemblage 5.6 ac ',
Piedmont !Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest 6.7 ac
~ Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 17.7 ac
Bottomland ! Nnlmont/Lox
i
Forestllonrnerine ' '1LmntainAllurial
Stream-side ~
1' .elation Association N'et Hardxoods Forest Avsembla e ~ TOTAL
Arta (acres) 6.1 11.7 9,6 ~ 2111
~ Number Number Number Nnmber
I Species lantrd' ~ %of total '', lamed' % of total ~ lamed"' % of total lamed
~~ rmp chc+tnur ua8 683 I S - ~ .. 687
IOutrursruxhatnrrt
_ __
(hembark oat, _ _. _.
5
i
~
~
68 i
1 hur ue a(r;ndul 1 ~ .. 68. ~
S,eamnn G8± IS 12DJ Ip ~ -• -- 1887
r t~ur,,,,~<~~~ rrk rnair~c) ~ i
_ . __ _.
N nltxm 6R3 I S -- .. .. .. 68?
lr~~r,l,~ l:mrl:nml
r1nirrir+nehn G8; 15 -- -- -- - b8?
i (C-'Iruru anreriruoa) i
Gnenash .i;6 IQ ..
~ .. .. .. I~
-056
IF}rn~inus n+ourlt'uniru) i I
I Pm. mu _ .__. _. _ i
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
{ NOTES/REVISIONS ~
Project:
Cane Creek
Restoration
Site
Rutherford County
North Carolina
,.
Tide:
Planting
Plan
0 300 600
~~
SCALE IN FEET
Scale: FIGURE N0.
1 in. = 345 ft.
Date:
May 2007
Project No
06-022

Appendix B. Existing Stream Data

Gone Creek Ref erence -Cross Section 1 Riffle ---
t0U
I
99 5 ~
i
99 - _-.r _.-._.. _. -F ___ ~ __. - -.
98.5 __ _ ___..+ - - "- ._..-- -_-.-. _ __ _-.-.- _--_
-° 97.5 ___ ._ - _..~ , _ - - - -_ _ JI .___. _. 1 __- .- _
~ 97 -.~
--_ ----1 -_ i - __- L ._- - 1-~.___'_ ~_ - _
w I ?
96.5 - _. t -....f -. !
~ _._
f --.__ -
96 .._4 - .. -.__. _. ,.
95
5 ~ _. .. j i __- r _.__ -. -. i .
.
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
W~dlh from Rver Left to Right (it)
section:
Riffle
-
descdption:
hei hl of instrument (ft).
omit distance PS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes t. (ff) (ft) elevation bankfull to of bank N slo a (% "n"
98.7023
98.77689 96.9 96.9
98.59338
98.00521 dimensions
- 97.1617 7.7 x-section area 0.9 d mean
- 96.90899
~ 8.7 width 9.8 wet P
'''~"'~~`
"~ 95.56282 1.3 d max 0.8 h d radi
"~~4` 95 71241 1.3 bank ht 9 7 w/tl ratio
- lt:it.rz - 96.04744 25.0 W flood rone area 2.9 ant ratio
'g. k-~ ?,T~r'r; 981995
~ _,~r., ~~~":'Mr;1`~i <~ 96.44236 h reullcs _
i
~ 96.8264 0.0 velocit fUSecl
___
Y' -[] -Y' 97.01279 0.0 dischar a rate, Q cis
_ 97.33511 0.00 shear sVess Ibslft s
97.64968 0.00 shear velocq fVSec)
98-1446 0.000 unit stream owe_r Ibs/fUsec
99.61557 0.00 Froude number
- 0.0 friction factor ulu'
-~ 0-B threshold rain size mml
chat rom channel materiel
57 measured D84 mm
"-- air, ~m+~;"" 4.8 relative rou hness 6.7 fric, factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
~, ...~x~,.,..: .
:> :.. ..., ~,
~
Cane Creek Reference -Cross Sechan 2 Pool ---
99
98.5
98
~ 97.5
97
w 96.5
96
95 5

-_
I ~
_ -. ._T-.r _. -- ..- - _-,__. .. _..-.} __.__- -__-.. -. _.

,- t -
~
I
~ i
1 .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width Irom River Lefl to Right If0
dimensions
12.9 x-section area 1.2 d mean
10.7
1.9 width
d max 12.7
1.0 wet P
h d radi
1.9 bank hi

h drau ICS

0 00 shear stress fltas/ry s
0.00 sheer velsaii fUsec

0-B threshold rain size mm)

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•
Cane Creek Reference - Crnss Section 3 Pool ---
03
1

102

101

100.
o . --___ ___-.._ _-.._..-
-.
_-.
m
~ 99
- ~
_ ~,
-
_
W I -

98
- __-_.
_
_.
..
} 1
i
-. ~
_..
I
97 --_ - - _ . 4 _-_ - -.
i
9fi

0 10 20 30 40 SU 60 7U
Width from Rver Lell la Right (fl)
seCtien:
Pool
description:
hei hl of instrumeN Il :
100.3926
omit distance FS FS FS channel
notes t. ft tt elevation bankfull to of bank sloe
1924
100
.
9980424 99.47257 9947257
99.76539
~"~` 99 45235 dimensions
~ 99.15505 14.7 x-section area L2 d mean
98.9761 11.8 width 13.4 wet P
97.78355 2.3 d max 1.0 h d radi
97.41944 2.3 bank hl
-14 r 97.17882
?:':t' ~ 97.52699
98.09586 h raukcs
+ ~ 98.7525
.v.r -'`~ 95.1478
99.47151 0.00 shear stress Ibs/h s
99.56826 0.00 shear velocn fUsec
100.227
1005895
102.0376
99 39182 8:0 Threshold ram size mm

Cane Creek Relerence -Cross Section 4 Riflle -
102
101.5
107
100 5
100
w 99.5
99
98 5
se
41 I
-.. _i_.. -- -- ..
- ~ - ~ _ - y
- - I - -. - - - ~ - ~ _ ,,
-_ - - - _ - i _.._t. _. - _ '.
I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width Irom River Left to Rlghl (ft)
dimension s
9.3 x-section area 1.2 d mean
8.1 width 9.3 wet P
1 4 d max 1.0 h d radi
1.4 bank ht 7.1 w/d ratio
150.0 W Flood tune area 18.5 ent ratio
h reulics
0.0 velocn tVsec
0.0 dischar a rate, 0 cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/fl S
0.00 shear velocn fUsec
0.000 unit stream awer Ibs/fUsec
O.OD Froude number
0.0 friction factor u!u'
0-B threshold rain size mm

c eck from channe materiel
57 measuretl D84 mm
6.2 relative rou hness 7.3 tnc. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

Cane Creek -Reference Reach (Profile)
100
99
97
96
94
93
92
90
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Cane Creek -Reference
Profile (2006)
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0161
Revised Revised Revised Revised
Bed Water Riffle Pool Run Glide
Point Description Station Elevation Elevation Slope Slope Slope Slope
50 tr 0 92.97671 93.19052
52 g 12.84 91.68531 93.17515 0.0022 0.0000
54 r 17.66 91.87354 93.18554 0.0000
56 br 24.11 92.99347 93.34667 0.0148
58 mr 31.72 93.15666 93.51257
60 tr 40.33 93.13318 93.58679
62 g 46.55 92.7202 93.58045 0.0040 0.0000
64 debris 52.86 93.44438 93.65932
66 r 57.12 92.3034 93.62315 0.0039
68 br 61.73 93.32641 93.64115 0.0492
70 tr 70.52 93.90926 94.07394
72 g 74.59 93.54701 94.10908 0.0086
74 p 78.86 93.00419 94.17798 0.2453
76 log jam 80.22 94.1846 94.5116
78 g 86.14 93.45015 94.6157 0.0012
80 r 91.56 93.76099 94.62199 0.0000
82 br 94.72 93.94999 94.58231 0.0276
84 tr 97.88 94.33832 94.66986
86 g 104.72 94.12937 94.68333 0.0819 0.0020
88 debris jam 106.71 94.55189 94.84595
90 br 112.33 94.3981 94.90442 0.0205
92 mr 119.74 95.1359 95.50133
94 mr 143.80 95.44929 95.77341
96 mr 160.71 95.5557 95.90624
98 tr 172.85 95.96362 96.14695
100 g 177.99 94.95578 96.15329 0.0000 0.0012
102 p 181.59 94.92708 96.1487
104 debris jam 183.10 95.6105 96.22914 0.0534
106 br 194.67 95.76174 96.29494 0.0204
108 tr 206.57 96.18684 96.53752
110 g 214.63 95.72095 96.51377 0.0000 0.0000
112 r 219.31 95.66497 96.50704 0.0045
114 br 222.48 96.13716 96.52136 0.0224
116 mr 230.82 96.68002 96.92513
118 tr 255.28 96.94765 97.2547
206 g 263.86 96.42483 97.28967 0.0021 0.0041
208 r 271.42 96.64568 97.30527 0.0107
210 br 274.09 97.00955 97.33368 0.0435
212 mr 281.63 97.71726 98.02422
214 tr 294.54 98.18829 98.40274
216 g 301.22 97.67188 98.42283 0.0000 0.0299
218 p 309.89 97.70516 98.45802
220 r 319.72 97.39483 98.41991 0.0035
222 br 326.18 98.08009 98.44258
average 0.0284 0.0013 0.0448 0.0057
median 0.0224 0.0012 0.0045 0.0016
min 0.0148 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
max 0.0492 0.0040 0.2453 0.0299

Cane Creek Tnbulary 1 -Cross Section 13 Rlllle ---
9J
92 - _I
-.._ _
_ _ i
- _ + __
_. _ { I
.
_-_
90
w _ - _ _ _ _-__ ___ _ _
-
_
__..

88

8] i
___. _{... _ .. r
i
. _.
.
i
--_
__ _
- _,
n m zu so 4o so so
Width Irom River Left to Right (H) !o
sedlon:

i
i
Rdfle
des
hei hl of instru cr
pt
on.
ment (ft):

notes omit distance
t. (it) FS
(ft)
elevation FS
bankfull FS W fpa channel
to of bank (N) slo a (%) Manning's
'n'
92.77657
9216151
88.83689
89.04
92,58
_
87.61733 dimensions
87.27931
90.3133 10.3
10.7 x-section area
width 1.0
11.5 d mean
wet P
92.57374 1.8 tl max 0.9 h tl radi
91.67393
90.72551 5.3
17.5 bank hl
W flood rone area 17.1
1.6 w/d ratio
ant ratio
IC-~~ _
.~~~].:-~ h draulics
~
f 0.0 velocit itlsec
_
_ _ 0.0 dischar a rate. Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibslit s
0.00 shear velocit (fusee
0.000 unit stream ower (IbslfUSec
0.00 Fronde number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
9.0 threshold rain size (mm

chat m c annel malaria
48 measured D84 mm
6.1 relative rou hness 7.3 fdc factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel matedal

98
96
94
~ 92
w 90
w 88
86
84
n
Cane Creek Tributary 1 -Cross Section i6 RIHIe ---
Riffle
dimensions
10.3
12.0 x-section area
width 0.9
73.2 d mean
wet P
1.3 d max 0.8 h d radl
6.0 bank ht 14.0 w/d ratio
18.0 W flood rone area 1.5 ant ratio
h draulics
0 0 velocit fuser.
0.0 dischar a rate, ~ ds
0.00 shear stress Ibs/H s
0.00 shear velocit fusee
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Fronde number
0.0 fncuon factor u!u'
O:B threshold rain size (mm

c c c tour c Cannel mater a
48 measured D84 mm
5 4 relative rou hness 7.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
u
20 40 60 80 100 120
Width from Rver Lefl to Right (fl)

Cane Creek Tributary 1 -Cross Section 18 Riffle --
92
90
88
c 86
'm 84
w 82
BO
78
0
:} _
~ ~~
I --
~ T =
r ---
_ - _ _. -_-. ~. _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _I
I
10 20 30 a0 50 60
Width Irom River Lefl to Right (ft)
dimensions
10.3
9.4 x-section area
width 1.1
11.3 d mean
wet P
2.1 d max 0.9 h d radi
6.5
15.0 bank ht
W flood tone area 8.6
1 6 wld ratio
enl ratio
h dreutics
0.0 velocit fUSec
0.0 dischar a rare, p cis
O.OU shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit (fVsec)
D.000 untl stream ower Ibs/fVsec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u!u'
i3.e threshold rain size mm)

c ck from channel material
48 measuretl D84 mm
7.0 relative rou hness 7.6 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
Cane Creek Tributary 1 -Cross Section 19 Rlffle --

96
94 _t-. .}
I -.- ___ - __~

92
T _

90
- - ~
__-_--
~ T _. _ _
T
I ~

= BA - _ -___
-
~ ____. _ __. _ - ___
C
4
86 --- __ r _..._ _ _.__ - _..
I
: i
W 84
~_
._-- _.- __-.. _ . _
_. _ __.. ...-.-
~-
82
_ ___
80 ~ ~
78 .. __.) -. -___ . -_. __ __.___... __ .- .. ...
_ ..
i

76
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width Irom River Lefl to Right (n)
secllon:
Riffle
description:
hei ht of instrument (fl -
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes t. fp (fl) elevation bankfull to of bank tt sloe % "n'
88.37896 r r
86.19503 79.95 86.63

~ 86.77478
,C-fr ~ ~
:. S7: ~ ~~ 78.01983 dimensions
78.39903 10.3 x-section area 1.6 tl mean
85.27377 6.9 width 9.0 wet P
86.62775 1.9 d max 1.2 h d radi
_ 85.48128 8.6 bank hl 4 6 w/d ratio
- 9.0 W flood tone area 1.3 enl ratio
YI
'~
~,. h drauhcs
0.0 veloct fUSec
0.0 dischar a vale Q cfs
r
_
1` ~ ~ 0.00 sheaf stress Ibslft s
_ 0.00 shear velocit fUSec)
0.000 unit stream ower Ibslfi/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
B-B threshold rain size mm
check from channel malarial
48 measured D84 mm
9.5 relative rou hness 8 4 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

u

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•
Cane Creek Northern Tributary 2 -Cross Section 27 Riffle ---
104
99
w 94
B9
84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width Irom River Letl to Right Qt)

j
l
~

-

__ _-

--

-.. ._
-
it
__.
- r. f __ _.-- -- -- - -

I
I
i

l
dimensions
4.8
5.1 x-section area
width 0.9
6.4 d mean
wet P
1.1 d max 0.7 h d radi
8.1
6.0 bank ht
W flood rone area 5.6
1.2 w!d ratio
ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocd iVSec __
0.0 tlischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibsfit S
0.00 shear velocit fUsec)
0.000 unit stream ower IhslfVsec
0.00 Froutle number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
0-0 threshold rain s¢e mm

cheek from channel material
48 measuretl D84 mm
5.9 relative rou hness 7.2 iric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n Irom channel material
Cane Creek Northern Tributary 2. -Cross Serlion 28 Riffle -
93
92
91
so
~ 89
> 88
w 87
86
84
-__ ~. -. - r _-_ - ___
_.-- I __ _._ _ __
~ -_- -
I r---- _ -. --- -

__.
- ..- i
-
' _ i_._ _. __
- _ _
-_ __-
I j
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Width from River Lefl to Right (h)
dimensions
4 8
5.5 x-section area
width 0.9
6.5 d mean
wet P
1.2
5.7 d max
bank ht 0.7
6.3 h d radi
wld ratio
7.0 W flootl rone area 1.3 enl ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit fUsec
0.0 dischar a rate, O cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit fVsoc)
0-000 unit stream ower Ibs/fVSec
0.00 Froutle number
0.0 fnction facor u(u'
49 threshold rain size (mm

check from channel matena
48 measured D84 mm
5.5 relative rou hness 7.1 lric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

30 40 50
Width from River Leli ~o Righi (ft)

86
85.5
85
c 84.5
- 84
w 83.5
83
82.5
62
Cane Creek Southern Tributary 3. ~ Cross Section 23 Rifle ---

___.
.-w i`

.. _ I

I
-.+.~...

__ _- _
_ I
._-- _

-- __... __-. ~

~~

=
_.__ ~ '.
_ -
{I __

0 5
of instrument
10 16 20 25 30 35
Width from Rver Leif to Right (fl)
"n"
dimensions
3.2 x-section area 0.5 d mean
6.0 width 7.2 wet P
1.3 d max 0.4 hyd radi
2.3 bank ht 11.2 wld ratio
20.D W flood prone area 3.3 ent ratio
rauhcs
ao velocit (fusee
0.0 dischar e rate, Q (cfs)
0-00 shear stress (llbs/ft sq)
0.00 sheaf velocit (ft/sec)
0.000 unit stream power rlbslfVsec)
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
0-0 threshold grain size mm

c ec rom channe matena
48 measured D84 mm
3.4 relative rou hness 5.9 Fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
Cane Creek Southern Tributary 3. -Cross Section 24 Riffle -
84 i r
83 ._ _--__.__ { i _.
0 80 __ _ ___. _..._.. _. -- . _.:- _ _.- _ _.._ _.
> 79 ____... _ __- ___...' --__. _. ___. ...
m - _. _.__ _.__'__-_ ___. _. .._
w 78 -_ ~ _._. - _-_
_ _.._ ___
77. 1 _ ~__.._._ i __ _. - '_ ...
76 ___.. ~. i __ _.__
1 ~ i ~ _ -~-
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width from River Leil to Right (ft)
SBCtIOri:
Riffle
description: - - -
heiaht of instrument (ft1:
dimensions
11.9 x-section area 1.1 d mean
10.4 width 11.7 wet P
2.0 d max 1.0 hyd radi
4.1 bank ht 9.1 w/d ratio
10.0 W flood prone area 1.0 ant ratio
rau lcs
0.0 velncit rfVsec
0.0 dischar e rate, p cfs
0.00 shear stress (Ibslft s
0.00 shear vel4cil ft/sec
0.000 unit stream Rower (IbslNsec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
0.0 threshold rain size (mm)

c c rom c anne matena
48 measured D84 mm
7.3 relative rou hness 7.7 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

Appendix C. Bankfull Verification

Cleveland County, First Broad River near Casar, North Carolina
Drainage Area= 60.5 square miles
Discharge (O1 = 2275 cfs

Rank (m)
Peak Discharge (cfs) Exceedance Probability
(m/(n+1)) (nryears or reeorrn Exceedance Probability %
100(m/(n+1)} Return Interval (yrs)
(1/Ezceedance Probability)
1 12500 0.02 2.17 46.00
2 7790 0.04 4.35 23.00
3 7760 0.07 6.52 15.33
4 6670 0.09 8.70 11.50
5 6580 0.11 10.87 920
6 6340 0.13 13.04 7.67
7 6210 0.15 15.22 6.57
8 5600 0.17 17.39 5.75
9 5300 0.20 19.57 5.11
10 5170 022 21.74 4.60
11 5120 0.24 23.91 4.18
12 4740 0.26 26.09 3.83
13 4540 028 28.26 3.54
14 4500 0.30 30.43 3.29
15 4290 0.33 32.61 3.07
16 3700 0.35 34.78 2.88
17 3670 0.37 36.96 2.71
18 3650 0.39 39.13 2.56
19 3460 0.41 41.30 2.42
20 3380 0.43 43.48 2.30
21 3360 0.46 45.65 2.19
22 3250 0.48 47.83 2.09
23 2960 0.50 50.00 2.00
24 2760 0.52 52.17 1.92
25 2740 0.54 54.35 1.84
26 2500 0.57 56.52 1.77
27 2460 0.59 58.70 1.70
28 2410 0.61 60.87 1.64
29 2400 0.63 63.04 1.59
30 2260 0.65 65.22 1.53
31 2190 0.67 67.39 1.48
32 2080 0.70 69.57 1.44
33 1940 0.72 71.74 1.39
34 1860 0.74 73.91 1.35
35 1860 0.76 76.09 1.31
36 1830 0.78 78.26 1.28
37 1790 0.80 80.43 124
38 1450 0.83 82.61 1.21
39 1400 0.85 84.78 1.18
40 1160 0.87 86.96 1.15
41 944 0.89 89.13 1.12
42 890 0.91 91.30 1.10
43 851 0.93 93.48 1.07
44 620 0.96
45 519 0.98 97.83 1.02
Note: Bold indicates the approximate ranges for the 1.3 to 1.5 year bankfull storm event
indicates the approximate discharge (Q) calculated from the regional curves
Q = 100.64X0'7fi where Q =discharge (cubic feet per second) and x =watershed area (square miles)
(Harmen et al. 2001)

Burke County, Jacobs Fork at Ramsey, North Carolina
Drainage Area = 25.7 square miles
r)icrharne !f]1 c 11 R7 rfc

Rank (m)
Peak Discharge (cfs) Exceedance Probability
(m/(n+1)) (nryears or record) Exceedance Probability %
100(m/(n+1)) Return Interval (yrs)
(1/Exceedance Probability)
1 7220 0.02 2.22 45.00
2 6550 0.04 4.44 22.50
3 5760 0.07 6.67 15.00
4 5360 0.09 8.89 11.25
5 4520 0.11 11.11 9.00
6 3660 0.13 13.33 7.50
7 3490 0.16 15.56 6.43
8 3490 0.18 17.78 5.63
9 3410 0.20 20.00 5.00
10 3180 022 22.22 4.50
11 3160 0.24 24.44 4.09
12 3110 0.27 26.67 3.75
13 3060 0.29 28.89 3.46
14 2890 0.31 31.11 321
15 2830 0.33 33.33 3.00
16 2700 0.36 35.56 2.81
17 2550 0.38 37.78 2.65
18 2520 0.40 40.00 2.50
19 2480 0.42 42.22 2.37
20 2420 0.44 44.44 2.25
21 2300 0.47 46.67 2.14
22 2300 0.49 48.89 2.05
23 2190 0.51 51.11 1.96
24 1960 0.53 53.33 1.88
25 1840 0.56 55.56 1.80
26 1740 0.58 57.78 1.73
27 1580 0.60 60.00 1.67
28 1560 0.62 62.22 1.61
29 1490 0.64 64.44 1.55
30 1440 0.67 66.67 1.50
31 1430 0.69 68.89 1.45
32 1420 0.71 71.11 1.41
33 1340 0.73 73.33 1.36
34 1320 0.76 75.56 1.32
35 1220 0.78 77.78 1.29
36 1190 0.80 80.00 1.25
37 1130 0.82 8222 1.22
38 1120 0.84 84.44 1.18
39 1100 0.87 86.67 1.15
40 1000 0.89 88.89 1.13
41 885 0.91 91.11 1.10
42 704 0.93 93.33 1.07
43 421 0.96 95.56 1.05
44 329 0.98 97.78 1.02
Note: Bold indicates the approximate ranges for the 1.3 to 1.5 year bankfull storm event
indicates the approximate discharge (Q) calculated from the regional curves
Q = 100.64x0'7fi where Q =discharge (cubic feet per second) and x =watershed area (square miles)
(Harmen et al. 2001)

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i•••••••••••
Reaion_ Blue Ridae/Piedmont
Return Interval
ears Discharge
cfs
1.3 30
1.5 38
2 58
5 107
10 151
25 219
50 280
100 351
200 433
500 560
Regional Regression Method
Cane Creek Restoration Studies
Reference Reach
(Drainage Area = 0.3 square miles)
Regional Regression Method (Blue Ridge/Piedmont)
soo
„! soo
aoo
d
~ 300 - -
l0
V 200 --
~ 100
0
1 10 100 looo
Return Interval (years, logarithmic scald
Bold indicates interpolated data.

Appendix D. Site Photographs

CANE CREEK
PRECONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPHS
x~
~.~
`~ t ~,
I Tributary 2Cross-section 28 I
I_ 1
Tributary 1Cross-section 12
_ __ _ _ -- -
Tributary 2Cross-section 27

Cane Creek Preconstruction Photographs (continued)
~.:~e~ .
Tributary 2 Culvert
~' Tributary 3Cross-section 23

1~c. 11~1Z~~00~
~~~
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation)
as the environmental document.
. . •
Pro'ect Name: Cane Creek Restoration Site
Coun Name: Rutherford
EEP Number: Contract # D06027-E
Pro'ect S onsor: Restoration S stems, LLC
Pro'ect Contact Name: Worth Creech
Pro'ect Contact Address: 1101 Ha nes Street Suite 107, Ralei h, NC 27607
Pro'ect Contact E-mail: worth restorations stems.com
EEP Pro'ect Mana er: Gu Pearce
~ - s- • •
The Site is located in northern Rutherford County within 14-digit Cataloging Unit 03050105060020
of the Broad River Basin less than 0.2 mile south of the RutherfordlMcDowell County line. The
Site encompasses approximately 66 acres consisting of 8775 linear feet of existing stream and
riparian buffer along Cane Creek and unnamed tributaries and 9.4 acres of hydric soils.
Approximately 4470 linear feet of stream restoration, 4860 linear feet of stream enhancement,
1670 linear feet of stream preservation, 4.4 acres of riverine wetland restoration, and 5.0 acres of
nonriverine wetland restoration will be constructed.
• - •
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, 8118105

1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
~ No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ^ No
/ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Yes
Program? ^ No
/ N/A

1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? 0 Yes
^ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? /^ No
^ N/A
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? ~ No
^ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within or adjacent io the project area? ^ No
/ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within the project area? ^ No
/ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
^ No
/ N/A

1. Are there properties listed on, oS eligible for listing on, the National Register of / Yes
Historic Places in the ro ect area? No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
Q No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? / Yes
^ No
/ N/A

1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? / Yes
^ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? / Yes
^ No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
^/ No
^ NIA
4. Has the owner of the property been informed: / Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ^ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? ^ N/A
7 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

~ ~

1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of / Yes
Cherokee Indians? ^ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
/^ No
^ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Yes
Places? ^/ No
^ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? / Yes
^ No
^ N/A

1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
/^ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antiquity? ^ No
Q NIA
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
^/ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
/ N/A

1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
~ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
/ N/A

1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat ~ Yes
listed for the count ? ^ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? / Yes
^ No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Yes
Habitat? ~ No
N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" ^ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? /^ No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAH-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
8 Version 1.4, 8/18105

1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" / Yes
b the EBCI? No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed Yes
project? ^/ No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred Yes
sites? ^ No
/ N/A

1. Will real estate be acquired? /^ Yes
^ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally / Yes
important farmland? ^ No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? / Yes
^ No
^ N/A

1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any / Yes
water bod ? No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? / Yes
^ No
N/A
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, Yes
outdoor recreation? / No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ^ Yes
/ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ^ No
/ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
^ No
/ N/A

1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the META? ^ Yes
~ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ^ Yes
^ No
/ N/A

1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
^/ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? ^ No
/ N/A
9 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

~.
~~
~ Environmental IIaeumentatian
~ ; fnr
~ Cane Creek Stream anti Wetland Restoration Sife
EEP Contract Number D06027-E
Ca#egorical I+;xciusion Form Items

CZMA
i
CAI
1A
county.
n a
v
Not applicable, as the project is not located
~'
. CERCLt1
See the attached Executive Summary of the limited Phase 1 Site Assessment.
.
National Historic- Preservation Act {Section 1.06}
See the attacliecl letters to and from the State Historic Preservation Office. SI-IPO recommended
that an archaeological survey of the site be conducted. RS contracted with Legacy Research
Associates, Inc:. and the survey was conducted. One site vas 1©cated that is potentially eligible
• , for the National Register of Historic Places. See the attached Management Summary from the
report. A GI'S survey of the site (area) was submitted. to our consultant who has redesigned the
nearby stream so ,that there will be no impact on it and the area will be fenced. off to prevent
equipment from enuring it during eonsti~iction. Ttivo copies of the. archaeological report were
. ; submitted to SHPO with the attached cover letter. "Their letter of concurrence is included.
• ' UllifOrt21 Act
See the attached lando~~=nor notification letters.

American IndianReligious Freedom. Act
A request for concurrence aid a copy of the archaeological report tivas submitted to }VIr. Tyler
Ho~~re, Tribal Historic: Preserz=anon Officer, EBCI. l-Ie concurred with the project as described.
See the attached correspondence with Mr. Howe.
Aaitiquities Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal lands.
~'
~:
Archaeolo~?ical Resources Protection Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on f=ederal or Indian lands,
Endangered Species Act
There is no suitable habitat on the site for one of the two Federally Endangered species {Indiana
Bat} i{nown to occur in Rutherford County. Limited areas of suitable habitat does exist for the
other species (White iriseite}, but surveys for the plant during the flowering period found. that it
does not exist ran the site. See the attached internal ~nenzo with the Biological Conclusion of No
Effect.
Executive Order I300'1

Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal Lands. within a county claimed by the
Eastern. Band of Cherakee Indians.
Farmland Protection Policy Act
See the attached USDA Form AD-:10{16
Fish. and Wildlife .Coordination. Act
See the attached letters to the NCWRG and the USFWS. Only the NCWRC provided comment
on the project. That was a request to allow the Commission to review the permit application for
the project since it is in a "Trout County."
Land and Vljater Conservation Fund Act
Not applicable. The project will not convert recreation lands.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conserti~ation and Management Act
Not applicable. The project is not located in an estuarine system..
Mi r~ atorY Bird Treaty Act
See the attached letters to the NCWRC and the USFb'JS. Neither agency made a comment on the
project:
O#her Miscellaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in the Waynesville Mountaineer.

~'
~~.
•.i
~,'
~!
~!
~1
~'
•'~
•~
~~
•
•~
•
i~
•
•~
•~
•
•-
•~
~~
~,
~!
~,
•~
•~
!~
~~
~~
~,
t~
~'.
~.
r'
~;;
~'
The ~D Radius IVIap
with Ge~Ch~ck°
Cane Creek Restoration Site
Rutherford County
Union lY1:i11s, NC 2$0'.18
Inquiry Number; Q27I8882.6~
July 19, 2QQb
EE7-R~' Er1Vir0nmentdl
Data Resources Inc
The S#anc#ard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06481
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax; 1-800-231-6802
Internet: www.edrnet.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Execu#iveSummary---------------------- -------- ES1
Overview:Map--~_____~..---------------------------------,...__------____-- 2
De#ailMap_------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map FindingsSum!nary------------------- --__--- d
Map Findings______________-_____----------------------------------____-- 6
Orphan Summaty-----------------------------------_____~_::_____________ 7
Governmen# Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-'t
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
PhysicaiSe#ting Source Addendum--------------------------------- --------- A-1
PhysicaiSe#ting Soucce Summary---------------------------,------- ---_---__ A-2
Physicai Setting S3URG C3SoiiMap--------------------------------- ---------- A-5
PhysicaiSe#ting Source Map-------------------------------------- ---------- A-13
PhysicalSet#ing Saurce MapFindings_______________________________ _________ A-14
Physicai Setting Source Records Searched_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A-33
Thank you for your business,
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer -Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained froppm a variety of puqublic and other sources rgeasonably available to Environmental Data
other srources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIEO, IS MADE WH71TSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THtS REPORT l NVtRONMENTAieXist from
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WRHOUT UMiTATK)N,
MERCHANTABlLtTY OR fiTNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED 8Y THE USER. iN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACC{DENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL; INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABlUTY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. lS STRICTLY
UNITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Repor! "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates. ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes pravidad in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, ar prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase i
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property- AdditionaAy, the information provided in ibis Report is not io be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2005 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Alt rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources. lnc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior wrilten permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. Atl other
trademarks used herein are the_}?ro_periy of their res ective owners.
TC01718882.&r Page 1

EXECUTIVE :SUMMARY
A search. of available environmental records was conducted try Environmental Data Resources; ine (EDR).
'The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Prackices for All Appropriate Inquiries {d0 CFR Part 312}, the ASTM Standard Practice fnr
Environmental Site Assessments (E 152?-05) or custom,requtrements developed for the evatuatian of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY tNFORMATtON
ADDRESS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
UNION MILLS, NC 28018
COORDINATES
Latitude (North}:
Longitude {West):
Universal Tranver.
UTM X (Meters):
UTfvt Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.533400 - 35` 32' 0.2"
81.853$00 - 8 ° 51'' 13.7"
se Mercator: Zone 17
d22595.5
3932333.8
966 ft. above sea level
i1SGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:
West Map:
Most Recent Revision:
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
35081-E7 DYSARTSVILLE, NC
2003
35081-E8 GLENWOOD, NC
2003
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available {"reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL._________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ National Priority List Deletions
NPL t2ECOVERY_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _. Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERGNFRAP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CERCLiS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC037i8882.6r EXECUTIVE SUh1hAARY t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CQRt~#CTS_________________. Corrective Action Report.
RCRA-TSDF_________________ Resource Conservation-and RecaueryAct,tnformatiori
RCRA-l.{~C7_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Ac# lnforrnation
RCRA-SQG_ _ _ _ <. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fnformation
ERNS:--_---------•_---__-__ Emergency Response Notification System
tiMlRS_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hazardous Materials Information-Reporting .System
US ENG CONTRt)LS________. Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST GONTRt3L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
dOD_,_________,____________ Department of Defense Sites
FUDS________________,______ FortnerlyUsedDefenseSites
US BROWNFIELdS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A Listing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT___________________ Superfund {CERCLAj Consent Decrees
Rf3D_________________________ Records Of Decision
UMTRA_____________________ UrariiumMiltTailingsSites
ODI________________________.__ Open Dump Inventory
TRIS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS_ _ _,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FIFRA! TSCA Tracking System - PI FRA { Federal.:Insecticids, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Actuf'SCA (Toxic Substances Control Rckj
SSTS_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Section 7 Tracking Systems
IGIS__________________________ Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ PCB Activity Database System
MLTS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES_______________________ Mines Master Index Fite
FIN DS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Facility tndex System/Facility Registry System
RAATS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS_______________________. lnactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NG HSDS____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
tMD_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ Incident Management Database
SWFILF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ list. of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI___________________________ OId Landfitt Inventory
LUST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . t2egionat UST Database
LUST TRUST________________ StateTrusiFundOatabase
UST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST_________________________ AST Database
INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Na Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VGP_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS_____________. &owniields Projects Inventory
NPDES_____________________. NPDES Facility Location Listing
TR113AL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Indian Reservations
tND1ANLUST________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks onlndianLand
INDIAN UST__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured bas Plants___ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Cas Stations
EDR Historical Gleaners____. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
TC017i8882.6r EXECUTIVE SUR9ti4ARY 2

~;
~l
~'
~-
~~
~'
~,
~`
~~
~!
~)
~~
~~
~;
~'
~?
~`
~i
~i
~'
~i
~!
~'
~!
~!
~''
~'
;%
•'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING51TE5: SEARCH RESEIL'fS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappabte {orphan} sites-are not considered m'the foregoing analysis.
TC01 i 18$732.6r EXEf,UTlVE SUh11v1ARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due io poor or inadequate address infiormation, the following sit8s were nafi mapped:
Site Name
JEFF'S PLACE
UNION MILLS 66
HEMLOCK REST HOME
HEMLOCK. HILLS REST HOME
LAIL'S GROCERY
NEEDMORE EXXON. 2
WASHBURM'S STORE
GRAY CORNER STOP
DYSARTSVILLE COUNTRY STORE
GOOD OLE 80YS
Database(s)
LUST
LUST, UST, IMD
LUST,. IMD
LUST TRUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
TGOt7 t8882Br EXECUTIVE SUhQMARY d

1
r
r:
~~
;~
I
i ~.
1 ~~ ~'
~ ~~1; ,
,:
r
%i'''
~~~ __
.,.
~Y
~`
I
/.
!I --~~
i ~
;1 j
i, // I j
/' ~;
yr,
r ',
;~~f-~ -
`~ /// ~ `,
';f ; - -
1 S
- "' -~~,
OVERVIEW MAP - 01718882.6r
r Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1 Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Oept. Detense Sites

SITE NAME: Cane Creek Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Rutherford County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Union Mills NC 28018 INQUIRY ti: 01718882.6r
lAT/LONG: 35.5334 / 81.8538 DATE: July 19, 2006
Copyright ? 2ih16 ECR, Irtc. ~.,- 2CGfi Teie Atlas del 072CU5

0 1/4 lr! t Ylks
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance I
/~/ County Boundary Disposal Sites
~' ~ Oil & Gas pipelines ~`~
100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
National Wedand Inventory
State wetlands This report includes Interactive Map Layers
display andlor hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.

DETAIL MAP - 01718882.6r
it Target Property
~ Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1 Manufactured Gas Plants
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1116 116 1/41Alles
_ - Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance '
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
C! National Wetland Inventory
Stale Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display andlor hide map information. The
legend includes onty those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Cane Creek Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Rutherford County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Union Mills NC 28018 INQUIRY N: 01718882.6r
ATlLONG: 35.5334 / 81.8538 DATE: July 19, 2006
ioppig?t - 2t}i5 EDR Inc..:: 2005 Tek Atas Rei. 072005.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MAP FIN[3lNGS SUMtVIARY
search
Target Distance Tota{
Database Property jMiles) < 118 118 -1%4 114 -112 112 - 1 y 1 P'lotfed
FEbERAt.REC~RDS
NPL 1.000 {7 0 0 4 NR 4
Proposed NPL 1.004 0 0 0 0 NR 4
Delisted NPL 1.400 4 0 4 0 NR 0
NPL RECOVERY TP NR NR• NR IVR NR 4
CERCUS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR. 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.500 4 0 4 NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 4
RCRA TSD 0.500 4 4 4 NR NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR D
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 4.250 4 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 4
US ENG CONTROLS 0.504 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.5D0 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 D 0 0 NR 4
FUDS 1 A00 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS D.5DD 0 4 0 NR NR 4
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 4 0 4 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 4 NR NR 4
ODI 0.500 D 0 0 NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
fCIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 4
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.254 © 0 NR NR NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 4
STATE AND t.flCAL RECQRDS
State Haz, YVaste 1.040 4 0 0 4 NR 0
NC i-I5t3S 1.000 fl 0 0 0 NR 0
IMO 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State Landfill 0.5D0 0 4 0 NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 4 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 Q NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 4 D NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 0.5D0 4 0 4 NR NR D
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 4
DRYCLEANERS 4.254 4 0 NR NR NR 0
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC017t8882.6r Paged

MAP F1NDItUGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Mites) < 118 1l8 - ii4 1/4 -112 1!2 - 9 > 1 Plotted

TRIBAL RECORDS
iND1AN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
iNDiAN LUST 0.500 D 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.25D 0 D NR NR NR 0
E[3R i'ROPRIETARY RECOk2E35
Manufactured Gas Plants 9.004 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Historicak Auto S#ations TP NR NR NR NR NR i)
EDR Hkstorical Cleaners TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
NOTES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC01718882.6r Page 5

t~~ 1
Itiiritur~I Resaurceti
12c.~tca~ ~~tion ~~ C~ynservation
fluggxs# 2, 20~G
Ms. hence Glcdhili-:l~~~rley,
I~nvironn~e~ztal Rt>view Caordinatar
State 1-Iistaric Prc;servation Office
4617 I~!Iail Sc;rvice Center
Raleigh, NC 29609-4617
Suhject: Request l~~r Letter of Concun•euce on Rc;storatia~i Project
T7ear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
Restoration Systems (RS) hxis bec;n awarded a contrac;# by the NC Ecosystem
~nhanectncnt Pragrai~~ (1/IP) to restore 5 acres of non-ri~~erine: wetlands, a 4.4 riverine ~«~etla~ids,
and <,74~~ linear feet a1'strea~n on a 66 acre parcel in the }3road River Basin. "Che project is
located iii Rutherfi~rd County, appraxir~iately 0.2 miles south af'the IZuthei-forc}/ It=Ic.I~ou~c11
County li~.le adjacent to Highway 64. A map shaving the Ic~cation of the site is attached.
Primary activitScs ai-e designed to restore the; stream arnl wetland complex include stream
~-estaraticx~, stream preservatic.~n, stream enhanceYnc:nt, riverine ti~retlanc} restoration, nan-rivet-iue
wetland restoration, and ~.-egetative planting. Stream and wetland restoration activities will
include ne~~r cliauiiel construction an historic f~aad}Mains, and light grading on existing hanks for
enhancement on C<u1c Greek. Over 1;6(?U feet of stream will be, preserved in its current state and
clang with the rest of the site, will he placed in a perpetual conservation easement.
There arena structures on or adjacent to the site. RS staff exart~ined the recards in your
• of#ice azld deterinine~j that there are no listed historic }~rc~perties or archcalogieal rc;curtis an or
within 0..5 miles of the site. A letter of concu~7-ence #i-am yaur of#ice is required a~ part of tl~e
Envirann~ental Screening of the project. I would appreciate receiving such a lettc;r far this
i project at your earliest canveniencc;.
Sincerely,
~ ~~ ~--Z-----~.
• worth Creech
Project Manager
• ~ttacluz~ents
I'il~~~ '~L,I • 1 It?E f 1.~~>-~i~~~; SI.. Suite it}? • (1,~1~•i~h_ ~C' ,?C,f~~1 • ~~~t~~ti_rc~l~~i.i~i;,ia.~~~.,~~~n~.iusn + Ph~me'Jl9.~i5_')~I~1(E • f=;i~, tl, t _,; <~~~~~?

E?.:n tq
~.~~ ~~{J~~F{~
-. SITI; LOCA'T'ION
'~~~ ~ CA~~C CR1TT~ RES'I'OI2ATIO\~ SI"T'~ ": ~~,,t;~~:~c~s
~,~ , .,. 1Zti~#herfor~T t~:oi~~tt~~, ~lorth Carolina
~.; tic. ~>

~ ~
.- ~ ~~ y~ ~~
`~ < ~,: ~ « . j;:+ t '~ r ~ r is r
~~
. ~ r ..axe '~ # . ~~

i _ ~
t ;l, ~
/~ 1 r ,r ~'~ ~ _~. _:I tc'. 4 : I:~S a ~~~• 1
~
`fl
~ 's"
. :F

~
t, ~ 'a, ~ ~f -~ b '
j. ~' ~ . f.
"' ~ ,~ ~ . iiy '~~ ~ ~ Yi ~s~',i~ ~~ , t~7~
k.
K 1~ ~~~ "1 ~ ~ s , ~"
t- ~ ~ f -
t (s
$
S
~"
r ~
,
,aX~~
'q~.J
s.. ~ l ti~ ~,'S Y,r i F-
pE ~
s~~. ~ 'q~+.i lr .,~+~'fC 7'.
y
t y
.• r
s : ~
~ a
~ A'. ,
s
i~~'
~S
.~ '
f
y,
,
,,
x ~r'~i`~`~;f3' ~t r ;r E?t t i.~iFt .+ '~ '~~ ~
-. ~; ..
r`
.. ,
r ~', . +.'~~~ E- - y
~
~i
1
~~~~ s
'~' i' ~ ~~ z Jt~
y
f
a~ "S
~ ~
~j
~ , ~-T J
-~ > ~ -' ~^
f~ l l' ' ~ ~ { i J X~ 1 y f
,~;~ .,, ~~ 5 ~ .. ~,
~;
~
`
tom:." ,.• ~, ~ ~ .,~~
:,rat f r ~ !`r .r ` y, t ~ ~. -~ ! •
~ ~ ~ to _ }~
,°.
`
l~t~iin~tary 1
~ ,~~ ~t~ ~ `~/~ 'i . i,1 ~ '~ ;~'.
~ , 1 ~isr',i' A5
~
~ n FY r ~ ~
'~ ,. , ~ r _
f _ ' ~ y ~ ,,,1
r I ~' {
. i ~ f'~~~1~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~
f
1~ ~. f
I
~~! F ~r-~t~iatC
1 Z, __ i ~1_ I
~j
~ .,
F
.1
~ f ~, : ,~ ,;r. i Legend f
~ i ~~
, x
t' ~ ` .fi 1 ! ~fY >~' ~ ~i-3t ~}t3 ft to ~ S
I { '
E E r,'~f a~} _ ~ ~ 1. ~+y,4 r~ :nraC E2s ,:,eal
j j~
`iY' ~3 n
a-
-.
.
~
7
~
_
~ '
, ,rte ~
f f ~~,^~j '_~y'~ Nra s,e,, =~~liaaac#t2c3T~aUan ~ f ~;~: e~

/l
t r t"; : t; { 'vz~ s ._ Res., ,t;n;aNr3n _ d :acre:..
-. !
~ '~~ hr f ~~. 5trnams ~.
.~
ia,e~,
- ~ ~
t
Came Creek Restoration Site
~ >
~
.
,
~viE! provide ~~, ~ z ~
~s; ~8 Strean; fvtitigaiion Units. ,~ ,~ , , ~ > ~~;D"
~
~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~~
=+.4 Riverir~e 1hletland hAitgation Units.
~ iE~t
. f,f: ~
r
and 5 o Naxivetine VVetEand f+~titigatian L`-siits ~~, 1„ _ , ~,•, f
z
,(
''1.. Py •{,Y'y ~ ,.e `-~i~"
~ 1 ~~G~fl~ l~i~+~
t: ~'~ ~w
J+.. Existiatg 6~tch
T
,
)
,,
1 ~
i
o,fii 'c, uc ---r'actl
_ hPEi1 t r:-
ti ;
.[:v

' PROPOSED CU ND1Tf{7NS '=''
CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE ~ ,,;~
Rutherford County; Norttt Carolina -
_~_
J

~a ~~` ~ ~~~~ V
~~~ ~ ~, Leos
~ V,,,~ -
Michael F. Eastcy,Govemor
Lisheth C. Zvans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. ~'tuw, Deputy Secretary
August 3{), 20{)6
Worth Creech
Restoration S~rsten:s, LL:C
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
OfticeatArohives a~1 History
Division of Historical Resources
-David Brook, Dir~tor
Re: F1~P,1Yjetlands and Stream. Restoration, goad River I3asuz, Rutherford tCount~r, ER 06-2123
lac ar i~3:r. Creech:.
"I~}tank }=au for your letter of August ~, 200G, cancernung the above project.
`l here are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. H.o~vever, the project area
has never been systematically surc~eyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources..
Based on the topographic and h3=drological situation, there is a high prababiliha for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites,
l~si'e recommend that a cUtnprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identi£)= and
et=aluate the significance: of archaeal~gical remains that rna}= be damaged ox destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects an unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
a-ctiti~ties.
'I'~vo copies of the resulting archaeological sun=ey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for retrieve and comment as soon as they are available and well in ad~rance of an}=
canstructtan acttvtnes.
A list of archaeological consultants ~vha have conducted ar expre:ssed an urtcrest in contract uJark in North.
Carolina is available at 1c~t~AV.arch.cicr.state.nc.u;~lcansults.httu. "i'he archaeologists listed, ar any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended sun=ey.
lei=e have. determined tl3at the project as proposed will not affect any historic stn~chtres_
The above comtments are made pursuant to Section 306 of the National Historic Presenratian tlct and the
Advisarv Council on Historic i'resenration's Regulations far Compliance with Section 3QG codified at 36 C1~R
Part 8l)t).
North Car©lina Department of Cultural;Resaurces
Sta#e Historic Preservation Office
Peter E3: Saiatbeck, Administrator
Location ;•tailing Address 7'rlrpbonefFax
:A t)11lVlSTRAl~it)\ pl \_ 13tount Street. Raleigh fir 4617 Mail Service renter, Raleigh !~<.' 27(,119-~f,tl (9t9}733-4763!731-:i63
R1•;51'(1RATIt)~ if3\,E3lountStreet.Rateighti<' 4b1;'.taitSen-i.eCcnter,Rateiehi~C'?7ti139-4b1? (~3t9)733-fi547r715-aSt){
tiGRV;1' & Pt A\'i!\t; 5l5 \. iltount Strrrt, Raleigh. Nr -16(7 Mait Str.ice ('enter, Raleigh Iv C' 27699-461? (9!9)733-6~4t~?l5-4SCtt

Tlan.k yon for.your. cooperation and consideration. I£ you have. questions concerning the above continent;
contact 12enee Gledhill-Earley, environmental retiety coordinator, at 919j733-4763 ext. 2~6. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,.
~~~
Peter Sandbeck

Ntittur~il Rcstitirees
Ri.~tbrttic~n c~ Ctirtrsct~+atic»t
f3ctober 10, 2006
Ms; Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 29699-4617
Subject. tlrchaeological Survey at Cane Creek Restoration Project, ER 06-2123
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earlcv:
Restoration Systems (RS} vas recently awarded a contract by t;he NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP} to restore approximately I O acres of wetlands and 6,750 feet of stream
on a 66 acre parcel in Rutherford County, appraxir~ritely 0.2 miles south of the Rutherford!
McDowell County tine adjacent to Highway 64.
In a letter to you, dated August 2, 2006, eve requested your review of and concurrence on the
Cane Creek project. Your letter of response dated August 20;.2006 recommended that an
archaeological survey of the project be conducted. RS subsequently engaged legacy Research
Associates, Inc. (LRA} and the recommended survey ~~+as conducted. Enclosed are t~vo copies of
their report ar~d one copy of the Archaeological Site form Vi.
The report concluded that one site {31 RF176) is "potentially eligible for the NRHP based on
land form, abundance of artifacts, and the high probability of subsurface features" and recommended
that the site be avoided. LRA provided us with a GIS file of the site that is based on a GPS survey
{depicted in Figure 11 oI'the report}. lZS instructed our consultant to avoid the site in the design of
the project, which they have done. This section of the stream is depicted in Figure 12 of the report.
RS gill ensure that the area is clearly identified during the construction phase of the project
to prevent any disturbance to the site by equipment. Based on this commitment and redesign of the
project, we request your timely concurrence on the project pursuant to Section l 06 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 755-9490.
sincerely,
Worth Creech
Project Manager
Attachments
Pit<3i ~4(II • I IOI ii:#~°iteti St-. Suite t(1~ ~ tZaieieh, i\t.' ??Cifl-~ • ~3~~+~~~_rigti~nr:~iii,n,~~5[euis.cc,i~i • }'h<anC i)19 75~ ~}..1~){i • F~a~_ ~)t ~?_7~~ i)-

•
•
•
•
•
s~ sr~ a
' a,
~w~ ~~v.
ww
l~+fiart}z Carotins Depurtrnenf of Cultural. Resources
State Historic Preservation Offiee
Peter B. $andheck, Adminisiraiw
~3ichael F. Easley, Gnvemar
Lisbcth C. Evans, SecreL~ry
Jeffrey l: Crow, I?cputy Secretary
l~lovernber 27, 2006
lX~ortl~ Creech
Restoration Systems, LLC
1..1.01 Halanes St., Suite 107
Raleigh, l~lC 27604
II,e: Cane Creek Restoration Project, Rutherford County, ER 06-2123
Dear R~ir. Creech,
Office pf Archives and History
r)ivisian ofltistwical C~:saurce:s
llavid t3rarak, t)rector
Thank you far your letter transmitting the archaeological sun=ey report by Legacy Research Associates,, Ino.
for the al3oz=e project. The report rr>eets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
During the course of the sun=e}r, one potentially significant archaeological site zvas located ~vitlui2 tl~e project
• area. Since dze project design has been altered to azraid and protect 31RI~ 176, the report. author has.
recommended that na further archaeological inz=estigation be conducted in connection urith this project. We
concur zidi this recommendation suite the project will not inzrolz=e significant archaeological resources.
• If any design cl-ianges are made in the future, please submit the rezrised plans to otzr office Far rep=ezv.
• The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preserz=anon Act and the
• r~dz=isory Council on Historic Presetc=ation's Regulations for Compliance zvitl~ Section 106 codified at 36 CI'R
Part 800.
• Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If=ou have questions concerning the aboz=e comtsient,
cUntact Renee Gledhill-Farley, cnz*ixonrnental reviezzr coorclinator, at 919/733-4763 etit. 246. In alI Eutuxe.
comttzunication concerning this project,.pleasecite the aboz=c referenced tracking number.
•
•
•
Sincerely, I
~~~~~
er Sandbeck
cc: Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
t,nctrtinn illailiag Address TrlehhnnetFax
AtJ~t11tS FI2:~ iK)ti (17 N. titount Strtct, Raietgh NC ~t63? A1ai1 Service Center, Raieigir ;+C 2?fi99-637 {43-)i33 "3?63 733-S6i=i
ftF:~'TORA't'ION iii h. tliotuu Srreet, katcigit i~it; 4617 Mail Berries Center, kateigh tit; ??699-4fi1: (9!9)?33-G,d7.?15-4SDl
St?t2~`E1" 5c FL:~\N}?1i(; i I S tti. f3lc~tnri Strcci, kaleigh" 1:C a6t1 Mail Service Center, kaleigh taC 27r++99-4Gi. (919)?i1-45drt? I S-iti01

Na~~zt~i[ 12zun~c:cs
iZr'sir~r;ttir~n c~ Ct~nsct•~t~ttic~zt
Febrztary 2, `20Q6
Mr & Mrs. V~~hisnant
6$71 US Hwy. 64
Union Mills, l~?G 2$1 ~7
Dear Mr. c4L mfrs. Whisnant:
T'he purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systeirzs, LLC, in
offering to purchase your praperfy in Rutherford Count3r, North Carolina, does not Dave
the po~~rer to acquire it by eminent domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase
your property is basal on what we believe to be its fair market.
If you Dave any questions; please feel free to call zne at 919-3$9-3$S$.
Sitlcerel}~,
~?~orth Greoeh
Project Manager
I'flt~i 1~7t1 1 ~il~ I[(tYlll:~ ~ ~:~I!i' I~}~' 1~,3~c'i,'i1_ A{~ '~'(3{~)-t t:'H-t.CCCr±11at7~~3iSti Si C'iiT~.Ci UTt • ~~itt Sn ' t)(~).~~ 11,,)-i C1:} • ~~.;t~ ~.)~sr -~~ <)-ja

N<tiur~,z! IZcst~L~rcz
l~c;~;tc>r.zti«n c5'C f~'czn~;es`e~;zti~~~2
February 2, 2~OCi
Iv1r. & Mrs. I-lutcl~ins
1192 Jacktown Read
ivlarion, NG 28752
Dear R~Ir. & Mrs. l~utcl~xns;
T11e purpose of this Letter is to notify yo~T that IZestorato~i Systems, LLC, in
offering to purchase .tour property in Rutherford Coz~nt}~, North Larolizta, does not have
the power to acquire it by eminent domain. i~,lso, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase
your propert}7 is based on that ~~e believe to be its faiz• market.
if you .have any questions, please feel free- to call nor; at 919-389-3.888.
Sincerely,

worth Creech
Project R~lanager
Pih+t ~1ill • 1 f Ctf E I~i~ni's St., Sikita_ I(>•,' • R ~9r.>~*h• ~iC~~ '?t~tt-t • t~<<tc~..restuftti~~~ts~~..tc~m~.:~~r4~~ ~ i'h«ix; ql~~ `15~ ~)'~~t} • ~=<~,; ~)I ~ ?„,~.a~~~t

' ~+~ I
t'~aitu.t) I2csources
I~c~~tt,~,~ti+tn ~~ Cc~itscr~-tatict}t
I'e.bruaty 2, 2406
Mr. ~ 141rs. Strassenhurg
2.0$ Cane Creek Cove Road
Union Mills, l\~C 28617-7600
Dear lrlr. c~; Ivirs. Strassenbttrg:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restttraiion S};stems, LLC, in
offering to purchase your property in Rutherf©rd County, North Carolina, clues ~~ot have
tliU pourer to acquire. it ley etninen domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase
your property is based on what v~re believe to be its fair market.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call the at 919-389-3:8$8.
~inccrel y,
f ~,_~
<. ~~
Forth Creech
1'raject Manager
~31~U1 ?~~~IC~' (ill( ~ ~.:1'tl~> ~; '~~rpl. ~~)' ~~ t1t-~,.?7 ~~~ ~'?(it)s ~a.~t~ ;~`_fC~tu .t;t~lii~~"!i'S1t4.C4ii}1 • ~~~lrtll[' i)It).~)~l'J-~h)~) • ~' tS `1E~~ ; -:y ij,jt

#.. ~ 1 i t
IZc'ti3trt~ttie~rt ~~ t~t?-1:~.+.~t'1'aticil
1=ebruarv 2, 2f?UG
lvlr. aF~d Mars, Charles Farris
l 1$ Dogwood Drive.
Morgaliton NC 28655
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Harris:
Th<w purpose of this letter is to notify yogi that Restoration Systems, LLC, in
offering t© pFFrchase your property in Rutherford Count}f, I~torth CaroliF~a, does not have
the po~veF° to ~cc~uire it by eniinenf domain. Also, Restoratt~ta Systems' offer to pt.lrchase
}Tour property iS based on what we believe to be its fair market.
if yoFC have any r1FFestions, please feel #reir to call nee at 919-389-3$$$.
Sincerel~~,
~C?rtl2 Ci'eeGll-
Project Mana~t;r
1'ils=t 1'lift • [ fi}( {t.t~iurs 5t_ Sii~i~e 1f)~ • R ~I~~s_~~lr. tif~ ??t3i)4 • e?;,.rtt rc°~i~Tra,~t'm1•z•;!s•n~~t_t<.rt3t ~ Ph~,nc ill'3."75~ ~)1~)i' • i <rt'1f`~ , "~.')~~)

R ~~~ ~
]`~lz~tut+~I l2cux-rcc;s
lZc~~trir,iticjn ~~ Cc~nscr~;ili<xa
February 2, .2006
lYlr. & Mrs. Curry
152 Cane: Creek Cove. Road
Union Ivlills, NC 28167
Dear ]vlr. Curry:
The purpose ol'this fetter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in
offering to purchase your property in Rutherford County, ~iorth Carolina, does not have
the power io acquire it by eminent doi~lain. Also, Restoration. Systems' offer to purchase:
}=our property is based on ull~at ~~=e believe to be its fair market.
If yon have an}= questions., please feel free to call me at 919-389-3888.
Sincerely,
~~~~
tiVorth Creech
Project Mana;er
}'lltx '1 till ~ 1 ! li l llat n~~4 St., .titutc~ }t} t • I~alri~~h. '~C :'-t?O4 • e;~r ~ .;_t~~t„i-aur,n~~ ~Ic~tt`:.c•rt~i1 - 1'liu z. ",~ ~'>_; X5,'1-1~)(1. 1=;ix q i ~i ; 5~ i}.{<~

Page l of 1
David Schiller
From: David SchiNer
Sent: Tuesday, ~ctaber 10, 20©6.4:24 PM
To: 'Tyler B. Howe'
Ce: Worth Creech
Subjeot: GAME CREEK MAiVAGEMEIVT SUMMARY.doc
Tyler,.
Here is the summary informatian about the Cane Creek Site that I mentioned. As discussed, the project is
.located in north-central Rutherford County, just south of the Burke County line and just east of US64. The first
figure is from the consultant's. report and locates the site boundary by GPS mapping. We submitted the survey Eo
our consultant who redesigned the stream to avoid the site. In addition, we have committed to SHPO to install
fencing around the site to prevent disturbance during construction. A, CD with the entire report is being sent to
you and: you should. receive it tomorrow. Please review this information and provide me with yourcamments
jhopefutty positive).
Thanks for resending the- Morgan Creek memo.
Dave Schiller 919-755-9490
10`10%~OOt~

MANAGEMENT St1MMARY
Legacy Research Associates Inc. {Legacy}, of Durham, North Carolina, has completed the; archaeological.
survey for the Ecosystem "Enhancement Program {EEP} Wetlands and Stream Restoration Project along Cane
Creek in Rutherford Lounty, North Carolina {ER 06-2123}. This work was conducted for Restoration
Systems, LLC, of Raleigh, North Carolina.
The Cane Creek project invotves the restoration of 3.9 km {2,4.1 mi) of stream channels; (Errorl Reference
source not found,). The purpose of the archaeological. survey was to locate, document; :and conduct
National Register of Hisxoric Places {NRHP}-eligibiNty evaluation investigations for archaeological resources
that may be affected by the stream and wetland- restoration project.
This work complies with the. tVational Historic Preservation Act of i 966 {as amended}, the. Archaeological
and Historical Preservation Aer of 1374, Executive Order 11593; and 36 GFR Parts 660-66 and 8fl0 (as
appropriate). It meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation {Federal Register 48}. All information submitted in this report is faetuat and sufficiently
complete to enable the North Catalina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to perform the necessary
reviews.
Background Research
A review of state and local survey data was completed prior m the archaeological survey. This included
the files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and collections held at the North Carolina
State Library in Raleigh. Research identified no previously recorded archaeological sites within L6 km (1
mi} of the project. However, based on the topographic and hydrological situation, the North Carolina
SHPO determined there to be a high probability for the presence of prehistoric and/or historic
archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
Field Investigations Results and Recommendations
Archaeological survey for the project was Conducted by Legacy between September 13-15 and 19-22,
2006. Deborah joy served as project director and Jared Roberts served as field director; Rhonda Cranfill-
Moran, Johann Furbather, Chris Pettyjohn, and Andrea Prentis assisted.
One archaeological site, 31 RF1 76, was recorded within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) during
the survey (Errorl Reference source-not found.). The site consists of a Woodland period lithic and ceramic
scatter located on the first terrace above the Cane Creek floodplain east of US Highway 64. The terrace
features a cultivated squash field. Site 31 RF176 is recommended as being potentially eligible for the
NRHP based on the tandform, abundance of artifacts, and the high probability of subsurface features.. tf
the site cannot be avoided, further archaeological work ~viN be necessary.

Cane Creek Scream and Wetland Restoration Project
ERpo6-2123
Rutherford County, NC
Dysartsvifle, NC USGS Duadrengle 1993
NAD 27 UTM 17N Meters
rocs
~ r~noas~~,a toc _. _..~
paa!rnf
~ 1~ga[iae 5+•:. <I !er[ y:: ~~..~ far<rt
Q leoln[AIE le~]4rua
O S[e Ia~.nJlry ~ O:ea Craaal 0.va)
O (are Craa\Irre:e Aif Ga<a

10 15 0 30 Sleterf

~ ^
~

i it STi

~ S151 ~J7 ~ _• Y
6!
S(At 51 ~ v

r 1 r a,
V _
^ f ~ Iit~ y
~
,~~ f .,5. ',~ I
1-! l Si lJ
_
/ \

~ \
~
!- a•

.r
z~~n
.~ Ay.

I
f
Archaeological Site 31 RF176

Stream is approx. 20' feet from
archaeological boundary.
r
U
10
N
0 4080 160 240 320
ME3K=MMmMm=====� Feet
Legend
Aw.
r4
Wetlands
MR,pana.
N—Rijww.
Proposed Stream
Type
1w
Enhancement
Preservation
Restoration
To be Left as is
Restoration Systems, LLC
". .,. s,s."107
Cane Creek
Rateigh. NC 2T6N
IM:919.755.900
lax:919ISS.9492
Rutherford County, NC
_t_llonsyst—com
www.
U
10
N
0 4080 160 240 320
ME3K=MMmMm=====� Feet

i
•
r
r
•
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 2871:9
Ph: 828-~88-023'1- Fax 821;-4$$-24b2
~~V ~ ~ ~~~~ I'
~~o: rI-~~J~.,: ...
~+C D1v1510n
Donnie-Brew
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27b99-1652
PROJECT{s): Comments on phase I archeological testing report of proposed stream
bank restoration at Cane Creek, Rutherford County,<Nortli Carolina..
• Tlae Tribal Historic Preservation Office ofthe Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians would.
• like to thank you for tl~e opportunity to comment on this proposed Section 106 activity
under 36 C.I'.R. 800.
• This office agrees u=ith the arelieologistss recommendation that site 31RF176 "has the
• potential to }Meld significant information about the prehistory of [tl~e] region," and. is thus:
recommended as being potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
• l-Iistoric Places. The EBCI THPO agrees additionally with the archeologist's
. recommendation that if "the site cannot be avoided, further archeological testing work.
~~=ill be necessary." If further. testing is warranted, this office requests all cultural.
resource data. forwarded to the NC SHPO be forwarded to this office as well for comment
. and recommendation. In the event that human remains or significant cultuual resources
• are inadvertently discovered, all work. should cease and immediate Section ItJ6
consultation l~ettiveen the federal government and the sovereign government of the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians should begin.
If ufie can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions,. please feel. free.
to cont~ cLme at {8~$ $-023 ext 2.
Since .
• ~,~' '
. Tyler B. Motive
`Tribal IIistai-ic:al Preservation Specialist
Tasters Band of Cherokee Indians
. Cc: I)at=e Schiller
DATE: 2b -October - 06

August 11, 2006
R~EMO Tfl: Dave Schuler "~
FRC}1vI: LVorth Creech, Project hrlanager ~"
SUBJECT: Documentation of Efforts on Bzhaif of Section 7 of the Endangered..
Species Act (ESA) for the Cane Creek Restar~tian Project in Rutherford
County.
On (?ctober 26, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEPj issued
a Request for Proposals. for 21,000 stream'mitgation units, 20 riverine wetland. mitigation
units, and Snon-riverine wetland mitigation units in the Broad Ri1~er Basin, Cataloging
UTnit 03050105. Restoration Systems, LLC {RSj; of.Raleigh, NC ,vas subsequently
awarded a contract by the EEP to provide 6,718 stream mitigation units, ~l.d riverine
wetland mitigation tuiits. and 5 non-riverne wetland mitigation units at the Cane Creek
Restoration Site. Axiom Environmental, Inc. is under contract to RS to provide technical
environmental consulting; Appalachian Environmental Services, LLC tivll provide design
sen~ces.
Une of tlxe earliest tasks to be performed by RS is cozi~pletion of azz environmental
screening. and preparation/subnzittal of a Categorical Exclusion {CEj document. This
document is specifzcallyxequired by the Federal Ilightva}:.Administration (FI~~~f~1) to
ensure compliance tivith various federal environmental lativs and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply v4°ith federal mandates as a precondition to
FHVv'A xeiznbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and.
~~•etlancls_
Since finazicial support of certain EEP operational budgets derives; in part, from federal
authorizations, it is necessary to conduct a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Servicej. This letter provides you ti~~ith certain details about the Cane
Creek Restoration. Site project, including the project's location, a general description of
its physiograph}', hydrograph}~ and existing land uses, as well. as the intended
modifications to the site proposed by RS. In addition, should the project be located in a
geographic area in which federally-listed species may be present (based on element
occun-ences, as reflected in Service listings), and if scientifically-sound practices have
been used to confirm the presence of suitable habitat for any listed species within the
project area, the results of appropriate surveys for each listed species and separate
biological conclusions for each will be provided for your revie~ti~ and consideration. Y ou

Dave Schiller
Page 2
August 11, 2006
are asked. to revietiv the information provided and determine if it is sufficient to enable
you to concur with our biological conclusions.
Project Locatit~n & Description
The Cane Creek Restoration Site is located in Rutherford County less than 02 mile
,south of the Rutherford/1~IcDawell County lime along the eastern edge of T-ligh~vay 64
(Figure lj. The Site is Iocated at 35.5333?6 l~larth and -.82.853820 ~i~'est and
encompasses approximatel}r 66 acres that is currently being used far livestock grazing:
and agriculture, land uses that have been employed for many }ears. Within the Site,
4,4?0 linear feet of stream krill undergo restoration, 4,$60 linear feet. of stream will.
undergo level II enhancement, and I,&70 linear feet will be preserved. Wetland.
restoration would be achieved on 9.4 acres. of existing agricultural fields (Figures 4-5).
Restoration l~'lcans c~. '~Ietlrads
Primary activities are designed to restore the stream and wetland complex include stream
.restoration, stream preservation, stream enhancement,. riverine wetland restoration, non-
riverine wetland restoration, and vegetative planting.
Stream restoration an tributaries to Cane Creek is expected to entail: belt-width
preparation, changes in pattern, dimension, and profile of these tributaries, channel
excavation, spoils stockpiling, channet stabilization, channel diversion, anti existing
channel bai;kfill.
Stream enhaneemerit (level II) c~=ill be achieved through bank stabilization anti pl~u°ttng
riparian buffers along Cane Creek. Particular attention will. be directed tatvard providing
vegetative caner and root gro«~th along the outer bends of the each stream meander.
ti~jater quality functions, aquatic, and wildlife habitat associated yvith stable streams will
be greatly irnproti°ed,
Restoration of wetland hydrology and ~~~etland soil attributes may involve rerouting.
existing straightened tributaries to Gaye Creek, lIlta agricultural. fields. underlain with
hydric soils, channel plug ii3stallation, chatuiel backfill, and scarification of soils prior to
planting. In addition, the construction of surface tivater storage depressions (ephemeral
pools} also adds an important component to ground~vatcr restoration activi.ties.
Revegetating the floodplain and stream hassles will provide stream bank stability, shade,
cool surface haters, filter pollutants Pram ad3acent runoff anti provide habitat for area.
tivildlife, The vegetated stream buffer ~~=ill extend approximately 30 feet or snore an both
sides of Cane Creek anti its tributaries. Scarification of floodplain surfaces nay be
required prior to planting. Plant community restoration within the Site will include the
planting of bare-root seedlings consistent with reference data, an-site observations, and
descriptions of the cc~nnnru~ity.

Dave Schiller
Page
August 11, 2D06
Federally Listed Species
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species
in North. Carolina. as posted by the united States Fish and Wildlife Senjice (USF~S} at
http:/tnc-es.fi~~•s.gov!eslco~uityfr.htzz~l, four federally protected .species are fisted in
Rutherford County. Table 3 lists the federally protected species for Rutherford:Ct3tinty
and indicates if suitable habitat exists ti~xithin the Site (entire easement) for each species::
irlorth Carolina Natuz'ai Heritage ~'rogram (I~tCNHP) records. ~verc revietived on i1~i"arch 7,
ZOOb. One Significant Natural Heritage Area, Lane Mountain, occurs immediately
northeast of the Site. In addition, one Significant z~Tatural Heritage .Area, Biggerstaf'f
i~loztntain, .occurs approximately l.5 miles southeast of the Site near Yello~vtop
I~lollixtain. No rare speciesare documented for the Site.
Table 3. Federally 1'rotectecl Species for Rutherford Counter
Habitat
Common dame Scientific itiTazne Status's Present 'Within
bite
Indiana bat ~llyotis socials Endan eyed No
Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis narzflor~n Threatened Yes
heartleaf
Small-whorled
~ Isvtri~, rrzedeoloides Threatened Yes
OgOllla
ti~'hte irisette Sisyritzchizcn: chic{rytontarrn Endatlgered -Yes
"Endangeretl": ;~ ta~on in danger of exti~setion thronghout all or a significant portion of its range; "Threa[enetf"_ ~ taxon lik~l~ to
become endangered 1~-ithin the foreseeable future throughout alt or a significant portion of its range.
Indiana Bat.
V4~hile this bat often ovenvinters in cati~es throughout its ral~ge, it is known to roost
beneath. the bark of species such as shagbark hickory and bitternut. Those roost sites-are
often located ilz close proximity to streams and rivers where it forages for flying insects..
P~varf-flo~r•ered heartleaf
This small herbaceous member of the hirthwort Tamil}f {Aristalochiacea) occurs in a
several county area in the ~~=estern and central piedmont. The species is elosel}~ allied
~4=ith H. lervisii azld FI. heteraphyldu. fin interesting sail-plant correlation appears. to exist
between the species and soils of the Pacolet series (or llrtadison and Musella), tivltich are
sandy-ro-gravelly substrates. The habitat. where this species occurs is often associated.
t}pith escarpments into drainages including acidic hardwood embankments. It is often
reported in association with h'ctlmia lcztifvtia.

i
i
i
Dave Schiller
Page ~
August I1, 200b
Small-s~l~c~rlecl P~gonia
The small-whorled pogonia is a member of `the orchid Tamil}p. It is a perennial with a
smooth, hollow stem appraxmately 4-10 inches tall terminating in a r~horl of green,
elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and 'measure up to 3 by I.5 inches. A flower;
or occasionally two flowers; is produced at the top of the stem. The hollow stern is an.
important morphological element when attempting to distinguish: the IsoirCt mec~eoloides
from other I.s~ot,•icr species and even. Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virgnirrna).
FIowering may occur from abattt mid-May to mid-June; but then the population may lie
dormant for an unspecified period of #me, which is similar to other members- of the:
orchid family and is thought, to be assaciat~d with. eompleY soil-fungal relationships.
Habitats tivliere this plant has been observed include montane oak-hickory or acidic cove
forests, but it has also been found.- in an apple orchard, Sites currently- or historically
known to support this species range. from 2Q00 to1000 feet in elevation.
~~hte Irisette
This herbaceous member of the Iris family occurs an rich, basic sails. It .grows in
clearings and along the edges of upland ~~~oods where the canopy is thin and often where
dawn-slope runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinariiypresent on-these
sites.. The irisette is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain file open duality
of its habtat_ Vegetative portions of the plant are dichotomously Branched. Small, tii~hite
flowers occur from iviay thxough Juty.
Summary of Anticilrated >i~ffecfs
The scope of work. includes stream enhancement (Level II), stream channel restoration,
stream preservation and wetland restoration (ritJerine and non-riverine). In addition, the
cantractor will establish haul routes and material storage areas throughout the. easement.
Earthwork (grubbing, grading, filling} will accompany the stream restoration efforts and,
to some extent, tl~e wetland restoration effort. Fortunately, these land-disturbing
activities will be concentrated in the agricultural landscape where row crop production of
squash is the predominant land-use activity; however, some earthwork will occur
immediately adjacent to existing streams tivithin forested communities. To ensure that
adequate field investigations tivere performed to determine if listed species or their habitat
t~-ere present, natural history and morphological descriptions of each listed species were
researched before conducting .field investigations. Intensive field investigations
throughout the entire easement were conducted on Attgust 2 and August 8, 2006. These
surveys included an evaluation of all habitats as well as searches for evidence of Iisted
species. The investigator is Randy Turner, ~vho has snore than 35 }rears direct experience
in field survey methodologies. The investigator has found numerous populations of rare
species over the years.

Dati=e Schiller
Page 5
august 11,.2006
InclianZ Bat
Parallel transects were walked along the west-facing forested hillside along the entire.
eastern boundary of the project area including habitats tivell outside -the. limits of the
project easement. Searches co~fered a band of forest at least 500 feet deep. The. goal of
the search was to look for any caves, :large bitternut (Carya CordifQj"t)lis~, shagbark
hickory .(Gar}?a ~vctta), ~r other species 1Vit1] exfoliating bark that corald :serve as a
roosting location for the species
Biological Conclusion; Since the work to be undertaken. tivill not result in removal of any
roosting or hibernacula sites (suitable habitat) and since intensive walking surveys
confirmed. -the absence ~f suitable roosting sites throughout the bite or within .close
.proximity to Cane Creek, it is reasonable to conclude the project ~vi1l have No Effect oti
the species..
D~f arl=flotiti•ereil heartleaf
Although no soils of the Pacolet, Madison or Musella series occur ti~rithin the site, surve}~s
r~vere conducted at streanlside habitats within. mixed hardwood forest fragments; because
the investigator is .not eonvziced that the soil-plant relationship is absolute. The only
members of the. birthtivort family growing within the construction limits of the project are
.=lsczr•~rrn ccrnctz~~nse and ~lrrstotochia sp., although an abundance of ~lernstylis crrifolia
~~?as observed within the forested hillside community along the eastern boundary- of the
site outside the Site..
Biological Conclusion: Intensive sunieys throughout all. suitable habitat within. the Site
confirms that the species is not present; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the project
1i-ill have 1'~o Effect on the species.
Small-~~•horled Pogonia
Except for the crane-fly orchid, Ti~ulrtria liscotor, intensive surveys confirmed that no
other orcliidaceotrs species occur lvithin the Site:
Biological Conclusion: Intensive surveys of the entire easement confirms that small-
~vhorIed pogonia does not occur within the Site. As a consequence of such efforts; it is
reasonable to conclude the project tivill hai••e No Effec# on the species.
't'Vhite Irisette
Surveys throughout the Site carefully examined all suitable habitat for individuals of this
species.
Bialo~cal Conclusion.: Based on the results of intensive; surveys, it is reasonable to
conclude the project will have No Effect on the species.

Sept~;ar~btt' 2~, 200
IVir. I~e~tt ('1`~r~
Resource Sail S~:icntist
NRCS Pfl I~t~x 11()9
Waynesville, Nt. 2S78C-1 I ~9
(~28) 4Sb-G3~ 1
~TTN: Kent t`Inrv
S>J13J 1~C'T: Cc~n~pl~;tian of NRCS Farm ~D-] 0(}f~ far il3e (`ane Creek Rest~rati~n l'rajc~ct
i1i caii~pli<ince'wpith tl~e F3rrt~laz~~l !'ratecta~z Policy Aat.

A#tael~ecl is tl~e c~n3l~leted AD-1t10~? fa»». Plc~se keep this for yt~ul-recri-cls. 1~1~<ink vgci
far }~oi~r 13e1h iti cc~n~pletin~; this foni~,
Sii~cerel t,
earth C'rec~cl~, t'rc~jcct ~la~~ager
Attachments: 1 Farm

U:S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND Ct~NVERSIC)N IMPACT RATING
PART 1(To be completed by Federa! Agency) ~ Date Oi land Evaluation Request gf1/06'
Name t1f Project Cane Creek Restoration.: Site ' Federal Agency tnvoived FNVIlA
Proposed Land use Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ;County And State Ruttteriord, NC
PART U jTo be completed by NRCS) ;Date Request. Received By htRGS
Does the si#e contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No~'•l AcrQS irrigated Average Farm Size ~" __
(lino,'the FPPA does_not apply- do not camplele additional pads of this form}. ;t?J (~ ~ NIA 104
__.___._._._~.~ _ ------ - --- ._...__. _~ .____:.~__....~.~. _.~..__.._M__
Major Crop(s) Farmabte land In Govt. Juiisdiction ~ Amount Of Farmland Rs Defined in FPPA
Hay Soybeans, Small Grain :Acres 229,203 % S3 Acres: 135,176 %3
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Ot local Site Assesstnerit System Date Land Evaluation Returned By"NRCS
Rutherford CALES
PERT rtr 1Tn hn omm~tcfarr r,,. Fo`ro~~t A.,o.,n..t
9/2810!
. -li _ _
--. ~.- - m _ ~ Site A f Site B Site G
S~t~ D
A Totat Acres To tae Converted. Dtrectiy lg~;q
__ _ _. _
.
fi. Tota! Acres To Se Converted Indtrectty ~ - 0.0 ^ _ _ _
C. Total Acres in Site 66.0 iQ0 i0.0 OA
PART tV {To be completed by NRCS} Land Evaluation Iniorma4on

-- - ._
A, Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmtanci 0.6
_. ~ __ _.-- _-... __~ __..__ __ _ ______ f __
___
_
_._
S. Total Acres Statewide And. Local Important Farmland 0.0 '
--._._..
µ_ C~Percentage Of Farmland to County Or Luca! Govt Unrt To i3e Converted ~ 0 ,
D. Rercentage O(Farmtand In Govt: Jurisdiction VVt7h' Same Dr Higher Relative Value ±40.0
PART" V {To be completed by NRCS} Land Evaluation Criterion 65 !0 0 0
(
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted {Scale of t) to f t)0 Points) !
PART VI To be coal !sled b Federal A sire
p Y 8 S'} Maximum ,
Site Assessment Criteria {These criteria are explabred in y GFR 658.5(6) ! Points
1. Area to Nonurban Use i5 a 15 ?
_ _
10 10 ____ _ i
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use ,__
_. _._
_ 3 Percent Of Srie t3emg Farmed 20 # 75 _---_ ._.____._ • .. ._.._ _
,. ._....._...__..
t
_~._ _
4 Protection Provided By State_And Local Government 20 '0 ? _.._..._
5 Distance From Urban Builtup Area 15 15 ~
6 Distance To Urban Support Services 15 j 10
7 Size Of Present Farm Unit ComparedTo Average 10 3 ;
8 CreatEOn Of Nonfarmabte Farmland 10 ;10

9. Avaitabtiity Of Farm Support Services
~ 5 7 --
3
10 On-Farm investments X20 _ j2 ,
___"
11 Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services ':10 i 0
12 Compatibility With Existing Agricul#ural Use _ 10 £n
TOTAL SITE ASSESSh~IENT PAINTS 160 83 0 p 0
PART Vtt (To be corrrp/sled by Federal Agency)
_. __.------__...__ .__.__. t. .. _..._,_... ~_..__._ ... _._._ _._... _.__._ __.___...~ _._._._
Relative-Value Of Farmland (From Part ~ 100 ?65 0 ;p 0
Total Site Assessment tFronr Aar! Vt above or a tncat
i
160
, 83 _
0
Q
0
s
te asses_tment)
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines} 260 148 0 0 °. 0

Site Selected. ~ Date Of Selection ':.'Nas A LoCai Siie Assessment Used?

. __ _ _ _ _ Yes D No Q
Reason For Selection:
(See Ltsiructions orr reverse side) Form At3-1006 (1
TMS 1L 11-.:w., E.'C t,-. Jh!h"r hLN ::y ~,.,,.,..`; .3 ,n Ser C=s St21t

' ~'> I
t`..~.`+1.~.7e ~lttC}Il ~'; CC)I~.`~$'YxE.tlti[';
August 18, 206
U. S. Department of the interior
Fish and Ultildlife Service
Asheville Field. Office
if0 Ziliicoa Street
Asheville, NC 2S8tJl.
ATTN: Marelia Buncick, Fish and 1~Vildlife Biologist
SUBJECT: Coordination with the 11.5. Fish anti 1?Vildlife Service on Behalfc~f (1) Fish
and G~ildlife Ct~ordination Act and {2} iviign•atory Bird Treat}= Act for the Cane Creek
Resttx~ation Site.
Dirs. Buncick.
On October 26, 2Q~S, the 1~orth Caroli~ra Ecosysten~~ Enhancement i'rogram {EE.f) issued
a Reduest for Proposals for 2 i,O~0 streammitigation units, ~Q riverine wetland mitigation
units, and ~ non-riverine wetland mitigation. units in the Broad River Basin; Cataloging
Unit 030501 iJS. Restoration Systems, LLC {RS}, of Raleigh, ~C' vas subsequently
awvardecl a cr~ntrac:t by the EEi' to provide 6,°7~$ stream mitigation units, 4.~1 riverine
wetland mitigation units, and 5non-riverine wetland mitigation units at the Cane Creek
Restoration Site. Axiom Environmental, hzc is under contract to RS to provide technical
e~~vironmental consulting and Appalachian. Fnvironr~iental Services to pro~ride design
services.
One of the earliest tasks to be perfonned by RS is completion of an environments}
screenil.~g and preparation submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal llighr~vay Administration (i°i1W.A) to
ensure; ce~mpliancc with various federal environiner~tal lativs and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its prc~jee;ts conz~ly ~4•ith federal mandates as ~~ precondition to
Fl-i~~A reimblrrsernent of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the; €~Iorth Carolina
I:)el~artt~~ent ol'Transportation. to oI'tset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
1~ etl8ncls.
Pitcx \~til! ~ 1 tol ktayi~es St.; S~ii[c- 1~' • Ralesgh, ~'C' 27(Ckl • ~~~~3~~~.rercrraa~»~~~~sten~s.<:o~n -Phone 9t9.~~~.9~z)0 • Fax 919.7~5.9~~2

Nlarella Btiticick, USI~«~ S
I~a~~ ~
tlugust 18,,?0~6
In order -For the pt:oject to proceed, RS is obligated to cot~rdinate with your otlice Ul]
belialfof the Fish and ~tViicllife Coordinatioiz het {FWC~~ and the ~+lig~ratory Bird Treaty.
At;t (iVIBTr~}. This IettLr provides you with. certain details of tl~e Cane Cicelc Restoration
bite prciject, it~eluding the project's lo~atioti, a general description (~f' its pliysiugraph}r,
IZydrograpl~y, Ind existing Iatid -uses; as «•ell as thr;'intendetT modifica#ial~s to the site
proposed by I2S. -"You are etlcouragc:d to detetmit~e if the actions proposed b}F RS may be
inimical tawny resources embraced by the FWC'A, or the iU1BT~1" :and provide wmments
to KS basedon your evaluation. It is reasonable to assume that the Service will conin•let~t
il~the aetiolis proposed by I~.S are, in the Scri~ce's opinion, likely to result in harm to
resources ct~abracetl by the F~'C~~ ar the MB`Tt1.
Project Locttticin c~ i)escl•i{itiptt
The C~tie Creek Restoration Site is located in Ruther:Ford Coul3ty lest than 0,2 tnilcs
south. of the 1Ztttl~erfarc}IVIc:Dc~well County line, alonb the east(:rri edgy (af 1=1~;li~vay {~=#.
'I`he Site is located tit 3~.5333?b North aticl -~1.~535?t} 4'Yest tit~d ettcomp~tsses
approximately hCi ~cies that is historica:!]y and. currently being used frar liprestock gracing
and agriiultttre, land uses that have been employed for years. ~l'ithin Clio Sitc. ~,~'70
linear feet. of stream ~l°ill unclurg(:> restoration, 4,$fif? lilzear feet of strain «~i]} ttnder~o
]c~"•el II enli~incetnent, anti 1,671}linear feet •svill be l~reser~,fed. ~~Vetland restoration would
be tt(;hieti~ed oi~ ~_~l ~icres of t;~isting agricultural lieltls.
ltesttiratir~n F~~eans ~ ~°lethtids
I'rimar}° activities designed t~ restore, enliani;e. and preserve stream segments, a~ well as
restoration of riverine anzl Holt-rig=~erintr ~~~etlant~s tiiai }~a~=c been Iii~hl}~ mflflifiod }~y
historical agricultural practices.
Stream restorati(n on tril~uEztries to Cane C`rc:ek is expect~;cl to entail: 17e1t-~~=itltl~
pTe'.priration, C11ai7geS tit IJattC:rli, ClimeliSioll, £1.11(1. l?rOfile; (}f tl]ete ti'Ibtltartes. Gllaitncl
excavation, spoils stockl~il~ing, channel stabilization, channel diversion, ~annd l~ackfilling of
the ertsting channel.
5ti'f'.sinl C'nhall(;E:tnent {leYCl II) t~~"til be achleV(;d through batik stablll"l.(iti(ln and platting
ril)arian buffers along Cate Creek. Particu}ar itftention i~~ill be (Iirectet} to~4=ard pi•cividing
j"egctati~•e cover .and root growth along the ()titer bcncls of the each stream meander. Tlic
sire~m's overall ftlnctiotalit~• ~ari.ll experic.tce nieastirable ilnpz-a~~~ement title tc) the
rehabi}nation of selected ii~ieatder bends and establi~lin~ciit of btlFfel- c~(7mmuiiities on
either side (>f the stream.. `t'hese; actions will improve: aquatic anel strcamside habitats lino
will greatly etili~uice water quality functions.
R(:stortition of ~ti•1/tlantl hydrol(irr~ inlt}~ involve rerouting e:~istinw straightened. tributari~:s
to t <ine Creek, into a~rieulturlil fields underl.iin with liyelric soils, c}iat~tie] 1)lu
instal}tttion, ch~lnnel backlill, afro czirilicati(tn (f soils pri()r to plantit)4~. In plc}ciitic)n, the

~!Iare}1~ ~311llcick, li~1~~IS
t'a~e 2
`
Atl~(!st
1 ~, 2U0~

con.stru(:tion of surface ~vsltez- 5tora~c de}ir~sso~ls {eptlelrleral 13oo}s) ~atscr K!d(ls an
itnp(11'tattt col~ponel~t to ~-(>und~vater restoratic?z~ activities.
Revc~etatin~ the Iloodplain altd stream banks ~viil provi(le stream bank stability, ..shade;
. ci~oler st~I ~ au~ waters, filter bf scdin~ellts and polhltalts fron~I. ariji;cent rllnol'f; ~ll~d provide
habitat for arc~'~ ~~iIcl~ife. The ve~etatcd ~treal~ buffer mill extelxl aplzroxiniatei~~y 30 feet
or Inorc on both cities of Cane Creek Lind its- triblataries. Scarification of tlood}~141in
surfaces lnay be rec}ured pl-i~r to plantills~. .Plant eolnlnulrity restarati(n within the Site
will include the planting o#~ bar{;-root seedliil~s consistent. -with .reference data, (In-site.
• t?bservations, an(l descriptions ofthe cornlnilnity data.
Surnmae;v of An#icpated Effects
'
'
J
he proposed strtranl and. ~~=etlancl rest(~l•atioli project v~~ill restore a dysfunctional stream
system to a fitll ftllctionality sireall~ and. l~~~}1 reskore ~~retlancl furlctitlns that have l~eell
afasent for 17tllFly years. This 4~'(?l~k Zvi}l }~rov~ide the caacit}t to transpol-t tvatel~il{.'tl flocs
. al1(l SeCI:ln7ent I()ads, i',nhaIl(:{: flood ~tora€;C cal7aL'tiy, pi`o\=1de.Flllt!'lent abaten~e:I1t, retll()val
atldFot' IlLUtrallZattoll of t0,'CIG CDIl1p()Lln(IS, atl(1 ~t'!I} CI'eflt~ 2 1~aTICt}' al~d kibllild{in(;(; ()~
~' vildlifehabttat. Reve~etation (~# the tloo(Iplain will pravtcie stl•eatil hank stabilit}~, recluc(
ero:~iozx, t~romote floo(I1~Jater attenuation, ~lll(I ilnpr()ve a(luatic and terrestrial }~abitat. The
• puCpOSe Ot tills ~7r())t;(;t I`.i t() ~!'eatly 1?cn(~'fit a(ll:liltlC llterlnCl ~l'Il{ll#e b~'' In7prL)\%lilf; lilt{I
1)i'{?tLCtICI~ th!/tr hlblttit 111 }~c.2'})etillty.

. Should y()ll l2al`~ any (}u2St!{In5 or Ff an}T addlti{)Title IIl'tol7ilatl(3n l3 lleede;d t0 Ct?ll]plete

• your retitetiv, })lease feel free to contact me at our c)ffice (9 } r3} 75~_~fi~().
'
~f
oIIC l~rllUilb}(: ti117t atld (()Llpt~1'1ti(}n ai'(; I7ltF('12 :ll?prE)Lts~t(;d.
•
e
`'
f
~ltlcGrel~',
i
/~ ~~-~"- r
ti~'(?rt}~ C'rc.ec}l. }'r(~ject ~Ialra~;er
~~ttacli.nlents
cc: MC. Da~fc Schillor, Restoration. S}tstc~nls, I,LC

i••••••••••••••r•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

~riom En:bonmental. fnc
71:c a„Nana Pa,a or~r.
'.N11ox SPrinp, NC 27593
1919121E-ff9)
Il191 N1-7077 /ar
Anom Eo;.rerorental tr,c.
o,sn by FfGU<c
PROPOSED CONDITIONS c`~
CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE °°` ~a,•~hzoos
Rutherford County, North Carolina -.~«,
cs-aez z7

r
d~
1
r
ti
Cane Creek
Site Location
0.2 mile south of
McDowell/Rutherford County line
on eastern side of Hichway ti4
1 mi 0 1 ml. _ _ 4 mi.
- - _- _ _ 1:150,000 ~ -
I
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.55.
".:
-..V.
~;m ',f
- SITE LOCAT[ON cu Ficui+~
CAtSE CREEK RESTORATiO\ SITE ,,,~• tti•1art;h::OC1ie
Rutherford Counts, Aorth Carolina

i

S ~ t~ t

• J•.:t~;t<}'.;.f1:f(}l ~ L'i)17tt'1'~'2€tI{t:3

•
Au17Tust I8, 2006
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Carnmission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Falls Lake Office
1142 1-85 Service Road
~; Creedmore, NC 27522
•
ATTN: David Cax, Tecl~lnical Guidance Supcrvisctr
St~BJECT: Cooidination with the Not-th Caralitla ~~4'ildlife Resources Catnmission on
Behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination. tlct fa.r Cane: C're.ek Restoration Site
Mr. C"arc:

C)n October 2b, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Pragram (EFP) issued
a Request far Proposals for 21,000 stream mitigation uni#s, 20 riverine wetland mitigation
units, and 5 non-riverine wetland mitigation units in the I3t-oad River $asizl, Cataloging
Unit 03050105. Restaratian Systems, LLC (RS), oflZaleigh, NC was subsequently
• awarded a contract by the EEP to pravide tjj,748 stream mitigation units, 4.4 ltverine
tivctland mitigation units, anct 5 nan-riverine ~~~etlatlcl mitigation tulits at the Cane Crack
Restoratiall Site_ ~lxionl Envif't~ntllenttll, lnc is under cantract to RS to provide technical
• c;nvironmental consulting and tlppa}aciiian E:nvirontllental Services to pravide design
services.
One of Cite earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completian of an environlnentai
• screening and preparationlsubmittal of aCategorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
• clacument is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administratian (FI IWt1) to
ensure compliance with variaus federal environmentrll laws and regulations. The FEP
must demonstrate that its prajects comply with fedcrai rliandates as a precondition fa
I=1~VJA reimbursement cif canlpertsatot~y mitigatian costs bonle by tho North C:aralina
• I7epartment of "1'ransparteltlon to aft-set tts praJecis' llnavoldablc impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order #or the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office an
behalf of the Fish and Wilcllifc Coordination Act (FWCA). This letter provides you Lvith
certain details of the Cane Creek Kestoratian Site project, inchuling the project's locatit>n,
a generl} descriptiall of its physiography, Ilydragraphy and existing land uses, as tivell as
['ilot Mill • I lOt Hay~ies St., Suite 1~; • 12alei~~h, AC 2?E>tkt • t~~ww.restca~ ~ftions~~stems.e~}m • Ph<»~e ~~ 19.155.9=t9(} • 1~~-x ~)I9.7j~.9=t3?

David ~:`~~< i~IC~VRC
I?a~;~
~.u~ust 1 fs, ~OOb
theintended modifications to tl~e siteproposed by RS. ~'ou are encouragecl.to dctennne
fthe actions proposed by RS may be inimical to any resourc~:s embraced by the 1=WCA,
and provide cornnrents to 1ZS based on your` evaluation. It is rctrsonablc to asstrme that.
you t~•ill conimerat if the actions proposed by RS are, in your opinion, likely to result in
-harm to resources embraced btu tl-re FV4'C~
I'rojeet L~catinn St Descrip#ion
-The Carle Creek R~~storatiori. Site is located izi Rutherford County less than f.J.2 miles
south of the RutherfordllUlcDowell County Fine along the eastern edge of 1-iighway 64.
Tl~e Site is located at 35.5 ~3 X76 ~ror-fh anel -~ 1.853$~t? Nest and. eneor~~rpasses
approximately fib acres that is .historically <rnd currently being used for livestock grazing.
'find agriculture; land uses that have been employed for years. V'Vithin the Sife, x,470
:linear feet of stream will undergo restoration, 4,~G0 linear feat c>f~ stream x~=i 11 undergo
level II enhancement, and 1,670 Linear feet ~~~ill lac presei~ed. ~t~etlal~d restoration a=t~uld
tie achieved on `).4 acres ofexistirlg agricultural fields.
Restot~ntior~ l~le:ins ~~ tife#liotls
Pri#nary activities designed to rc>storE;, enhance, and preserve strtar~~r segments, as «.=t!1 as
.restoration of riv~;rine and non-riverinc wetlands that have been Highly rnodifie~l b~=
historical agricultural practices.
Stream restoration on tributaries to Cane Ci-eclc is expected to entail: belt-width
preparatit~n, changes ire pattenl, dirner~sior~,_ and profile o~l~ these tributaries, channel
oxoanation, spoils stockpiling, channel stabilization, channel dig.=ersion, and hackfilling of
the existin~.± charrrrel.
Stream c~thancenzent {level Il} ~~~ill be acliie~~ed tl~roui:lr bank. stabilratitan artcl 13larrfirrg
riparian hol'l'ers along; Car3c C'reok. Particular attention urill be directed tc>~vard proviclirrg
vegetative coy=er and root grv~~°tI~ ~tlorlg the Muter bends of the each stream m~ar~cier. "l~he
stre~un's overall functiorralit}~ will ehperience ~neasttrable inlpro~~~:naent due to the
rehabilitation of selected meander .bends and establishment of huffier commur~tities on
eithe:r• side of tl~e stream. These 4rctions i~•ill irnprc7ve aquatic anal strcamside Iral~itats and
u°ill greatly ot~lrance «Fator quality functions.
.Restoration of lvetland hydrology may in~=olnc rerouting existing, straightened tributaries
to Cane Creek, into agricultural fi~ads ur~clei°lairl with hydric soils, el~anne.l l~Iug
installation, chi}ir.nel back#ill, antl scarilicaticin of soils prior to planting. In addition, the
consta-uction of surface water storage cle~ressions (ephernt;ral pools} also adds an
important component to growlch~rater restoration activities.
Revegetating the fIoodplai.u and stream banks ~~=ill. provide strear7i bank stability, shade,
cooler surface ~~~aters, titter- of sedirr~ents and pollutants from adjacent rturoff, and }~r-o~°ide
habitat for area «-ilcllife. The ve~.~etated strewn buffer will extend approximately >0 feet
or more inn both siclc;s ol~ {"ane {::reek and its tributai-iGS. Scarification of tkxulplain
surfaces ma}~= be requireal Irrior to planting. Plant a~rnm~uniFy restor-atit~n zviilrin the Site

Dat°ici Cox, ivC~~'RC
}'age
,~~,~u~t 1 x, ~?t~c~r
will include the planting of bare-root seedlings consistent ~~3ith ~.fiereac:e date,. on-site
obser~~°ations; and descrptia~~s of the commu~~ity data.
~illlttTriiil`!' 4f r~titiicip.ttetl 1'fectS
Tht proposed stream and l~Jet}and restoration project ~~~ill restore a dysfiinctic~na} stream
system to a full functionality strewn and ~~ill restore ~~ti~etland functionsthat laavc be~i~
al}sent for many years. This ~~ork ~~ill provide the capacity tc transpo~•f t~atetshed flows
and sediment Ic>ads, enhance flaocl storage capacity, provide xautrient abateme~lt, removal
andif~r neutralisation of tc7xic: conapaunds. and ~~°i11 create a ti<a~riety a~~d ahazada~ncc~of
wildlife (labitat. lte~•egctatian of the:flaodplain ~~~ill provide stream bank stability, reduce
crosi<n1, l~ronlotc f]oodwater attenuation, and improve aquaticand terrestrial habitat. The
put~7ose of this project is to greatly benefit agtaatic life atld l~fildlife by improving and
protccti~ig their habitat in perpcttiit}°.
Shaultl you have. ar~~~ cluestians or ifany additional ntannatian is needed to compl:te
}~•our revie~~ , plcayc lcc:l free to contact me at (91 i)) ; ~5-t)~19~.
~'c>c~r valuable time anii cooperation a~°c inuc;l~ appreeiztecl.
Si~lcerely..
ff~/r ~ Jyr!
t'~'orth C"reecl~. Project ~ilanagc:r
Attachments
cc: i~~h-. Dave Schiller, 1Zestaratian Systems, l.t.C

~•t~lr•••••~•irr~•~~i••~••••~r••r••~•••••••

~ ~ ~ - ~,.~ ;
f
i
~.
a
l
~ ~
4:'!•
~ ~?., t ~ ~ t I ~+~~'
~
•
s i' . ,'-
~ .~ ~.-..
~
a
• S° A'
y
ff~ '~~ Ia ~.~3
?`rfi F ~
F. a
-~~
~ ~,t '''
.
J
a
d
a
y. ~1i~jR. 3~ r ~ t 1E 1,,.
fi 4" t
{
.
t • c}
- F
~
! R 1 t~ ~~ ~ y
~:
'
•
•
~
~
4 t 1
~~ 'k~ ~ ~
~. •
~
N ~r
• i~
~N
1'~F~tr y'• ~ ~~~
'
l~'7~
~
p
f/
` r -
1 x, _ ~ • X11 fa . . - - N , '~ R` , z~ g R,.r
.

•1 ~~ ~ ! • ~ ~ ~ t.
f
y
- ~l' s
• + ,
'~.ra ~ i ' ~~I~ ~ ~ - t~~ R y :
" may,,.
I !
w_)1 <i r
( ~'1(~
''']ss~~
t

r
`
t
-
~
Y
'
i
r
L
.
~
o
Q - ~"
.' ~ a ~,t P f . - r L .' ~ ~ T ', ~t
~ TTTTTT~~.,~ ~ ~.. ' ~ ~ t, s~~e7~
.ei~ ~°
~ , T
'
r~p1.E„..
-
J~€
r r ~
1
-
` ~ ~
.r ~ ~! z~ -
legend
- ,rr~
I
r
,,
t
r ,.
-- .. `
r
_
•~
~ °~ j'
~
,•
. ~...
f
~ c.•Pr~re h'eh and west r~::,. ,.,,.~
~
_ ~ f ~ ~
~ Streams
a - s
-
Cane Creek Restoration Site Res.=.•a: ,
~ r
~
~
~
~ hanCem enl t ~.-. A^^, '.
_ W~~I Provide -
674$ Stream Mitigation Units. ~-• ~'~eser.a In ~_. _
4.4 Riverine Wetland Mitigation Units. ° l ~ -o r~ F ~ ed
and 5.0 Nonriverine Wetland Mitigation Units ~ ,, ~ -~ ~ .eh as
ry
~
Er<istioq Ditch
• ~M - - ~
j
~~1 ?C D. F;!~.M
A
Feet
- -
0 220 440 880 1.320 1 760 ' ~ ~ _ G-

G.m ty F~G~FE
Anom En:~~onmrntat ~n PROPOSED CONDITIONS =~'~~
'rAt'o'aSpnnq, N4I75?2 CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE ca~ March 2006
t31?11t E~16°3
f3 t9f ]Jt-1]]a tae
Rutherford County, North Carolina ,--.
:.atom Er:umm=ata' 'nc. OS-002.27

r
~,~
ti
Cane Creek
Site Location
- 0.2 mile south of
McDowell/Rutherford County line
on eastern side of Highway 64
1 mi _- 0 - - 1 mi. --_. ~ - - 4 mi.
1:150,000
Source: 2003 Narth Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.55.
~~.:
``~
Qrn t.Y
s-TE ~ocaT~o~ ~~f FfGURE
+~~ CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE °;" h~a!ch?_i;06
Rutherford Count', North Carolina

~~~gII~~~
SEP 14 1006 U
e ~ ...------- ----.--.~
=~~~ North Car~a~i~a ildl~fe Resources Corr~m.~sslon
Richard B. Haxniltrtn, Executive Director
September 6, 2406
Worth Creech
Restoration Systems, LLC
11.01. Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
SUBJECT: EEP Wetland and Stream Mitigation Project in Rutherford County
Cane Creek
Dear Mr, Creech:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission {Commission) received your letter
dated August 18,.2006 regarding the Ecosystem Enhancement Program project an Cane Creek in
Rutherford County. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Fish and
~~4~ildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 1.6 U.S.C. 661 et seq.}.
• Rutherford. County is a "trout county" per an agreement between the U_S. Army Corps of Engineers
{ALOE) and the Commission. As such, Commission biologists review all Nationwide Permit
applications here and make recommendations to minimize the adverse effects associated with some
• activities, including restoration work. Once a permit application is prepared for this project, a cog}~ must
be sent to me in order to solicit Commission concurrence and recommendations for the consideration by
the ACQE.
The Commission does not anticipate any major resource concerns with this project provided
• sedimen#ation from construe#ion is minimized. The stream channel dimensions, patterns; and profiles
should reflect stable, reference conditions. Overly and unnaturally sinuous stream channels should be
avoided. The use of balled or container grown trees is recommended in the outside of channel bends to
• expedite long-terns bank stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions regarding
~ these comments, please contact me at {82&) 452-2546 ext. 24.
Sincerely,
/-
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
habitat Conservation Program
ltfailing Address: Division of h~land Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1 72 1
Telephone: (9l9) 707-0220 Fax: [phone]$

~~~~~~~D
SEP 2 2 2006
ND'i'[CE DF A31 OPPflRTUt*71TY FOR AN
INF(1RMATIONALpU$LIC MEEr1NG
DAI THE PURCHASE AND UA USE DF
PROPERTY FDItTHE R)r$Tt?RATIDN or•
tSTREAA3S, N!EI'[.ANDS, BUFFERS? ',
TLntherford County
Restoration Systems LLC .proposes to purchase
and/or use a &G acre trail of land in Rukherford
County, North Carolina. The purpose of acquiring
andJar using this property is to provide mitigation
#or imparts to {stream,. wettand, buffer} that will
result from existing or future development in this
area.
Anyone desiring that an infvrntationat gublic
meeting he held for this proposed action may
make such a rnquest by registered letter to
Restoration Systems LLC at 7101 l~fiaynes Street
Suite 1D7, Raleigh, NC 27tr04. Request must be
made by August 21, 20Q6. If additionaT'tnfornrativn
is required, please contact I<ristep Poillon at
919-755-9~9t1_
AFFIQAV~T OF PUBLICATI .__________________
.ATE t)F NORTH OAROLiNA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
a Notary I'tiblic of said County and State, duty
1, and authorized. by law to administer oafhs, personally
Brittany Patterson
deposes and says: that they are
Classif ed Sales Representative
The T:cosystem Enhancement Program reserees the
right to determine it a public meeting cvil2 be held_ ;, publisher, or other officer or employee authorized. to make-this
._.~..,.~ 'E DAILY COURIER, a newspaper published, issued and entered as
second class mail Tn the town. of FOREST CITY, In said County and State; that they
are authorized to make tills affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other
legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published it1 TUE
DAILY COURIER on the following dates:
JUIy ~~~ 200b
and that said newspaper in which such notice,, parer, doctunent, or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every. such publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and ivas a qualified newspaper withal the meaning
of Section ]-5~ o t'2-General Statutes nfNorth Carolina.
des.
Representative
morn to and subscribed before me this the
3rd day of August, 200ti.
(Heather D. Rhodes, Notary Public) ~~~ ~~ p_ R t~~
My commission expires: August 2l , 21)08
~~~~~~tN,..,.,,~5'0 f~/i
,` ~``: ~,t~YARy~~~tn
~~` A~$ ~~~ ~ ~~
e~~~fJp~alCpv`~~~