20030909 Ver 1_Complete File_20030606

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
June 6, 2003 V11 GROUP
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office JUN 0 6 2003
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
€A iI , F C10
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 N AT ER Q''
Subject: Chatham County, UT Bear Creek Mitigation Site, TIP No. U-2524 WM;
ONE # WM 019-001
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has completed a mitigation planning
document for UT Bear Creek Mitigation Site. This mitigation site lies in Chatham County (Hydrologic
Unit 03030003). A copy of the mitigation has been attached to this letter.
The mitigation site is mostly going to provide part of the compensatory mitigation package for
two sections of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC), located in Guilford
County (Division 7). Most of the impacts for this project lie in HU 03030003.
The NCDOT has scheduled a meeting to discuss the mitigation planning document on June 18,
2003 (10:30 AM) in the Board Room at the Highway Building. The purpose of the meeting is to review
te mtigat ponlanning document for the site and discuss its concepts. Please be prepared to provide
comments on the planning document at this meeting or provide comments in writing by July 7, 2003.
If you have any questions about the mitigation planning document or need additional information,
please call me at [phone]. Thank you for your assistance with this project, and I look forward to
discussing the project with you on June 18, 2003.
Sincerely,
C??J
Phillip C. poidd
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Cynthia van der Wiele, NCDWQ 401-Wetlands, Raleigh
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
. I
UT BEAR CREEK MITIGATION PLAN
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
T. I. P. No U-2524WM
O.N.E. # WM 019-001
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 02-ES-01
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
</NORTH Cq?
O?
I `" V
0
OF TRANSeO
June 2003
Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................. ......1
.......................................................................
1.1 Project Description ............................................................ .......................1
.....................
1.2 Project Purpose and Objectives .............. 1
...............................................................
1.3 Project Personnel ................................ ....................................................1
......................
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................... .....................................................4
..........
2.1 Existing Watershed Conditions .....................................................................................4
2.1.1 Water Resources ...................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Existing Watershed ...............................................................................................6
2.2 Existing Project Study Area Conditions .........................................................................6
2.2.1 Plant Communities ................................................................................................ 6
2.2.3 Protected Species .........................................
2.2.3.1 Federally Protected Species ............................................................................8
2.2.3.2 Federal Species of Concern ............................................................................ 8
2.3 Cultural Resources ................................................................. ..........9
.........................
2.4 Existing Project Study Area Stream Channels .......................................................... 9
2.5 Channel Stability Evaluations .......................... ..................................................11
3.0 REFERENCE REACH ....................................................................................................12
3.1 Reference Reach Search ..................................... ...................................................12
....
3.1.1 Methodology for Developing a Reference Model for Stream Design and
Restoration ................................................................... ......................................................13
.
3.2 Reference Reach Data ................................................................................................14
3.3.1 Richland Creek .................................... ..14
..............................................................
3.3.2 UT South Fork Cane Creek .................................................................................14
3.3.3 UT Bear Creek Reference ...................................................................................15
4.0 PROPOSED CHANNEL RESTORATION ................................................... ................16
4.1 Dimension ...................................................................................................................17
4.1.1 UT Bear Creek ................................. ........17
...........................................................
4.1.2 UT2 .................................................. ....................18
................................................
4.2 Pattern .........................................................................................................................18
4.3 Profile ..........................................................................................................................18
4.4 General Channel View ........................................ ...............18
.........................................
4.5 Sediment Transport .....................................................................................................19
5.0 RIPARIAN BUFFER ...................................... .....20
.............................................................
6.0 MONITORING OF SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................. .21
.........................................
7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ........................ ... 21
................................................
8.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION CREDITS .............................................................................23
9.0 REFERENCES ............................................. ........24
...........................................................
I
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Project Location Map ................................................................................................. Page
2 Soils Map .........................................................................................................................5
A-1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... Appendix A
A-2 UT Bear Creek Riffle Cross-section ................................................................ Appendix A
A-3 UT2 Riffle Cross-section ................................................................................. Appendix A
A-4 UT Bear Creek Thalweg Survey ..................................................................... Appendix A
A-5 UT2 Thalweg Survey ....................................................................................... Appendix A
B-1 Reference Reach - Richland Creek Watershed ............................................. Appendix B
B-2 Reference Reach - UT South Fork Cane Creek Watershed .......................... Appendix B
B-3 Reference Reach - UT Bear Creek Reference Watershed ............................ Appendix B
C-1 Proposed Stream Channel Restoration .......................................................... Appendix C
C-2 Strucutres and Cross Section ......................................................................... Appendix C
C-3 Typical Plan View and Profile .......................................................................... Appendix C
C-4 Rock Cross Vane description and figure ......................................................... Appendix C
C-5 J-Hook Rock Vane description and figure ....................................................... Appendix C
LIST OF TABLES
P_ age
1 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, North Carolina ...... 8
2 Federal Species of Concern in Chatham County, North Carolina .....................................8
3 Reference Variables for Richland Creek (C4-Type) Stream Channel from Riffle Cross-
sections ...........................................................................................................................14
4 Reference Variables for UT South Fork Cane Creek (C4-Type) Stream Channel from
Riffle Cross-sections .......................................................................................................15
5 Reference Variables for UT Bear Creek Reference (C5-Type) Stream Channel from
Riffle Cross-sections .......................................................................................................15
6 Existing Mean Variables for UT Bear Creek Stream Channel from Riffle Cross-
sections ...........................................................................................................................16
7 Existing Mean Variables for UT2 Stream Channel from Riffle Cross-section .................17
8 Existing Channel Dimensions of UT Bear Creek and Comparison to NC Regional
Curves .............................................................................................................................17
9 Existing Channel Dimensions of UT2 and Comparison to NC Regional Curves .............18
10 Proposed Mitigation Credit ..............................................................................................23
B-1 Summary of Reference Reach Variables ........................................................ Appendix B
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS
APPENDIX B: REFERENCE REACHES
APPENDIX C: PROPOSED REACHES AND INFORMATION
APPENDIX D: FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
APPENDIX E: CHANNEL PHOTOGRAPHS

Ll

UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan
Chatham County, North Carolina
T.I.P No. U-2524WM, O.N.E. # WM 019-001
Consultant Project: 02-ES-01
1.1 Project Description
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recognizes in fulfilling its public
service mission of roadway and other transportation construction projects, it has an important
responsibility to protect the State's environment and to protect the State's wetland and stream
resources in a prudent manner in compliance with applicable State and Federal laws. As part of
this mission, NCDOT is developing a stream mitigation area identified as the Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Bear Creek Mitigation Site located in Chatham County, North Carolina.
The project study area associated with the UT Bear Creek Mitigation Site is located on SR
1141, north of its intersection with SR 1136 (Figure 1). The project study area is comprised of a
single property which is approximately 93 acres in areal extent. The project study area is
owned by Vicki and Lee Phillips. The project study area includes approximately 2,100 linear
feet of an unnamed tributary to Bear Creek (UT Be?ar_Creek) which is proposed for restoration.
According to the landowners, an unnamed tributary (UT2) was present historically which flowed
into UT Bear Creek, but the upper reach has been channelized and the lower reach has been
destroyed by cattle incursions. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of an area which previously
contained UT2 is proposed for restoration. Mitigation activities are expected to yield
approximately 3,850 linear feet of restored stream channel and associated riparian buffer.
1.2 Project Purpose and Objectives
The project study area has been previously reviewed for mitigation feasibility (ESI 2002). At the
time of the review, it was determined that the project study area offered the potential for up to
3,100 linear feet of stream channel restoration. The current report outlines a mitigation plan
which would allow for the restoration of the stream channels within the project study area.
' Existing conditions within the project study area are noted, as well as conditions of the
supporting watershed. Reference reach stream segments were located and reviewed.
Reference reach data were requested and received from NCDOT.

Project objectives include excluding cattle from the stream channels, increasing channel
stability, and restoring dimension, pattern and profile to UT Bear Creek and UT2.
1.3 Project Personnel
Personnel involved in this study include ESI biologists Jan Gay, Ron Spears, Steve Jones, and
Paul Petitgout as well as surveyors provided by Sungate Design Group. Mr. Gay, who
1

1-7

0

J
r

II
J

1

u

F
0
n
?7

r?

I

u
Q:\ER02026 01\Iocation2.apr
„
t
N _

f 4

t
i

\ LLL/ v
Y 11

v & v

`k?fn ? u? '? ?
v i ? ,.-
? ? r

1
n ?
? l
? ?? ? S
J
5
f

u
777
?
t i
t
\ ?
i ??
?
d
`,
C
_. _
ai
?.
[
L ? .?

%
J

C_
Dr
.

r? Q

,

Q Project Study Area Boundary
2000 0 2000
Feet
Source: USGS Digital Raster Graphics,
Bear Creek (1970) and Siler City (1969) Quadrangles
Environmental
Services, Inc.

F
!
? i t ,? 1 { ?^?\
t
f I
? V

i ?

1 1
v

n

r
,

,
// Jam/ _...... -•? ! . " . Y l
'_ !

v

\ h:

'n I

Project Location Map
UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan
Chatham County, North Carolina
Figure: 1
Project: ER02026.01
Date: June 2003
0

E
II?

J

0

managed the development of the conceptual mitigation plan, is a Senior Scientist with a MS
degree in Ecological Modeling and more than 11 years of professional experience. Mr. Spears,
who assisted with developing the conceptual stream channel design, is a Senior Scientist with a
' MS degree in Biology and more than 7 years of professional experience. Dr. Jones, who
assisted with the development of the conception stream channel design, is a Senior Scientist
with a Ph.D. in Forestry with more than 28 years of professional experience. Mr. Petitgout, who
' assisted with data collection and review, is a Senior Scientist MS degree in Forested Wetland
Ecology and Management and more than 10 years of professional experience. Each of the key
' personnel involved with this study have completed all four courses offered by Wildland
Hydrology, as taught by Mr. Dave Rosgen. Additionally, Mr. Spears and Dr. Jones have
developed and implemented stream channel designs across the Southeastern United States.

H

17

C?
3

u

L

H

I I
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
As part of this report review, the project vicinity and project study area were evaluated for
' significant features, including existing land use, existing plant community, jurisdictional wetland
areas, stream channel features, potential habitat for any federally Threatened or Endangered
species considered to have ranges extending into Chatham County, potential cultural resource
issues, and potential environmental conditions (Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment).
Material and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including a site prospectus provided by NCDOT, the applicable U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Bear Creek, NC, 1970), the Soil Survey of
Chatham County, North Carolina (USDA unpublished) (Figure 2), flood hazard boundary maps
created under the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) (FIRM 1991), and aerial
photography furnished by NCDOT (scale 1:6000).
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
' Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field conditions. Vascular plant names generally
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using
the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) as
outlined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987).
Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population
' distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Martof et al., 1980, Webster et a/., 1985, Hamel 1992, Palmer and
1 Braswell 1995, National Geographic Society 1999). Water quality information for project study
area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1994, DENR 2000,
DENR 2003). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
' The most current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing of species offered federal
protection with ranges considered to extend into Chatham County was obtained prior to initiation
' of field efforts (list date 29 January 2003). In addition, NHP records documenting the presence
of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation and
have been periodically updated (most recent review 15 May 2003).
' 2.1 Existing Watershed Conditions
2.1.1 Water Resources
The project study area is located within subbasin 03-06-12 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DENR
2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030003 (USGS 1974). The two channels identified
within the project study area have not been assigned separate Stream Index Numbers (SIN) or
Best Usage Classifications. Their receiving water, Bear Creek, has been assigned SIN 17-43-
16 (DEM 1994, DENR 2003) and a Best Usage Classification of C (DENR 2003). The
classification C indicates freshwaters that support aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,

Ll
?I

d
C?

0

11
11
u
lJ
u
u
u
u
11

L

N
n
s rpf
! y1?i?vS??
rb, l ? N
{? S Jul Y ?
eti- 7
}
' it r{ r t J - ; 1 ?`d
_ ?,. t { t r- . N ? 9t
1 11 I
I l ? 5 ? ?? I? I S
1
. y.
f i
?4
?' a ?: S ::.2 $ >;i <3 b r f t
?.
'V
:1%
i' 4 ^'f ? J1j
j,
x C?)
r
l r _.
ti
IY?(
L V
? r
r '
%
t•?Pti'rI ? 11?
c?..{'
r ?
..R
v_ S
"_
t'ka?
,l Approximate Project Study
5u } ?i r Area Boundary
?. t
t _"
I
I
0 0.25 0.50Mi
I
Soil Map Units F " Ll S C,l
T,
% ?:k. _ M f O 0.25 0.50 Km
5258 Cid-Lignum Complex, 2-6% slopes
? Source: USDA Soil Survey Field Sheet,
i Chatham County, NC, Unpublished

Figure: 2
Environmental Soils Map
Services, Inc. UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan Project: ER02026.01
Chatham County, North Carolina
Date: June 2003

r-,

H
0

II

1
J
H

wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary recreation is any activity involving
human body contact with water on an incidental or infrequent basis.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II waters
occur within 3.0 miles upstream or downstream of the project study area (DEM 1994, DENR
2003). UT Bear Creek and UT2 have not been designated as a North Carolina Natural and
Scenic River or as a national Wild and Scenic River. Bear Creek, UT Bear Creek and UT2 are
not 303d Listed Waters (DENR 2000).
A measure of water quality being used by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure
and health of the fish community. Fish sampling was not conducted within UT Bear Creek. Fish
sampling was conducted in Bear Creek in 1998, approximately 10 miles downstream of the
project study area. At that time, Bear Creek received a Bioclassification of Good (DENR 2000).
No macrobenthos sampling has been conducted within Bear Creek, UT Bear Creek or UT2
(DENR 2000).
2.1.2 Existing Watershed
The existing watersheds contributing to UT Bear Creek and UT2 are rural in nature.
The watershed contributing to UT Bear Creek is approximately 1,075 acres (1.68 square miles)
in areal extent. A cursory review of the watershed indicates the prevailing land use is pasture
and forest, with small areas of rural development. Examples of rural development include single
family homes, barns, sheds, and other structures associated with agricultural endeavors.
The watershed contributing to UT2 is approximately 100 acres (0.15 square mile) in areal
extent. A cursory review of the watershed indicates the prevailing land use is pasture and
forest, with small areas of rural development.
Impervious surfaces within both watersheds are limited to paved roads and small buildings.
' 2.2 Existing Project Study Area Conditions
' The project study area was reviewed for significant features as part of this investigation.
2.2.1 Plant Communities
' Terrestrial distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area
reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Four (4) plant communities were identified within the project study area. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local
' variations within the project study area. Approximate extent and location of each community is
shown on Figure A-1 in Appendix A. A description of each community follows.

6

fl
d

C

ri
71

Pasture Lands are those areas which are maintained for use as grazing areas for cattle. The
majority of the project study area is considered pasture land. Vegetation in these areas is
generally limited to various pasture grasses. Portions of the areas in the northern portion of the
' project study area currently used as pasture land were recently converted from oak-hickory
forest. Based on interviews with the landowners, the conversion of these areas was
precipitated by clearing of hurricane damaged areas and clearing of pine beetle damaged
areas.
' Oak-Hickory Forest is the largest natural community remaining within the project study area
and is located across the entire project study area, including the majority of the areas slated for
mitigation activity. The largest contiguous area of this community is located at the southern end
' of the project study area; smaller, disjunct areas of this community are located at the northern
end of the project study area. Overstory vegetation within this plant community includes laurel
oak (Quercus laurifolia), willow oak (Quercus phellos), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
red maple (Acer rubrum), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), with occasional shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata) and white oak (Quercus alba). Midstory and understory vegetation within this
plant community varies in density from completely absent in areas currently subjected to cattle
grazing, to moderate in areas where cattle have been excluded. Midstory vegetation includes
sapling sized material of overstory species, as well as American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and winged elm (Ulmus alata). Herbaceous vegetation includes poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), blackberry (Rubus
sp.), wild rose (Rosa sp.), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Maintained/Disturbed Land includes those areas subjected to regular maintenance. These
' areas include the residential yard and roadsides. Vegetation in these areas varies. Within the
residential yard, vegetation is maintained for ornamental reasons, with black walnut (Juglans
nigra) as the main tree species. Other tree species include eastern red cedar and laurel oak.
Vegetation in the maintained roadside is limited to various grasses and seedlings of various tree
species.
Successional Areas include those areas which have been subjected to disturbance and are
regenerating naturally. Two portions of the project study area are considered successional.
The first area is located at the northwestern corner of the project study area. Vegetation within
' this plant community includes seedlings and saplings of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), eastern red
cedar, and black willow (Salix nigra), with a dense herbaceous component including blackberry
and common ragweed. The second area is located at the southern end of the project study
' area and consists of a powerline easement. Vegetation within this area consists mainly of
herbaceous material, including various grasses, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and
' bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Seedlings of canopy species from the adjacent Oak-
Hickory forest are also present.

F

H

2.2.3 Protected Species
' 2.2.3.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Four species offered federal protection are considered by
the USFWS to have ranges which extend into Chatham County (list date 29 January 2003).
Table 1 lists these species.
' Table 1. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Status Potential Biological
' Habitat Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Ta N No Effect
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E N No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E N No Effect
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum E N No Effect
a Officially proposed for delisting
A review of the project study area and species habitat requirements indicates no potential,
suitable habitat for any of the federally listed species is present within the project study area.
' Species descriptions and Biological Conclusions are located in Appendix D. A review of NHP
records indicates no known occurrences of any federally listed species documented within 3.0
' miles of the project study area (most recent review date 15 May 2003).
2.2.3.2 Federal Species of Concern
The 29 January 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA
for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso and Finnegan 2002,
LeGrand et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for the following FSC
species listed for Chatham County.

n
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern in Chatham County, North Carolina
Common Name Species State*
Status Potential
Habitat Present
Bachman's sparrow Aimo hila aestivalis SC N
"Carolina" redhorse Moxostoma s p. 2 SR N
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T(PE) N
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni T(PE) N
Se tima's clubtaii dragonfly Gom hus se tima SR N
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis canosa T(PE) N
Virginia uillwort Isoetes vir inica SR-L N
Buttercup hacelia Phacelia covillei SR-T N
' - SG, Special Goncern, SH, Significantly Hare; -L, Range is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states; -T, rare
throughout range of species; T, Threatened; E, Endangered; P_, Proposed

8

nI
L

fl

L I

A review of NHP records indicates that no occurrences of any of these species have been
documented within 3.0 miles of the project study area (review date 15 May 2003).
2.3 Cultural Resources
Subsequent to the completion of the feasibility study in 2002, ESI conducted an intensive
archaeological survey of the Archaeological Area of Potential Effect (A-APE) for proposed
stream and wetland mitigation activities within the project study area during November and
December 2002 and February 2003 to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The A-APE was defined by NCDOT and the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) for this project as a 150-feet wide buffer on either side of 3,100 feet of
stream channel and a 50-foot wide corridor for the placement of waterline, encompassing an
area of approximately 28 acres.
' No cultural resources were recorded during this investigation, and it was recommended that the
project be allowed to proceed as planned without concern for impacts to significant cultural
resources.

2.4 Existing Project Study Area Stream Channels
Two stream channels are present within the project study area. Both channels were reviewed
for mitigation feasibility in 2002 (ESI 2002). As part of the investigation, stream channels within
the project study area were classified using the Natural Stream Channel Classification System
(Rosgen 1996). The classification effort was a Level 1 classification, consisting of a general
description of the channel type without detailed measurements.
The Natural Stream Channel Classification System uses several definitive criteria for
classification: 1) number of channels associated with a stream; 2) slope; 3) width-to-depth ratio;
4) entrenchment ratio; 5) sinuosity; and 6) bed material. This classification system uses the first
five criteria to assign one of eight channel types to a reach of a stream. Use of the Natural
Stream Channel Classification System for a Level 1 classification requires the identification of
several features in the field, including bankfull width and depth (the stage at which the
controlling channel forming flow occurs), slope, sinuosity, and valley morphology.
UT Bear Creek
UT Bear Creek traverses the project study area west to east and has a drainage area of
approximately 1,075 acres (1.68 square miles). The channel reach present within the project
study area is approximately 2,100 linear feet in length and exhibited no flow, with scattered
areas of standing water during the initial field effort. It should be noted that the field work was
conducted during a severe drought, and that interviews with the landowners indicate UT Bear
Creek has historically exhibited perennial flow. Substrate within the channel reach consisted of
silt and clay, with areas of gravel, boulders and bedrock outcrops. Nine bedrock outcrops were
noted within UT Bear Creek (Figure A-1 in Appendix A and Photographs 2, 4 and 6 in Appendix
E).
9

J

L?

A geomorphic characterization of this reach channel indicates the majority of this channel
represents a "G" type stream. "G" type streams are generally entrenched systems with gentle to
moderately steep channel gradients and are typically deeply incised channels. These stream
types have relatively low bedload transport rates and are very sensitive to disturbance and tend
to make significant adverse channel adjustments to changes in flow and sediment supply from
the watershed. A typical riffle cross-section is located in Appendix A (Figure A-2). One reach
surveyed initially appears to be an "E" type stream, with a low w/d ratio and entrenchment ratio.
However, it appears that this channel is in transition to a "G" type channel with signs of bank
I failure noted.
Within the project study area, the channel ranged from 10 to 20 feet in width, with a bankfull
mean depth of approximately 22 inches. Surveys of riffle sections indicate the channel has a
bankfull width of approximately 13.2 to 16.7 feet and bankfull depth of approximately 18 to 22
inches, with a cross-sectional area of approximately 19.5 to 29.7 square feet. The channel is
deeply entrenched, with an adjacent low bank height of approximately 3 to 4 feet. A typical
cross-section is located in Appendix A (Figure A-3). Survey of the longitudinal profile indicates
that the riffle-pool sequences are not well defined within the channel, and in some reaches the
channel exhibits a negative slope, which is indicative of a reach currently out of equilibrium.
UT2
UT2 begins near the northern boundary of the project study area. The upper reach of this
channel has been channelized while the lower reach has been completely destroyed by cattle
incursions. A survey of this drainage feature indicates pattern and profile are absent.
Dimension is absent within the lower reach due to continual cattle incursions; no discernable
1 stream channel is present (Photographs 7 and 8 in Appendix E). Surveys of the upper
channelized reach indicate the channel has a bankfull width of approximately 5.1 to 5.5 feet and
a bankfull depth of approximately 13 inches, with a cross-sectional area of approximately 5.7 to
5.9 square feet and extremely low sinuosity. The channel is entrenched, with a low bank height
of 3 to 4 feet. Surveys of the longitudinal profile that riffle-pool sequences are not well defined.
During an on-site review in 2002 for the Feasibility Study (ESI 2002), resource agencies
questioned the use of UT2 for mitigation. The landowners stated that an intermittent channel
had been present within the area historically. During the field review, the resource agencies
agreed that UT2 would be considered ecologically significant. The resource agencies further
agreed UT2 could be used for compensatory mitigation and should be included in the mitigation
' plan.
Restoration activities involving construction of a channel within the lower reach of UT2 would
require limited tree removal to allow equipment passage. The resource agencies stated they
would prefer that tree removal be kept to a minimum.
' Surveyed channel information is depicted in Appendix A as Figures A-4 and A-5.
?
10

Fl

1
?J

F-I
U

0

J

1
0

F7
L

f
I

1

2.5 Channel Stability Evaluations
To better quantify restoration potential within UT Bear Creek, ESI undertook a channel stability
assessment that included a Pfankuch Channel Stability Evaluation for the entire reach of UT
Bear Creek a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) evaluation for one reach of UT Bear Creek
(Figure A-1 in Appendix A). Assessments were not conducted within UT2. Information
collected during these assessments is included in Appendix A.
The Pfankuch Channel Stability Evaluation is a measure that roughly quantifies bank
characteristics to determine overall stability. Upper bank factors evaluated include landform
slope, mass wasting, debris jam potential, and vegetative bank protection. Lower bank factors
evaluated include channel capacity, bank rock content, obstruction to flow, bank cutting, and
deposition. Bottom factors evaluated include rock angularity, brightness, consolidation of
particles, bottom size distribution, scouring and deposition, and aquatic vegetation. UT Bear
Creek received a stability rating of Poor, indicating a high risk of erosion. Factors leading to the
Poor rating include evidence of large scale mass wasting, lack of vegetation on the banks, and
bank substrate consisting of fine particles as opposed to boulders and bedrock.
BEHI is a measure which quantifies characteristics to determine bank condition and
susceptibility to erosion. Factors evaluated include the bank height to bankfull height ratio, root
depth to bank height ratio, root density as a percentage of exposed bank, bank angle or slope in
degrees, and surface protection as a percentage of the exposed bank covered in vegetation.
UT Bear Creek received a BEHI rating of High, indicating the banks are in poor condition and
highly susceptible to erosion.
11

7L

r

3.0 REFERENCE REACH
A channel's ability to maintain a stable dimension, pattern and profile and to move sediment
without aggrading or degrading are defining factors of a stable channel. Variability in stable
channel dimension, pattern and profile over short channel reaches are to be expected due to
changes in geology and tributary influence (Rosgen 1996). To ensure that all aspects of these
potential changes are accounted for, stable reaches of channel are measured as reference.
Reference reaches are not necessarily pristine channels but are necessarily stable channels.
By measuring stable reaches of channels formed in similar valley types, with similar contributing
watersheds, a range of acceptable values defining stable channel characteristics can be
' generated. Stable channel characteristics include dimension, pattern, and profile.
Stream channel dimension is based on the ratio of width-to-depth. Channels which are too wide
or too deep cannot efficiently transport sediment, leading to bank failure or down-cutting.
Stream channel pattern is based on sinuosity. Natural channels are rarely straight over long
distances. Channel meanders contribute to energy dissipation and sediment transport.
Channels which lack a stable pattern tend to be very straight and cannot efficiently dissipate
energy or effectively transport sediment, which can lead to instability.
Stream channel profile is based on channel bed features. Natural channel bed features include
riffles, glides, runs, and pools. Placement and spacing of these features regulate channel
stability and are a function of the channels energy dissipation and sediment transport capability.
3.1 Reference Reach Search
A search was conducted within the project region to locate stream reaches which would be
suitable as reference reaches. Additionally, ESI requested reference reach data from NCDOT.
The information garnered was used to determine the stable form of the proposed channels.
' Prior to initiation of the reference reach search, available data concerning the target channels
was reviewed, including watershed size and valley type. GIS modeling was conducted to
determine the location of potential reference reach areas within the project vicinity. Additional
potential reference reaches were found and investigated. Review of the potential reference
reach areas indicated the majority of reaches were unstable and not suitable for use as
' reference. A single potential reference reach identified by the GIS model was also a reference
reach provided by NCDOT. Provided information for this reference reach was used for this
' study. Other reference reaches proposed for use were submitted to DWQ for approval prior to
use as reference. DWQ indicated the additional reference reaches under consideration would
not be useable as they were located in different hydrologic units than the project study area.

12

F

P
t

1?
L l

I
Information concerning the useable reference reaches was obtained from NCDOT. These
reference reaches were from "C" stream types and are located within the same hydro-
physiographic region to provide stable form morphological data providing a model for the
conceptual design of UT Bear Creek. Stream variables collected from an unnamed tributary
(UT) to South Fork Cane Creek and Richland Creek, which are stable C4 type streams (NCDOT
2002a), and an unnamed tributary to Bear Creek (UT Bear Creek reference), which is a stable
C5 stream (NCDOT 2002b) are summarized in Table B-1 in Appendix B.
1 3.1.1 Methodology for Developing a Reference Model for Stream Design and Restoration
The data collected from stream assessments studies are maintained in a database for quick
reference for stream design and restoration projects. The reference reach is used to develop
' natural channel design criteria based upon measured morphological relationships associated
with the bankfull stage for specific stable stream types. Specific data on stream channel
' dimension, pattern and profile are collected and presented by dimensionless ratios by stream
type. The reference reach is a portion of a river segment that represents a stable channel within
particular valley type morphology. The morphological data collected are used as a model for
disturbed or unstable reaches of similar types for the purposes of restoration, stream
enhancement, and stabilization. Bankfull discharge and dimensions from stream gage stations
for particular hydro-physiographic provinces are correlated with drainage area to develop
regional curves for extrapolation to non-gauged reaches.
' Establishment of regime equations can often be used for river restoration design by
representing data observed and collected from a range of stream types. If the restoration
stream, where the data are being used as a model, is not similar to the streams from which the
' equations were developed, resultant designs can be incompatible with natural channel
morphology. Reference reach data can be used to validate and sort appropriate regime
equations by stream type prior to implementation.
' The targeted channel dimension, pattern and profile will be determined from dimension, pattern
' and profile data collected on a reference reach.
The two reaches proposed for restoration have significantly deviated from stable conditions,
which is evidenced by several channel parameters. The following pattern, dimension, and
profile variables will be specifically addressed in the detail design:
Channel Pattern Channel Profile Channel Dimension
Sinuosity Channel Slope BKF width of pool and Riffle
' Belt Width Riffle Slope BKF depth of pool and riffle
Radius of Curvature Run Slope BKF cross-sectional area of pools and riffles
Pool Slope Point bar cross-sectional slope
' Glide Slope Size distribution of channel material (d50)
Pool to Pool Spacing

13

3.2 Reference Reach Data
Three reference reaches for "C" type streams were selected from data provided by NCDOT to
provide reference dimensions for the channels proposes for restoration within the project study
t area: Richland Creek, UT South Fork Cane Creek, and UT Bear Creek reference.
3.3 Reference Reach Findings
3.3.1 Richland Creek
' The Richland Creek reference reach is located in Moore County, North Carolina, and has a
watershed size of 1.04 square miles (665 acres) (Figure B-1). For the cross-sections sampled
on Richland Creek, the existing riffle width/depth (w/d) ratio was 17.8 (Table 3). The predicted
t w/d ratio is greater than 12 and within an acceptable range for a C4 stream type (Rosgen 1996).
According to the regional curves, the predicted mean bankfull depth (riffle) for streams with a
' 1.0 square mile watershed size is 1.5 feet in comparison to the actual riffle bankfull mean depth
of 0.9 foot for Richland Creek.
' Table 3. Reference Variables for Richland Creek (C4-type) Stream Channel from Riffle Cross-
sections.
r

H

Dimension Variables
X-Section area ft2 15.3. Hydraulic Variables
D mean (ft) 0.9 Velocity ft/sec
D max (ft) 1.5 Discharge rate, Q cfs
Width ft 16.5 Shear Stress Ibs/ft s
Shear velocity ft/sec
Hydraulic Variables Unit stream power
Ibs/ft/sec
Wet P Froude number
Hydraulic radius Friction Factor u/u*
Bank ht Threshold grain size
mm
w/d ratio 17.8 W Flood Prone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 Channel Sloe % 1% to 3%
Mannin 's "n"
Data not provided for this study.
3.3.2 UT South Fork Cane Creek
The UT South Fork Cane Creek reference reach, located in Chatham County, North Carolina,
' has a watershed size of approximately 0.41 square mile (260 acres) (Figure B-2). The channel
has been classified as a "C4" type stream. From cross-sections sampled at this reach, the
existing w/d ratio is 14.0. According to the regional curves, the predicted mean bankfull depth
' (riffle) for streams with a 0.41-square mile watershed size is 1.1 feet in comparison to the actual
riffle bankfull mean depth of 0.9 foot for UT South Fork Cane Creek.
i

14

L
Table 4. Reference Variables for UT South Fork Cane Creek (C4-type) Stream Channel from
Riffle Cross-sections.

n
0
J
7
Dimension Variables
X-Section area ft2 11.9. Hydraulic Variables
D mean (ft) 0.9 Velocity ft/sec
D max ft 1.4 Discharge rate, Q cfs
Width ft 13.1 Shear Stress lbs/ft s
Shear velocity ft/sec
Hydraulic Variables Unit stream power
Ibs/ft/sec
Wet P Froude number
Hydraulic radius Friction Factor u/u'
Bank height Threshold grain size
mm
w/d ratio 14.3 W Flood Prone Area ft 26-36
Entrenchment Ratio 2.4 Channel Sloe % 0.2%
Mannin 's "n"
' Data not provided for this study.
1 3.3.3 UT Bear Creek Reference
The UT Bear Creek reference reach is located approximately 1.8 miles downstream of the
project study area, below the confluence of another unnamed tributary to Bear Creek. This
reference reach has a watershed of approximately 6.6 square miles (4,200 acres) (Figure B-3).
This channel has been classified as a "C5" type stream. From cross-sections sampled at this
' reach, the existing w/d ratio is 12.7. According to the regional curves, the predicted mean
bankfull depth (riffle) for streams with a 6.6 square mile watershed is 2.7 feet in comparison to
the measured riffle bankfull depth of 1.8 feet.

C
L

H
Table 5. Reference Variables for UT Bear Creek Reference (C5-type) Stream Channel from
Riffle Cross-sections.
Dimension Variables
X-Section area W 41.7 Hydraulic Variables
D mean ft 1.8 Velocity ft/sec
D max ft 2.6 Discharge rate, Q cfs '
Width ft 22.8 Shear Stress Ibs/ft s
Shear velocity ft/sec
Hydraulic Variables Unit stream power
Ibs/ft/sec
Wet P Froude number
Hydraulic radius Friction Factor u/u*
Bank height Threshold grain size
mm
w/d ratio 12.7 W Flood Prone Area ft >70
Entrenchment Ratio >3.1 Channel Sloe %
Mannin 's "n" '
Data not provided for this study.
15
H

' 4.0 PROPOSED CHANNEL RESTORATION
The proposed channel for both UT Bear Creek and UT2 will have a stream classification of
C4/C5 under the Natural Stream Channel classification system. This classification is based on
' particle size analysis of materials currently present in the banks. Reaches may alternate
between gravel and sand dominance. The purpose of the proposed stream restoration is to
t restore and stabilize approximately 2,100 feet of degraded stream channel from a G6 to a
C4/C5 stream type with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile and conduct a restoration on
approximately 1,300 feet of UT2 where dimension pattern, and profile have been destroyed by
' historic channelizing and livestock incursions (ESI 2002).
The proposed restoration activities for UT Bear Creek would take place generally within the
' current channel location. The proposed restoration activities for UT2 would generally take place
around the current channel location in the upper reaches; final location of the restored channel
' for the lower reach of UT2 has not been determined. Figure C-1 in Appendix C indicates the
approximate post-restoration location of each channel.
Within UT Bear Creek, the natural channel pattern, profile, and dimension have been destroyed,
and the stable riffle/pool complex is non-existent in certain sections and poorly formed in other
sections due to livestock incursions. The channel banks are vertical and have become highly
' erosive in sections of this reach. The restoration reach has a low gradient (0.003), an extremely
low w/d ratio (8.9), few pools, and low sinuosity (mean: 1.2, range: 1.15-1.34). The low w/d ratio
' and low entrenchment ratio indicates an unstable channel dimension. The existing channel
dimensions are not within an acceptable range in comparison to the regional curves for the
stream to maintain a stable channel.
Table 6. Existing Mean Variables for UT Bear Creek Stream Channel from Riffle Cross-
,nntinnS_
C
L
I 1
0
0
Dimension Variables
2
X-Section area ft
19.5-29.7 H draulic Variables
D mean ft 1.5-1.8 Velocity ft/sec 7.9
D max ft 2.0-2.2 Discharge rate, Q cfs 153.6
Width ft 13.2-16.7 Shear Stress Ibs/ft s 0.46
Shear velocity ft/sec 0.49
Hydraulic Variables Unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec 4
Wet P ft 14.6-18.4 Froude number 1.3
Hydraulic radius 1.3-1.6 Friction Factor u/u* 16.2
Bank ht ft 3.8-4.4 Threshold rain size mm 27.9
w/d ratio 8.9-9.3 W Flood Prone Area ft 16-30
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2-2.4 Channel Sloe % 0.33
Mannin 's "n" 0.017
In UT2, features resembling stream channel were noted; however, cattle incursions have
' effectively destroyed the channel in the lower portions of this reach; the upper portions of this
reach have been channelized and retain some stream features. The landowners have indicated

16

I
11
11
11
I
0

L

n

0

that a stream channel was historically present. Inclusion of this feature as mitigation would
increase available channel by up to 1,700 linear feet. The uppermost reach of this feature is not
being considered for stream restoration, but is included in the conservation area.
Table 7. Existina Mean Variables for UT2 Stream Channel from Riffle Cross-sections.
Dimension Variables
X-Section area ft2 5.7-5.9 Hydraulic Variables
D mean (ft) 1.1 Velocity ft/sec
D max (ft) 1.3 Discharge rate, Q cfs
Width ft 5.1-5.5 Shear Stress Ibs/ft s
Shear velocity ft/sec
Hydraulic Variables Unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
Wet P ft 6.6-6.9 Froude number
Hydraulic radius 0.9 Friction Factor u/u*
Bank ht ft 3.3-3.7 Threshold rain size mm
w/d ratio 4.5-5.1 W Flood Prone Area ft
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1-1.6 Channel Sloe %
Mannin 's "n"
4.1 Dimension
4.1.1 UT Bear Creek
Typical riffle and pool cross-sections for UT Bear Creek show the target conditions for the
restoration being proposed (Table 8). For the cross-sections sampled, the existing riffle w/d
ratio ranged from 8.9 to 9.3 in comparison to the NC rural regional curve prediction of 8.39.
According to Rosgen (1996), stable form "C" type streams have a w/d ratio that is greater than
12 but can vary by +/- 2.0 units. According to the regional curves, the predicted mean bankfull
depth (riffle) is 1.77 feet in comparison to the actual riffle bankfull mean depth of 1.5 to 1.8 feet.
The predicted riffle bankfull width was 14.86 feet while the actual riffle bankfull width ranges
from 13.2 to 16.7 feet.
Tnhia Q FYictinrn channel rlimPncinn of UT Rear Creek and comparison to NC reaional curves.
Channel Dimension Variable NC Regional Curves Existing Dimensions
Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.77 1.5-1.8
Bankfull Width (ft) 14.86 13.2-16.7
Bankfull XS Area ft2 30.5 19.5-29.7
Width / Depth Ratio 8.39 8.9-9.3
Typical riffle and pool cross-sections are provided showing target conditions for the UT Bear
Creek with an appropriate w/d ratio (Appendix C). Proposed conditions are summarized in
tabular form in Appendix B (Table B-1). This slightly higher value proposed for w/d ratio (12.2)
' is necessary to provide for construction of a new channel that is immediately stable. Over time,
minor adjustments can be expected in the width and depth of the restored stream.

17
0
I
11
0
C!

n
n
C

I

0
C

u
0

0
J
J

I

7
4.1.2 UT2
Predicted dimensions for the UT2 according to the NC regional curves indicate (Table 9) an
average bankfull depth of 0.82 foot with a bankfull width of 5.26 feet. Typical riffle and pool
cross-sections are provided for UT2 showing target conditions with an appropriate w/d ratio
(Appendix C). Proposed conditions are summarized in tabular form in Appendix B (Table B-1).
This slightly higher value proposed for w/d ratio (10.8) is necessary to provide for construction of
a new channel that is immediately stable. Over time, minor adjustments can be expected in the
width and depth of the restored stream.
Table 9. Existing channel dimension of UT2 and comparison to NC regional curves.
Channel Dimension Variable NC Regional Curves Existing Dimensions
Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.82 1.1
Bankfull Width (ft) 5.26 5.1-5.5
Bankfull XS Area ftz 5.9 5.7-5.9
Width / Depth Ratio 6.41 4.5-5.1
Dimension, pattern, and profile have been destroyed in portions of the channel. No data collected from that reach.
4.2 Pattern
On UT Bear Creek, the slope proposed for the design is 1% to 3% (0.01 to 0.03 ft/ft) with a
sinuosity of 1.2. Based on reference data for C4 stream types the design radius of curvature for
the restored channel will be approximately 19 with a Rc/WBKF ratio of 1.2 to 2.0. Additional
design pattern dimensions are provided in Appendix C. Typical pattern and profile drawings are
provided in Figure C-4.
On UT2, the proposed water surface slope is < 2 % (0.01 to 0.02 ft/ft) with a sinuosity of 1.2.
Based on reference data for C4 stream types the design radius of curvature for the restored
channel will be approximately 19 with a Rc/WBKF ratio of 1.2 to 2.0. Additional design pattern
dimensions are provided in Appendix C. Typical pattern and profile drawings are provided in
Figure C-4.
4.3 Profile
Pool spacing is based on the relationship of bankfull width to average water slope (0.01 ft/ft to
0.03 ft/ft). Pool spacing is highly variable and using a reference reach as a model for the
proposed restoration is essential in the design of a stable stream. Based on reference data
provided by NCDOT on similar C4 stream types, the ratio of pool/pool spacing has a range of
2.3 to 6.2. The proposed pool-to-pool spacing for UT Bear Creek will be 28 to 55 feet (mean
41.5 feet) for the entire restoration reach. Pool to pool spacing for UT2 will range from 14 to 27
feet (mean 20.5 feet) for the entire restoration reach with a bankfull width of 9 feet.
4.4 General Channel View
The rock cross-vane and J-hook vane structures will be utilized to minimize pressure at the near
bank region. The rock cross-vane structures can be used to create stable transition into pools
or as grade control for glides, if needed. In addition, the cross-vane structures will be used to
18
1

J
n

0
L
L

7

adjust the channel slope in combination with in-channel meanders. The J-hook vane will be
used on the outer bank of meanders to direct the thalweg away from the bank toe. The J-hook
vane will also function to maintain velocities and sediment transport through the pools. Typical
' cross-vane and J-hook designs and descriptions are Figures C-4 and C-5, respectively, in
Appendix C (NCDOT 2003).
4.5 Sediment Transport
Detailed sediment transport calculations have not been made at this point in the study. These
' calculations need to carefully consider final stream grades which have not been fully determined
at this time. Drought conditions during the data collection phase of this study limited the ability
to collect reliable streambed sediment data. Sediment transport relationships will be submitted
' as an addendum to this report.

C

n

19

0

n

I I

CII
J

5.0 RIPARIAN BUFFER
The project study area was reviewed for the potential for stream buffer mitigation. Vegetated
' buffers adjacent to stream channels enhance stream function in a variety of ways. Deep rooted
tree species help stabilize channel bank slopes and help intercept nutrient inputs to the channel
' through groundwater interception. Shallow rooted herbaceous species help stabilize channel
banks and intercept nutrient inputs and sediment inputs through interception of surface water
and shallow groundwater. For purposes of this study, vegetated buffers were reviewed within a
generally 50-foot wide area adjacent to each bank of both channels; however, the buffer has
been expanded in some areas and encompasses approximately 12.1 acres.
' Vegetation adjacent to UT Bear Creek consists primarily of oak-hickory forest. Because of
cattle incursions, very little herbaceous vegetation remains adjacent to the channel. One reach
of UT Bear Creek contains no forest vegetation. This area contains various grasses, but is
devoid of any tree species. One reach of UT Bear Creek has forest vegetation directly adjacent
to the southern channel edge; however, this vegetation disappears further away from the
channel.
The area which historically contained UT2 is currently under intact forest vegetation. The reach
of UT2 which is currently channelized has forest vegetation directly adjacent to the banks, but
none further from the bank. Restoration activities will impact this vegetation.
' Removal of existing tree stems within the riparian buffer area will be minimized as to the
greatest extent practicable during construction activities. If necessary, specific tree stems
' determined to be a high value based on best professional judgment will be located using GPS
technology and slated for avoidance.
Vegetation within the proposed conservation area should be consistent with forest vegetation
currently present adjacent to parts of the channels, depending on availability. Tree species
found within the forested system present within the project study area available to NCDOT for
' planting include laurel oak, willow oak, and white oak. The landowners have requested that an
evergreen component be included in the buffer area to act as a visual barrier and wind break.
' The evergreen component currently in place is eastern red cedar. Approximately 3.2 acres of
riparian buffer would be restored adjacent to UT Bear Creek and UT2. Upon completion of a
final planting plan, the number of planted stems, species mix, and species percentages will be
calculated.
?
20

H

0
0
u

CIS

Fj

6.0 MONITORING OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
To demonstrate mitigative success, baseline conditions will be established prior to any
' mitigation activities for each of the criteria outlined below.
' Proposed success criteria for stream mitigation will be based on the stream stability. To exhibit
success, permanent cross-section stations will be established within each restored reach.
Within these areas, cross-sections will be surveyed in years 1, 3, and 5 following construction.
Permanent cross-sections will be established at an interval of approximately 1 every 20 bankfull
widths. The cross-section sites will be selected such that approximately 50% are placed in
riffles and approximately 50% are placed in pools. As proposed, a total of four (4) permanent
' cross-sections will be established within the restored UT Bear Creek, targeting two (2) riffle
cross-sections and two (2) pool cross-sections. As proposed, a total of eight (8) cross-sections
will be established within the restored UT2, targeting four (4) riffle cross-sections and four (4)
pool cross-sections.
In addition to the cross-section areas, NCDOT will establish photo-reference points. These
points will be used to document visual evidence of increased channel stability. The NCDOT will
photograph the site for five years after completion of construction.
v
n

1

0

?n X Sd "o/od"
Vegetative sampling will be undertaken on a yearly basis within the riparian buffer. A 0.05-acre
permanent plot will be established within the planted areas of the conservation easement along
each restored reach.
aA
P ? not
ae&A-fi? s.
21
3.2 O /" .

' 7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT will hold a conservation easement on the 12.1 acres until all mitigation activities are
completed and the site is determined to be successful. The conservation easement will be
signed at the completion of the design plans for the stream mitigation project. Although no plan
for dispensation of the mitigation site has been developed, the NCDOT will likely transfer the
' easement to a resource agency or land conservancy organization whose mission is consistent
with the purposes of the conservation easement. The NCDOT will notify the COE about any
potential intentions to transfer the conservation easement to a resource agency or land
conservancy organization. The conservation easement will be attached to the deed to insure
adequate management and protection of the site in perpetuity.

n

22

I

n

I

11

' 8.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION CREDITS
Mitigation credits generated will be based on the total linear footage of stream channel
restoration. Current guidelines accepted by DWQ and COE allow for a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for
stream channel restoration. With this ratio, the proposed stream restoration could offset
' approximately 3,850 linear feet of stream channel impact; actual mitigation credits potentially
available will be determined by resource agencies following final design.

Table 10. Proposed Mitigation Credit
Restoration Reach Existing Length Proposed Length Treatment Administered
linear feet linear feet
UT Bear Creek 2
100 2,150 Restore dimension, pattern and
, profile
UT2 1
200 1
700 Restore dimension, pattern and
, , profile
Potential benefits incurred from restoration of the two reaches include increases in water quality.
Restoring a stable dimension, pattern and profile to each channel will reduce sediment inputs
from bank failures and down-cutting. Restoring a riparian buffer should reduce sediment and
nutrient input from the surrounding landscape. Excluding cattle from the restored channels and
riparian buffer will allow the stability of the restored systems to continue.
C
I

23

I

r

1

1'

LJ

9.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. and J. T. Finnegan. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
' Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation; N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh. 107
PP-
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality, (DWQ). 10 May 2000. Interim, Internal DWQ Policies on Stream
' Mitigation Options and Associated Macrobethos Monitoring.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2000. Cape Fear River,
' Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. 274 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 2003. Water Quality and Stream
Classification. Downloaded on 1 August 2002, updated 20 April 2003 from
http://h2o.en r.state. nc. us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydroCapeFear. pdf
1 Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI). 2002. UT to Bear Creek Feasibility Study, Chatham
County, North Carolina. T.I.P. Number U-2524WM, O.N.E. Id # WM 019-001, Consulting
' Project Number 00-ES-20. 27 pp. plus appendices.
Flood Insurance Rate Map. 1991. Chatham County, North Carolina.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. and S.P. Hall, and J. T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of
' the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation; N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
' Resources; Raleigh. 90 pp.
1
24

1

I

LP

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison Ill. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
Pp.
National Geographic Society (NGS) 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Third
Edition. 480 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2002a. Stream Mitigation Plan
Creek, Condoret Property. Chatham County, North Carolina. September 2002.
plus appendices.
. Tick
40 pp.
' NCDOT. 2002b. Draft Stream Mitigation Plan. Bear Creek (Phillips Property). Chatham
County, North Carolina. December 2002. 13 pp. plus appendices.
NCDOT. 2003. Structure schematics for rock cross vane and rock J-hook. Downloaded from
http://www.doh.dot.state. nc.us/operations/dp_chief_eng/roadside/soil&water/word&pdf/
' on 16 May 2003.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). Database review documenting presence of
' federal or state listed species. 15 May 2003.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
I Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
' Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
' Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis
Minnesota.
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; N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources;
Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). unpublished. Soil Survey of Chatham County, North
Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service. .
25

J

I I

I

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.. 88 pp.
' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald
Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
' Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish
' and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) Recovery
Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 60 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Cape fear Shiners in North Carolina. U.S. Fish
' and Wildlife Service website, http://nc-es.fws.gov/fish/cfshiner.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 29 January 2003 Updated County Species List.
' U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
' Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.

L!

26

H

7

u
APPENDIX A
' EXISTING CONDITIONS

f
0

7

I

u

0

F
U
O
T
?
T ?1CY)
O V!
T
1 _
O
U')
O
(4) UOIIUA213
O
co
O
rl-
O
O
O
L v
E
O
O
O
M
Co
N
O
T
O
N
Q
L
rn
LL
co
c c
as
E o
«s
o U
?0
Z
N c
U 0
U
cu E
m co
?- co
U
C
0
v
(D
If
CO
U)
L
U
LL
Y
N
U
L
co
N
m
f-

j i I

i

c i
t
E
0
0
IL_

I ?I

j

i
j

I
j
O O O O Q ? co ?
T T T T T
(4) u01j0na13
Q
00
Q
r-
O
O
L
0)
Fr
O
O N
J
a>
0
>0
Co
O
N
a?

cis
o C)
Co -r
-tf
}C , O
? Z
x
? C
O
U U
aa) co
co
m
C:U
O
T

O
U
N
T
co
U)
Q
O
U
m
m
LL
N

d-
Q

1
K
O
LL
C
j l o

1
1 I ttF } t
1
t
I
O
f
{ I I O
1

j
IR C)

C ?

p p

'
? ?
0 p U
- - -- C
CES

ti N
•- p)
O p

--t C) Z
O C
i F I '- ? N C
f. (1) o

i L

E
`
E
1 )
a
co
m

j i f
o
f I -- - o

to
f
1
i 1
a {

a>

{
I
O Y
C\j
O C\j
O ?

r
O m N
r U
(11) UOIJEAaIa eAljejaa

(D
m

Z)

o Q
C)
- ?-- T -
' S - o
r
}
I
? 4 iL

I t

a ? 71
? t

I 4 O
T
I

r

I
? r _ _
L
i { ! I

r
f f
O
O
00

III I I
I 1 ,I, ""?

V
c
I
t { f ; 0 C)
1 i. U U C
°
-_r °
- C '
z
i
co
Y +a
f
1, ?v
k CO
?
. > H o

?
4
o

f I + _ - ? f
-
I
i
}
t

0
i O
N

i I
a
a>
i
i I

C)

N O O OD (D C\l C) O O O O ? o ?
_
T T T T T T
(11) u01lena19 anijejaa N

1
0
u
Z
O m
Q ~
E
Q ?
N
YW
r
J
m
Q
F
J
? i
Z c
Q
V
v
Y
Z
Q
IL
IL
z
m
O
-J
i
i
u
n
O
fJ
to
iJ
n c
c
n
f ? t
c
0
A
O
J
m
4
? ? ? ? '? W iO ? v v m m N v
m r m m e °
0
0
m m m
U
v A

°- oic ? tll

a u

t

a >

E O

o

o W

c

m C TO L m N 0 m O 3
c
o E
o m o
m o vi c o
a
E N -
° ?" T
m m °
am m
E E
m 'a
io m
>
E a
m ac 3 u
,
E " O _rn o o m c

m n _°
m m v >m m E
N m m_ m E-
E o c
° c
o n
m h
W in
E n
D w:
+ rnW o 'Sc w 3 rn ?c u
i ?E '? e m rn 1pm
o
D
j O °
E na
y C

m c o c?W
L

° a nn
O

C o °
?p o
O

J c
m o?
D CC oN

m
n
m
m m o C C V
O> V L U y 'T-
a e m m 00
m E ° m m `? S NW m a m m z o z>. E
n
uo O
m
oc m
m c cg
-m°?e io v°!
a omm o c m
of>W a
c Ta
?ro
E au
Y
a 0
`WC E
W0
°
i
C E N m
° 0 o m
t u a m c
W
9L m
o$
it o _ h°o N mm
C
V IL Co E
n
'6 Yc m m

O o W o?

L ?€

m m

m
? w
C
m? a
N C
y w
C
w
m
Q
L
°
p
C
?
N
.y
W
O W
£
m
O
N

m O
N
m
=W m tl1 c cp m
0 0 E m H o
m N co
c ?, m E °? m v W E c E n m
m = a o E c

m
ii

c

o

m

E

ac
=

3
E
o O
E O ON m a
v o
3 j
O a o cO m y m
-0v

i o
m
y

N y

W 7° c

m ? m D C w

W ?

j

t7

L m

(n

N Cm DY

G N
W j o d° mm L
W `O m 3
m N y
V C Ty
E ; c m? t ? c `a ..: oD
N _
iD
t m '-'
" 0 0 o v
m o N e c - y cm c 3 3 E m E°
?`O n O y 5 y m w w Op -p c
m m r C3
O co E mN ?w no
U C m m Cc m'°'
N
co
m O a U L ~°
c '0 N C -
' N U m y L
no

N

j m
io e w

° m Y 3 mt
0c
TD crn me
No
°-
y ?
y
16
m v

m
o
° m

? mo
-
?
p aN
o
C m
C W

c m
a
0 ?
p€ O m L
0m aL
o" t.
?
a
C O a0
m
o
C
o
?
x 2 T
N
a `
?0 --' O
H W
m 0 ly m> C, e
c 1
f 0
O t0 ? ?O N V a t0 c0 N N R aD N N

m
rn
o f C >0
O W
c
m m
m
O
n N
o N W
m .n 'c m ` O)
w O - t
3 O
0
a EO m
F E N m a c

m u 0

.
m
"
n
o
N o

n
c
W
O C m Q O N
> U p m O
N O m
N rn
_ m W C
O C T
J m

w O

m > O m

m N t
?
" D m m `O C

V O
f m
0
3 y
ma e o
W v > yc Z- H
°
m
v m
E E
m "m
o° >
3
p m m N 3
a m u O Q m m W m a

'a

E o

k' °

M
W L

7

m

C
- C
T 0 LL O ° W ?O mD =
m
E
m
W
o
Un
O

°' T
c o T U
m o m >
n
E E
a
n
N
n
°'°o
m

° `c D v w ?
m m- ,
m awc 3 o
° - 2-
m m
Q m
0
a
`c
e m
t6 o nn
?m c
m
a
°
om
L
Y a
o m oa
w
15
v ° 015
mD m
?
m
a
'
o m
E
O1
c
m m N
om m T E
a o o- E 3 E
om o o o a
o ? oa
nW o0
U) _
/
N M N f7 N N ? 7 S. .-7
?! N O m
m
N C
Y O C `
W L o
°
C
oa
5 o
c w
W o E m
d E -
8 n m D
L c
.p o o
c vl
c °
q c w m y
n 2` n n c
3 z T H + 3D m
O m m
0 z m m m

w
m
'C N _O m
m LLD
w m `C
m
> ...
W a
O

E
v
DE
S m mm
a m N
c
O
o Y

e
E
mi5
Ev vc
3 v
?
d
m
m m.
w
m
o E 3 ° .0 D° D 0 `
° w '?u 'Sr of a - o
° > c
? Q
a m o
o -o >>
2 m E o a m
m W ? Tc n3 °° €a m m v s t S m E 3
m n m cD ma m ° c o m 1D 3
C7 m v°w m? or
c m c W m E °N
m V m o
6 m B C m m N W O C7 C
n
O
C m
?p

Cm
!?
O C L_ C V

O
C G
W

a

N

a t

D

?
in
.0
+ m ,,,
o m° 3 Y o
$ o
n
c
N
o p
v
cm o w e m l
3 a ut m m W tLrn a `? o m

m O
u
m
o
m
c
o
c
0
ix (L
m
d C
m '? C O
n U N T
m U
c y
i5 m
a
m
E E > U o c y w m m
-
W
i
m °
°
c
m
v
N
rn
>
0
U 3 y
D m
m c o
C .- rn "N
O Q
L "N E
O c v

R
J
N O
? >
o U ED 0
v> co n U O
m rn
° m
.- U
? m
? v) <
Y W co
W O
a- z 3z
?m Om o
m

F
E E.
O m
t°
c
S
m o
u
ti m T - 0 C
o
11

M
r
A.
I
v
o
v
`
io +
v,
K
L
n
m w C7
w
? z° z > ui
W
T O ?
m I Q°
a t-
m c 0
E a`W m m
m w m ?
y Q O ?
T
3
C m O) 1= I Y
I E = 0
E m m
wa 3
O
? L
W m
T L J
p m T
? O m
c
O h m >
n
o c
0
m O ° ?
c Em Em
m m e m
m c
v m
L 1O am
m O m 0
a U L ?
? m n
Q O >
m
L m
V Q
3 = m
E m m m
m ? L c
a
c? ? o
0
E
O
t
m
m
Ii
C7
Field Data Form
BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Stream Name (R ed r C, re e k Date_ (_ & '-J-,) I y 2.o r 2
Xsec. No._P,4ye Crew Huves ? &q
Location/Note 53m go
Bank Height (ft) `t• 4
Bankfull Height (ft) 2-,0
Root Density (%) -/-3017o
Bank Angle (degrees) > Ce `'
Surface Protection (%) 2-6`76
CRITERIA VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX
Bank Ht/Bkf Ht 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.9 1.1-1.9 2.0-3.9 1.2-1.5 4.0-5.9 1.6-2.0 6.0-7.9 2.1-2.8 8.0-9.0 >2.8 10.0
Root Depth/ Bank Ht 1.0-0.9 1.0-1.9 0.89-0.50 2.0-3.9 0.49-0.30 4.0-5.9 0.29-1.15 6.0-7.9 0.14-.05 8.0-9.0 <0.5 10.0
Root Density (0/6) 80-100 1.0-1.9 55-79 2.0-3.9 30-54 4,0-5.9 15-19 6.0-7.9 5-14 8.0-9.0 <5.0 10.0
Bank Angle (degrees) 0-20 1.0-1.9 21-60 2.0-3.9 61-80 4.0-5.9 81-90 6.0-7.9 91-119 8.0-9.0 >119 10.0
Surface Prot. (%) 80-100 1.0-1.9 55-79 2.0-3.9 30-54 4.0-5.9 15-29 6.0-7.9 10-15 8.0-9.0 <10 10.0
TOTALS

L 5.0-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50

al
Adjuustments.

j J
BANK M
ATERIALS: BEDROCK: BANK EROSION POTENTIAL ALWAYS VERY LOW
BOULDERS: BANK EROSION POTENTIAL LOW
COBBLE: DECREASE BY ONE CATEGORY UNLESS MIXTURE OF
GRAVEL/SAND IS OVER 50%, THEN NO ADJUSTMENT
GRAVEL- ADJUST VALUES UP BY 5-10 POINTS DEPENDING ON
COMPOSITION OF SAND
SAND: ADJUST VALUES UP BY 10 POINTS
SILT/CLAY: NO ADJUSTMENT
STRATIFICATION: 5-10 POINTS (UPWARD) DEPENDING ON POSITION OF UNSTABLE
LAYERS IN RELATION TO BANKFULL STAGE
BEHI 32A J-.91,
APPENDIX B
REFERENCE REACHES

'- N 3i --- - --

,
i
"v \ '
/ r
Y L

J
1 it t

6 J
e ?a ,i

n

Watershed Area
aY, fiv
_
,t . <
1.04 Square Miles
i

?52L3
f ? _.. i `

j
589 +°{r ? , t ? a I {

I r ? T ? t
II f //r r ?t r r ??v
a ?
i f?A? r f= ' 464 _ hoc Crime! s?Br'R 6 .
440 ?..?
C, zf?
II
Sitck \t t x?f
0 0.25 0.50 Mi '`j
0 0.25 0.50 Km
Source: USGS 1:24,000, Zioin Grove
Quadrangle, 1880 r
c
c
U_
?I
Reference Reach- Figure: B-1
? I Environmental Richland Creek Watershed
3 Services, Inc. UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan Project: ER02026.01
Moore County, North Carolina
Date: June 2003
r
u
I
i - , j
S
l \ J
t:rll 50
' 1l ifi37 +--
!Z /
71 7
1\ f I N F ; p J? '--
??
r 7
'. -c ? I?? ??. r 7 y s p
11
,r
V
t
"_.
o Watershed Area ; /
0.41 Square Mile
I?
it
r ti ?t ?j
5 ? >? V v l I ?? av
?i V J - ?? r? ,-.IVO i 1 - Alff?zifie)t V J
1
Cer1f
,501'4<? 0?
,
o
0.25 0.50 Mi
i \
, 0 0.25 0.50 Km
Source: USGS 1:24,000, Crutchfield
Crossroads Quadrangle, 1974 f #? \?
N
I
N Reference Reach- Figure: B-2
Environmental UT South Fork Cane Creek Watershed
Services, Inc.
UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan Project: E1102026.01
Chatham County, North Carolina
w Date:
W June 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0
LJ

0
L

O

co

co

U
co
Q)
U
U

m
i
L
' 0

co

r

a)
Q
Cif

co

C:
C\l
LO
C10
O
r
CO
O
LO
O
M T
O
O
N
T
O
r
'
0
Ln
F-
CD
N
I

O
O
I,-
LLB
CO

r-

r
Co
C?
r
Lo
U
O
+_, F- p CA O O r
6
M ?
Co
A 0 0 0 d Ln ?

'- T
O
't
M r N
U?
t
N 00 O O V N M N ,- p U
p
O
O
U

4) Cf) 0 M
p ca
Y
a)
O
M
M
1?
r
O O
Lo
Lo N O
O
N (D
C) 0
O r0 L[)
F- r
N
O C) LO
M
I- CD
r O
C\j O
r
U
p
L
a /
/
\
W
U M
*-
N
M N 6
N r N
r N
<D r O 1
O O
O `-'
LO T 1
`' J O
r r
1
? I
N I
CO I
T- I
r
0
It
? O O U
C? 0 0
a) co m
a) U a)
c
U co
(D
O C\l
(D
O CM
cli
O r
O r I? M Ln O

L a)
CD
co
CO
r
CD
O
T
~
O
N
O
O
ID
O
Y5
T ,_ r
It
rn
m
?
N
m
M
LO
co CD N r It N A CO r CD r N M C)
O C
LO MI O
v Ln m cY O r fl f U
) C\j
O C\l C)
O y r C? N N Cf) C) C
?t O
cc:
M' O O O
O O
c
O

16 ' Y
0 r CO
C:
.) a)
a)
I-
M Nt
O N
O
U +?' U r
' r m 0? ,t CD
M ' M r N O O T
M ? U)
N CAD
LO O
CO ?t In T O

U
a) "
.
O Cy)
O T
T I
N ?. O
O
r O
O t O 1
r
N 1
CD .
N 1
V I
4
r I
N
r
U
p
U) C r r N r O O 0 c)
O C N T
% 0 O
o
a) D O
a)
cl:
M
_0 co O
C Y
co a)
"t
LO
m
M
U) co
Lo
N
M CD
co
N co
M O
C5 O
O co
O
T
Ln co
N M
rn O
't r
L6
M
LO
r-
F
a)
o o
T
T
'-0
O
T
LO
T' 1
O
M I? •
1T_ T
O
T T
O I
T ..1Y
y I?1
'` r
T 1
CD 1
O I
L? I
L?
T T
O v
U
U
!lV to O O o O m T T CA N L6 T

O
O
L
oj a)

t
3 r . 1 I 1 I 1 . 1 I I 1 . 1 . I t 1 / I 1 1 1 1
p 0 O
C
O
L
N a)
U.)
p L fs r O CO L
n CD r
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
i
I
1
1
1
I
1 M

U
??
o I LO T Y
00 T LO W
c

X M
O
W a) m
m O CO
O N
-n N U)
? co Cp N O O N r 0
1
1
1
.
1
1
I
.
t
.
1 CD
L „? T N r r ? O r O O , rt
V
U T C) 0

o a)
L

U
O
N 0)
N O
? - O
+_.
ca
a) + cu as .O ?_ _ as
N
++ M
L
CQ a)
> L
a)
++
p
L
C4
a) (D -C a) a) p ~

co
CO N
-0
-0
C
-0 0)

3 _0

a)
3 a)
?
cu -c
a-
c
E

O

O U
a)
o
?

'
?
? _
c?

3
3
?- _

0 3

U

0
0
CL
W
}
to

D
O

' a
p
1 +
O

° L
Q)
L
L

a
L
(D

E
L
??e
Y-

Y

-
a

c

()

Y

Y

Y

-0 C

a)

-C

U

O L

m

a)
(n
- -
3
-

p

C

C

p
V
C

p co
-
p?
C C C X O a = cu O O O x Co M }. Ln
CO
3: co
m CO
m co
CO
2
Lt_ c
W
?
>
(A
?
oc
m
a-
x-
2 D
20 a) a)
oC-mo
-0
cc-0
cc
0
0
U
Z
a)
0
ca
cu
Q

n
L_..I

11

7

J

L

0

n

L

i
7
1
7
I
0

APPENDIX C
PROPOSED REACHES AND INFORMATION

F

C

H

?7

C

L L L L L-• •.,'•.1•r•r. r•r•d•r•r•f•f•r,
r•r•r•r.r.r. L.L.L.L•L•L•L•L L.L.L.•
.•, .•-.L.L.L.ti ? ,r,r. r, r,r, r, r, r, r, r, ?r,
rrrrr ??? LtiLLLLLLL•
ti•L••-•?••L•L Q r. r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r.r; 'r•
Ritir L•L
~r?•r .L•L•L•L•L•L•L•
.r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•
Lr L'L-L'L'L'L'•'-L''L'
i•r•r.r•r•r•r•r•r•r•
L-L-L-L-L•L-'.•L-
rL: •.r•r•r.r•r•r•r•
L L-L-L-L-L-
r .? r r r•r•r•r•r•
L•L•L•L•L•
I L? i11 .r. r. r.r.r.
r. r.r.r.
I r•r I ' ti'L-L-L-
r•r•r•r.
r,r Ir.r.r.r.r-
rtir
1 + •2
1 r•r-
I {ti,ti{ I 'r'
p;•' r•
Lj I r -
I
1 r ? 1 ? r • ;
r 0 tir. F
I ? r 1 r• ?^
16?I -a r 1r.
r• _s
r,rtir ? ti 1 1
r r•r•r•r-
ti-L-L-L-
r•r•r•r•r•
I 'r I L-L•L-L•L•
i r r.r.r.r.r.r•
j L U L L
,r r•r•r r•r•r•
r j ti-L L L L-L-
J L;ti;?;ti;ti;ti;ti;•
i ;r'rq? 1 ,r.r•r•r•r•r•r•r•
L•L•L-L-L-L-L-
r.r_.i r_.r.r.r•
- ?•r ? r•._r• rr•rrr
r}r I ¦ i WW%. -
r?r
L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L• -
j ?1? r.r.rr.r.r.r.r.r.r.r•
I L-L L L L L-L-L-L-
?
•.? ti•ti•ti'ti•1 '¦ '¦ ti ti•ti•
r. r•r•?r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•
•ti; L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-
.r.r•r•?r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r
r- 1 {: ti
•L-?•'L'L'L''L-L-'ti•
.r¦•Lr.
.:
a¦r¦r¦r¦r¦r¦r¦r?
ti•L•L'L•L•L•L•L•L•Y
1 ? tiitii ?? • •ti•L•YL•L•L•L•L•L•L•'
????? ? •?•r•r.rr.r.r.r.r•r.r.r•
J '.•L•L-L•L•L•L•L•L•L-
j ?-r•r•r ,
L L•L•
?r•r•r ,y•,
j *..?. %•L L•
.stir{.
? j r•r•r
u
..,may
r;
ors'
f
? n
v
U
U)
01
C
3
Structures and Cross Section Figure: C-2
Environmental UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan
Services, Inc. Project: ER02026.01
s Chatham County, North Carolina
N Date: June 2003
0
N
O
2
W
/ 0 r!1
o ?
U a
0
zz
3
O a
O
Fl I3dIN 30 QVUH
z
Go??Ja ? ? A
saw ` >
O' o
0
x
ti
a
w
oo$- -d a
mot>oa ? w
w
o- ?
0
HUM 30 QVaH
3
w
> a
z
w ?? a
a a
U Q
a U
H ?
a
U
(0
Figure: C-3
I Environmental Typical Plan View and Profile
s Services, Inc. UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan Project: ER02026.01
Chatham County, North Carolina
N
N Date: June 2003
0
W
APPENDIX D
FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
I
I

Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Four (4) species offered federal protection are considered
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to have ranges which extend into Chatham
County, North Carolina. Table 1 in Section 2.2.3.1 outlines these species with their respective
federal designations as of 29 January 2003. Species descriptions, habitat requirements, and
Biological Conclusions for these species follow. Reviews at the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) were conducted on 15 May 2003.
Bald eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald
eagles are dark brown with white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish
mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from
December through May (Potter et al. 1980).
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water and forage
over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching (Hamel 1992). Preventing
disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1,500 feet outward from a nest tree
is considered critical for maintaining acceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). USFWS
recommends avoiding any disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting, within
this primary zone. Within a secondary zone extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
distance of 1 mile from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted
to the non-nesting period. USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines
where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1,500 feet of
roosting sites.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Potential nesting habitat for this species, consisting
of large trees in a conspicuous location near open water, is not present within or near
the project study area. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species
within 3.0 miles of the project study area. Mitigation activities will not affect this species.
Cape Fear Shiner - This minnow is a small (to 2 inches), moderately stocky fish. The Cape
Fear shiner is pale silvery yellow with a black band along the sides and is distinguished from
related shiners by having a double-looped alimentary tract visible through the gut wall (USFWS
1988). Habitat of the Cape Fear shiner is generally considered to consist of slow pools, riffles,
and runs over gravel, cobble, and boulders (USFWS 1988). Little is known about the Cape
Fear shiner's life history. This species is endemic to the Cape Fear River Basin and present
distribution includes portions of Randolph, Chatham, Lee, Moore, and Harnett Counties
(USFWS 2002). Approximately 0.5 river mile of Bear Creek, from the Chatham County Road
2156 Bridge downstream to the Rocky River, has been designated as Critical Habitat for this
species.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Potentially suitable habitat for this species,
consisting of slow pools, riffles, and runs of gravel, cobble, and boulders, does not exist
within the project study area. The segments of UT Bear Creek located within the project

1I

I

' study area consist of intermittently filled pools and riffles primarily over clay
limited amounts of gravel substrate. NHP records do not document any occurrences of
' this species within 3.0 miles of the project study area. Mitigation activities will not affect
this species. The project study area does not contain designated Critical Habitat and
mitigation activities will not adversely affect designated Critical Habitat in Bear Creek.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have red
markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter
et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated
by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (Pinus paiustris), slash (Pinus eiiioth), and pond (Pinus
serotina) pines (Henry 1989). Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in
clusters, which are referred to as colonies (USFWS 1985). Foraging habitat is comprised of
open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Pine flatwoods or pine-
dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as ideal
nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in
abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity
entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy
detection of active nest trees (Henry 1989).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for
this species, consisting of large pines with open boles, does not exist within the project
study area. NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species within 3.0
miles of the project study area. Mitigation activities will not affect this species.
Harperella - This annual herb grows to a height of 6 to 36 inches and typically occurs in two
habitat types (USFWS 1990). The first habitat type is on rocky or gravel shoals and margins of
clear, swift flowing stream sections. Specifically, harperella in this habitat type typically grows
on rocky shoals, in crevices in exposed bedrock, and may also be found along sheltered muddy
banks (USFWS 1990). Harperella in this habitat type is restricted by water depths and is not
found in deep waters or in the shallowest or driest areas of the streams (USFWS 1990). The
second habitat type consists of the edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the Coastal Plain.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Potentially suitable habitat for this species,
consisting of clear, swift flowing stream channels, is not present within the project study
area. The sections of UT Bear Creek within the project study area consist of a slow
flowing (at best) stream channel over clay and sand substrate with occasional boulder
and bedrock substrate seen, precluding the first habitat type. The project study area is
located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina, precluding the second habitat type.
NHP records do not document any known occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles of
the project study area. Mitigation activities will not affect this species.
I
I
I

APPENDIX E
CHANNELPHOTOGRAPHS
I
I
I
I
I
2

i t
t

'
I 'ILI
-1
UT Bear Creek Bank Failures Figure E-1
Proposed Machinery Crossing Location
UT Bear Creek
4

UT2
5
Figure E-2

6
Rock Outcrop and Cattle Incursions

Figure E-3
:Y
?y

1 UT2 Restoration Area Figure E_4

BEAR CREEK
NANNIE PHILLIPS PROPERTY
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
REGULATORY MEETING FACT SHEET
Existing Conditions
Stream
The project site is divided into two main stream reaches. Bear Creek is the
primary stream under study, with the second study reach being an unnamed
tributary to Bear Creek. Currently, Bear Creek (Reaches A and B) has eroded
banks, several areas of stream with unnatural dimension, little to thin riparian
buffer and the upper section Bear Creek (Reach A) has poor planform (pattern).
The unnamed tributary (Reaches C and D) has an unnatural dimension along the
entire length, no riparian buffer and poor planform (pattern).
Vegetation
Both main project reaches are located in open field locations, with Bear Creek
having a thin riparian buffer zone composed of small shrub and tree species.
Historical land uses for this area have been mostly pasture for livestock with some
limited agricultural uses. Livestock have had direct access to the stream for many
years.
Restoration Goals
The primary goals for performing a stream restoration project at this location are as