Patton Branch

Re: Patton Branch -- preview of discussion on June 18, 2003
Subject: Re: Patton Branch -- preview of discussion on June 18, 2003
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:05:25 -0400
From: Phillip Todd <ptodd @dot. state.nc.us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: John Hendrix <[e-mail]>,
Cynthia van der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Marla Chambers <chambersmj @vnet.net>,
Marella Buncick <[e-mail]>,
Becky Fox <[e-mail]>, Byron Moore <bgmoore @dot. state.nc.us>,
Jason Elliott <jelliott @dot. state.nc.us>, Ron Johnson <[e-mail],
Jan Patterson <[e-mail]>
The meeting is at 9 AM per the concurrence schedule distributed.
Sorry for the mix up.
Also, if you have a figure from the feasibility showing the stream
concept, please bring that with you.
Phillip Todd wrote:
> Below is a summary of what NCDOT wants to discuss next Wednesday,
> June 18, 2003 at 9:30 AM, about the Patton Branch Mitigation
> Site. Please bring the mitigation plan for the tract with you to
> assist in the discussion.
> On May 6, 2003 Phillip Todd (NCDOT), Ron Johnson (Earth Tech) and
> Jan
> Patterson (Earth Tech) met with Sam and Carolyn Greenwood
> (landowners) to
> discuss the proposed stream restoration on Patton Branch. The
> Greenwood's
> had several concerns regarding the proposed stream mitigation as
> described
> in the Mitigation Plan (November 2002).
> They were disappointed that NCDOT would not be able to perform a
> "full" restoration of Reach 1 as initially outlined in the
> Mitigation Plan. We tried to explain to them the reasons why
> this work would not occur. The Greenswoods had several other
> general concerns and we were able to resolve these concerns.
> However, the following issue remains unresolved.
> Although this land has been in the Greenwood family for over 100
> years, the
> Greenwood's do not want to rule out the possibility that it may
> be developed
> into several home sites in the future. To this end, the
> Greenwood's would
> like to have two small wildlife ponds constructed on their
> property
> associated with the mitigation effort. One shallow pond would be
> located in
> the wetland seep area north of the road (SR 1148, Patton Road)
> and east of the stream. The second would be in the area where
> there are a number of seeps, just south road along the east
> bank. They believe that these small ponds would enhance the
> value of the property.
1 of 2 6/13/03 4:45 PIv
Re: Patton Branch -- preview of discussion on June 18, 2003
> NCDOT could not address this request at that meeting and informed
> the Greenwood's that input from the agencies would be needed to
> make a
> determination if this was possible or not. Therefore, this is
> the issue
> that needs to be discussed and resolved for this project to move
> forward.
2 of 2 6/13/03 4:45 PM
L?dM S<?o?
9 .?wM
y
?? auw.?or
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTN MNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Attention: Mr. John Hendrix
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
November 26, 2002
Subject: Macon County, Patton Branch Mitigation Site, TIP No. A-9 WM
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
LYNDO TIPPETT
II "') -- RETARY
NOV
2s?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has completed a mitigation planning
document for Patton Branch Mitigation Site. This mitigation site involves Patton Branch in Macon County
(Hydrologic Unit 06010202). We visited the mitigation site during the Spring 2002. ( rXT • ?-ooi )
The NCDOT has scheduled a meeting to discuss the mitigation planning document on December
2, 2002 (1 PM). The purpose of the meeting is to review the mitigation planning 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 January 3, 2003.
If you have any questions about the mitigation planning document or need additional information,
please me at [phone], Extension 314. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
Phillip C. odd
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele, NCDWQ 401-Wetlands, Raleigh
Ms. Marla Chambers, NC WRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Becky Fox, EPA
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
40
C?

• w
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
Patton Branch
Macon County, North Carolina
State Project No. 6.939004T
TIP No. A-9WM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 2002

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation identified Patton Branch as a potential
stream and wetland mitigation site. The site is located in a rural area near Franklin, North
Carolina in Macon County. The site is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sam K. Greenwood and
is located on approximately 57 acres of land. According to Mr. Greenwood, the stream is
named Patton Branch, however most of the existing mapping for the site indicates that
the stream name is Blai r ch. The stream will be referred to in this document as
Patton Branch.
Field surveys of the existing site conditions were performed on two separate occasions:
October 9-10, 2001 and August 5-6, 2002. A family member of Mr. Greenwood's
straightened the existing channel in the past and other portions have allegedly been
' altered by NCDOT during the construction of Blaine Branch Road. The existing channel
is straight with insignificant sinuosity and portions are devoid of woody vegetation due to
past cattle production. Analysis of the data indicated that Patton Branch is a candidate
1 for a Priority 1 restoration. The channel will be meandered through the existing valley,
ensuring that the top of bank corresponds to the existing floodplain.
The proposed plan will restore Patton Branch with a sinuous ] - e channel. The
proposed channel will have a width-to-depth ratio on the cusp of a C-type channel. The
channel width will be 17.5 feet in riffles and 18.0 feet in pools with a 30-foot buffer on
' either side for a total buffer width of 118 feet. The easement will contain the stream and
the riparian buffer for a total of 6.5 acres. The estimated length of stream mitigation is
3061 feet with 265 feet of stream preservation. The entire mitigation will qualify for 1:1
mitigation credit while the preservation will qualify for a 7:1 ratio. The total mitigation
credits are estimated at 3099.

-ii
November 2002

C!
11
f',

t

fl
fl

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... ..1
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................... ..4
2.0 STREAM SURVEY METHODOLOGY .............................................................. .. 6
2.1 INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................... .. 6
2.2 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... .. 6
2.3 DATA EVALUATION ..................................................................................... ..7
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................... .. 9
3.1 WATERSHED .................................................................................................. .. 9
3.1.1 General Description of the Watershed ...................................................... ..9
3.1.2 Surface Waters Classification ................................................................... .. 9
3.1.3 Soils of the Watershed ............................................................................... 10
3.1.4 Land Use of the Watershed ....................................................................... 10
3.2 MITIGATION SITE ......................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Site Description ......................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Existing Stream Characteristics ................................................................ 15
3.2.3 Soils of the Mitigation Site ........................................................................ 16
3.2.4 Terrestrial Plant Communities .................................................................. 17
3.2.4.1 Pastureland ........................................................................................... 17
3.2.4.2 Emergent Wetland ................................................................................ 17
3.2.4.3 White Pine Forest ................................................................................. 18
3.2.4.4 Hardwood Forest .................................................................................. 18
3.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................... 18
3.2.6 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..................................... 24
4.0 RACCOON CREEK REFERENCE REACH ....................................................... 26
5.0 STREAM MITIGATION DESIGN ...................................................................... 29
5.1 COMPONENTS ................................................................................................ 29
5.1.1 Dimension ................................................................................................. 29
5.1.2 Pattern ........................................................................................................ 33
5.1.3 Bedform ..................................................................................................... 33
5.1.4 Structures ................................................................................................... 33
5.1.5 Fencing, Crossings, and Watering Systems .............................................. 33
5.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT .............................................................................. 34
5.3 FLOODING ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 35
5.4 HABITAT MITIGATION ................................................................................ 36
5.4.1 Streambank Vegetation ............................................................................. 36
5.4.2 Riparian Buffer .......................................................................................... 37
6.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ...................................................... 37
7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ....................................................................... 38
8.0 STREAM MITIGATION CREDIT ...................................................................... 39
9.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 41
iii
November 2002

TABLES
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon Countv. NC
' Table 1
Table 2 Morphological Characterization of Cross-Sections ............................................
Species Under Federal Protection in Macon County .......................................... 16
19
Table 3 Federal Species of Concern in Macon County .................................................... 25
Table 4 Morphological Characteristics: Existing, Proposed, and Reference Reaches.... 28
Table 5 Mitigation Credits ............................................................................................... 39

FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location Map ........................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Watershed Map ....................................................................................................3
Figure 3 North Carolina Rural Mountain Regional Curve ............................................... .. 8

' Figure 4
Figure 5 Soils Map ...........................................................................................................
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 11
13
Figure 6 Raccoon Creek Reference Reach Watershed Map ............................................ 27

' Figure 7
Figure 8 Proposed Stream Restoration Plan .....................................................................
Proposed Cross-Section ..................................................................................... 30
32

t

APPENDICES
Appendix A Existing Conditions Data
Appendix B Photo Log
Appendix C DWQ Stream Habitat Evaluation Form
November 2002
1V
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC

1.0 INTRODUCTION
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) identified a reach of Patton
Branch in Macon County as a stream mitigation site. Mr. and Mrs. Sam K. Greenwood
own the land and reside on the property located near Franklin, North Carolina. A
feasibility study, completed in April 2002, concluded that the site had about 2,880 linear
feet of mitigable stream.
' Mitigation requires determining the extent a stream has departed from its natural stability
and then establishing the stable form of the stream under the current hydrologic
conditions within the drainage area. This mitigation is based on analysis of current
I watershed hydrologic conditions, evaluation of the project site, and assessments of stable
reference reaches. The following recommendations are included in this mitigation plan:
• Form a stable channel with the proper dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Maximize the floodplain width of the channel.
• Place natural material structures in the stream to improve stability and enhance
aquatic habitat.
• Stabilize stream banks with herbaceous and woody vegetation.
• Create or enhance a minimum of a 60-foot riparian buffer zone to provide aesthetic
value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability.
• Fence the easement along Reach 2 while providing a cattle/equipment crossing and a
watering system.
• Provide a stable tie-in with Cartoogechaye Creek.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Patton Branch is located off of Patton Road in Franklin, North Carolina on property
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sam K. Greenwood (Figure 1). The existing stream reach on the
stream contains 2,880 linear feet (Figure 2).
Mr. Greenwood cited that the main channel is called Patton Branch and not Blaine
Branch. This is supported by the descriptions that are recorded in the deed for the land.
However, the USGS quadranales and the Macon County Soil Survey both list_ the main
channel as Blaine Branch. For the purposes of this report, the main channel will be
referenced as Patton Branch.
According to Mr. Greenwood, when NCDOT constructed Blaine Road (SR 1143) in the
1970's, the stream networks were modified to the existing conditions. An unnamed
tributary (UT), called Patton Springs Branch by Mr. Greenwood, used to flow for several
' hundred feet on Mr. Greenwood's property before joining Patton Branch. NCDOT piped
the UT under Blaine Road and tied it into Patton Branch with less than 100 feet of active
channel remaining on Mr. Greenwood's property.

1
November 2002

Protected `
Water Supply
Watershed
WS-III
/Cartoogechayi
Supply
WS-III
00

patt n)Rd.
U
'\1%$
wKe
1
/Z,.*-
;9r
MACON
r_ CLAY
PROJECT
SITE

nklin

I -N
F
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
rrd7PPNN
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 Miles
cr)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PROJECT,
SITE Cree,, r ?a<
%
Watershed Area
1.5 sq mi
( 1148 y
X t
?too
v ?
/ "tea r ? t`, 4 ??- f o ? :' ?Gr r-- ?^ - ??.- ? ? •° '
jP°?'
%
77
} 7
1! l t .
ri r 1r y , -- - ',
?r , 33
SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle: Franklin, NC, 1946, Photorevised 1978.
Maptech® USGS Topographic SeriesTM, ©Maptech0, Inc. 978-933-3000, www.maptech.com/topo
Copyright 2001 Maptech
MACON
CLAY

Jar/H
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
9?T 1R1.
FIGURE 2
WATERSHED MAP
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' There are two reaches of Patton Branch discussed within this report: Reach 1 and Reach
2. The upstream reach, Reach 1, begins near the northeastern property corner with Ms.
' Gladys H. Wright and ends at the Patton Road culvert. Reach 2 begins at the downstream
end of the culvert and terminates at the confluence with Cartoogechaye Creek (Figure 2).
Reach 1 lies south of Patton Road while Reach 2 is on the northern side of Patton Road.
The main factors in the degradation of Reach 1 are the past alterations by NCDOT and
beaver activity. During field evaluations, the relic channel of the UT was located running
' adjacent to Patton Branch. A spoil pile from past channelization of these stream channels
separates the relic UT from Patton Branch.
' The main factors in the degradation and impairment of Reach 2 are the past straightening
of the channel, cattle access, and the absence of a woody riparian buffer. In alluvial soils,
such as the ones found on-site, deep rooting vegetation is the key to streambank stability.
The instability of the streambanks caused by the lack of trees and shrubs in the form of a
riparian buffer has been compounded by unrestricted cattle access to the stream up until
about a year and a half ago. In places, the streambanks are mass wasting into the stream
' and some of this mass wasting exists in the channel as mid channel bars. The flow of
water is diverting around the bars on either side, causing further instability of the
streambanks. This increased sediment supply has further induced disturbance to the
channel bedform features and impaired in-stream habitat.
According to Mr. Greenwood, his uncle straightened Reach 2 of Patton Branch in the
' 1980's. Streams of this type in a well-developed floodplain typically have a more
sinuous pattern than the existing channel. Channelization, or straightening, alters the
natural pattern of a stream and impacts the channel bedform relationships as well. Mr.
' and Mrs. Greenwood would like to see the channel returned to a more sinuous
configuration.
1 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This project has the following goals and objectives:
Reconnect Patton Branch to its floodplain through the restoration of 2,880 linear
feet of stream.
2. Provide a stable stream channel for Patton Branch that neither aggrades nor
degrades while maintaining its dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to
transport its watershed's water and sediment load.
3. Provide a minimum of a 60-foot easement along Patton Branch.
4. Fence the buffer in Reach 2 of Patton Branch to exclude livestock while allowing
for cattle and equipment crossings and a livestock watering system.
November 2002
4

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' 5. Improve water quality and reduce erosion by stabilizing the streambanks by
restricting cattle and improving riparian vegetation.
' 6. Improve aquatic habitat of Patton Branch with the use of natural material
stabilization structures such as root wads, rock cross-vanes, woody debris, and a
' riparian buffer.
7. Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through the creation or
' enhancement of a riparian zone that connects to the existing buffer along
Cartoogechaye Creek.
8. Improve water quality to Cartoogechaye Creek, which is listed with the Natural
Heritage Program as aquatic habitat due to the presence of a variety of state listed
species. These include Little Tennessee River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae),
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis),
and the olive darter (Percina squamata).
9. Protect Cartoogechaye Creek receiving waters for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout. Cartoogechaye Creek is classified as Trout Waters (Tr)
by NCDWQ.

u

5
November 2002
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' 2.0 STREAM SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The US Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245, Stream Channel Reference
Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (Harrelson et al., 1994) was used as a
guide when taking field measurements. Accurate field measurements are critical to
' determine the present condition of the existing channel, conditions of the floodplain, and
watershed drainage patterns. NCDOT obtained the topographic survey of the mitigation
site on October 31, 2002. This mapping is used to evaluate present conditions, new
I channel alignment and grading volumes. This mapping includes the locations of property
lines, fence lines, large trees, vegetation lines, culverts, and roads.

0
u

A walkover of the property was conducted to better evaluate the drainage properties of
the area surrounding the mitigation site. A windshield survey was also conducted to
determine the existing conditions within the watershed. During the site visits, nine (9)
cross-sections were taken using standard differential leveling techniques. These cross-
sections were used to gather detail on the present dimension and condition of the channel.
Cross-sectional area was calculated using the bankfull features.
2.1 INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION
The first step in preparing this study was to characterize the watershed and the project
site using available data. Existing sources of information included the following:
• NCDOT GIS data
• Franklin, NC USGS quadrangle
• Macon County Soil Survey
• Macon County GIS tax maps and aerial photographs
• NC Heritage Program data
• NCDWQ's 303d List
The data collected from these sources were used to produce location maps, discern
property lines, characterize the soils, and to provide some initial information on the
topography and vegetation of the site. In addition, respective database searches were
conducted to determine if rare species and habitat were located on-site and the stream's
use support rating.
2.2 FIELD SURVEY
A field survey of the existing stream channel and surrounding floodplain was initially
conducted on October 9-10, 2001 to determine the potential for stream and wetland
mitigation. A follow-up field survey was performed on August 5-6, 2002 to collect
additional data on the dimension and profile of Patton Branch. The field data is
contained in Appendix A. The stream measurements are critical to the classification and
assessment of the existing stream type and provide data to classify the stream using the
Rosgen classification method, Levels I and II (Rosgen 1996).
6
November 2002
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' Nine (9) cross-sections of the existing channel were established, four in Reach 1 and five
in Reach 2. Consistent bankfull indicators were scarce in the portion of channel
downstream of Patton Road (Reach 2), most likely because of past cattle impacts to the
stream channel. Two sediment transport (surface and subsurface) samples were taken in
representative riffles in Reach 1 and Reach 2. To complement these samples, additional
' pebble counts were taken in the wetted perimeter of two riffles that were used for
sediment transport measurements. In addition, two separate pebble counts were
conducted longitudinally along Reach 1 and Reach 2 for stream classification purposes.
' Meander length, belt width, and radius of curvature were measured in areas with
sinuosity. An estimation of the bank erosion potential (BEP) was conducted at the five
riffle cross-sections using the Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI) developed by
Rosgen (1996). A DWQ Stream Habitat Evaluation Form was completed for a combined
Reach 1 and Reach 2 evaluation.
While conducting the field survey, visual observations were made regarding the stream
condition, wetland areas, and other unique features of the stream and surrounding
floodplain. The locations of many of these site features were mapped using GPS survey
techniques.
2.3 DATA EVALUATION
Stream classification data was analyzed using methods recommended by Dave Rosgen
' (1996). Data obtained from field surveys described in Section 2.2 were used to compute
the morphological characteristics. Appendix A contains the data for the cross sections,
pebble counts, profile data, and the pattern measurements for the existing channel. Also
' included are the BEHI calculations for the cross-sections on the project site. A Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet was used to analyze the data presented in the Appendices.

1
PI

The cross-sectional areas for Patton Branch, Reach 1 and Reach 2, were plotted on the
NC Rural Mountain Regional Curve developed by the North Carolina State University
(NCSU) Water Quality Group (Figure 3). Regional curves establish acceptable limits of
morphological characteristics based on the particular hydrophysiographic region and
drainage area. This comparison is conducted to ensure that the physical indicators
observed in the field correspond to an acceptable bankfull stage.
7
November 2002
' a
E
M
LL
Q
L
SP
T
'IT

L

North Carolina Rural Mountain Regional Curve
loon

¦

100 ¦

a
w

a?
• • y=21.49x0.68
?
'
R2=0.88
10

1 10 loo 1000
Drainage Area (ini 2)
¦ Mountain Regional Curve ? Patton-Reach l ? Patton-Reach 2 ? Raccoon Reference Power (Mountain Regional Curve)
M North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
,,ppProject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
T
?F?
lOF 1 t
FIGURE 3
NORTH CAROLINA RURAL MOUNTAIN
REGIONAL CURVE
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina

' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
0

C

r
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 WATERSHED
3.1.1 General Description of the Watershed
Patton Branch, a tributary to Cartoogechaye Creek, is located within the Mountain
Physiographic Province of the Little Tennessee River Basin (HUC 06010202). The
headwaters to this first order stream originate on Patton Mountain about 2.2 miles south-
southwest of the project area.
The watershed of Patton Branch is approximately 960 acres, or 1.5 square miles, to the
end of the project site (Figure 2). The overall watershed gradient is 9.8 percent.
Topography of the area is characterized as hilly with flat floodplains adjacent to Patton
Branch. The headwaters and boundaries of the watershed are forested with few a small,
cleared areas. However, the majority of the floodplain of Patton Branch is cleared.
According to the Macon County Flood Hazard Boundary Map (370150 0006 A, June 30,
1978), approximately the lower 700 to 800 feet of Patton Branch is classified as Zone A.
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has registered Zone A as
an area within the 100-year floodplain with no base flood elevations determined.
3.1.2 Surface Waters Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Patton Branch
(NCDWQ Stream Index Number 2-19-(10.5)) is classified as a Class C water body
(NCDENR, 22 October 2002). Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agricultural and other
uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed
development or types of discharges.
Cartoogechaye Creek is classified as Class B Tr. Class B waters are used for primary
recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities include
swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact
with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis.
There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges. The Trout
Waters (Tr) supplemental classification is intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout.
9
November 2002
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' 3.1.3 Soils of the Watershed
' The majority of the soils in the Patton.Branch watershed are the Evard-Cowee complex,
Saunook gravelly loam, and Trimont gravelly loam (Figure 4). The characteristics of
these soils are as follows:
• Evard-Cowee Complex (EvC, EvD, EvE - 15 to 90 percent slopes) consists of
very deep, well-drained Evard soils and moderately deep, well drained Cowee
' soils. This unit occurs on side slopes and ridgetops in the low mountains. The
two soils occur as areas too intricately mixed and too small to be mapped
separately.
' • Saunook gravelly loam (ScC and SbD - 15 to 50 percent slopes) consists of
moderately steep, very deep, well-drained Saunook and similar soils in coves and
on toe slopes in the low mountains. Scattered stones and boulders are on the
surface. Areas in the coves are bowl-shaped in the lower part and extend as
narrow bands along drainage ways.
• Trimont gravelly loam (TrE and TrF - 30 to 95 percent slopes) is a steep, very
' deep, well-drained soil on mountainsides in the low mountains. The unit is on
north- to northeast-facing head slopes and on slopes shaded by higher mountains.
Scattered stones and boulders are on the surface. Slopes range from 30 to 95
percent.
' 3.1.4 Land Use of the Watershed
The upper headwater areas of the stream remain almost entirely forested. Below that, the
' stream runs through pastureland. All parcels of land in the watershed support agriculture
and/or single-family housing. It is unclear at this time if any future development is
planned within the watershed. Macon County does not currently have zoning rules and
regulations in place, so the future development potential for this watershed is unclear.
According to Sharon Taylor of The Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, there is a 202-
acre tract of land for sale in the headwaters of Patton Branch. According to Macon
County tax records, Lee Weissenborn, H.R. Nateman, et. al from Miami Florida owns the
land. Future development potential for this site is unknown since the county does not
' have zoning. Ms. Taylor is working to find a conservation buyer for this land to limit the
disturbance to the watershed.

C!,
10
November 2002

a
a
N
3
0
v
m
rl-
,It
Y
Eve.
eta' :. . >
i?C V

Soils
PROJECT
SITE
EvD „}S
''EvD fit.
b ?
t V4
ArA Arkaqua loam, 0-2% slopes, freq. flooded
BkC2 Braddock clay loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded
DrB Dillard loam, 1-5% slopes, rarely flooded
DsB Dillsboro loam, 2-8% slopes
EvC, EvD, EvE Evard-Cowee complex, 8-50% slopes
HaC2, HaD2 Hayesville clay loam, 8-30% slopes, eroded
NkA Nikwasi fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, freq. flooded
ReA Reddies fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, freq. flooded
RsA Rosman fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, freq. flooded
SbD Saunook gravelly loam, 15-30% slopes, stony
ScC Saunook loam, 8-15% slopes
ToA Toxaway loam, 0-2% slopes freq. flooded
TrE, TrF Trimont gravelly loam, 30-95% slopes, stony
TWB Tuckasegee-Whiteside complex, 2-8% slopes
SOURCE: Soil Survey of Macon County,
North Carolina, 1990; Sheets 45, 46, 53 & 54.
D
.? g North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
tM R
FIGURE 4
SOILS MAP
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina
1,250 625 0 1,250 2,500 Feet

7
1
L

n

0
E

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
3.2 MITIGATION SITE
The following sections provide a description of existing site conditions. This includes the
current stream conditions, soils, and surrounding plant communities.
3.2.1 Site Description
The site is located in the central portion of Macon County just south of US 64 and west of
US 441 in Franklin, North Carolina. Mr. Sam K. Greenwood owns four tracts of land on
57 acres containing about 2,880 linear feet of Patton Branch. Figure 5 depicts the
existing conditions of the site. In general, the site has a wide, flat floodplain. In Reach 1,
the floodplain varies up to 200 feet wide and in excess of 500 feet in Reach 2.
Upstream of Patton Road in Reach 1, Mr. Greenwood has allowed natural succession to
occur in the majority of the floodplain. The Greenwoods' garden plot lies less than 50
feet from the left bank of the existing stream in this area. Patton Branch is straight in this
reach. In places, spoil piles adjacent to the streambanks illustrate that the stream was
probably straightened or dredged in the past. Signs of past beaver activity are prevalent
in this reach in the form of log debris jams and scars at the base of trees.
In Reach 2, the land adjacent to the stream is in pasture and is managed for hay
production. Up until about a year and a half ago, Mr. Greenwood leased the pasture to a
local farmer for cattle production. The cattle had unrestricted access to the stream as the
only watering source. The cattle have trampled the streambanks and have caused erosion
due to hoof shear and compaction. The channel has numerous mid-channel bars where
sections of the streambanks have fallen into the stream. The streambanks primarily
contain non-woody vegetation. Thus, severe erosion has occurred.
' From field inspections, it appears that the portion of Patton Branch immediately upstream
of its confluence with Cartoogechaye Creek has become incised due to changes in the
streambed elevation of Cartoogechaye Creek. This section of Reach 2 contains sinuosity;
' however, many of the streambanks have very little vegetation due to erosion. The
majority of this portion of Reach 2 has widened to form a floodplain at a lower elevation.
This widening is partially due to cattle impacts since this section has trees that provided
shading for the cattle.

7
L

According to the Macon County Flood Hazard Boundary Map (370150 0006 A, June 30,
1978) approximately the lower 800 feet of the project area are designated as Zone A.
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has registered Zone A as
an area within the 100-year floodplain with no base flood elevations determined.
November 2002
12
u

u

0

n

u
fl
1

\ C

A ?m
1 ' \ yy I.f?
SFD (?arwe
o /
o .?
W ? ? ra
\ + ? APO
ts
AL

z:
i,? 3a'W 87.99' 05
=? `` 3382_ 3L r_56' , 0?4.' ? ? I ? ? \ \ \
LEGENE
EXISTING WEr AREA-
J \\
HARDWOODS
WH(fE PINE
\ \ .;a
11 \\\////. \???----?-??\\\\\\\\\\\\? ,111'1 HI?I?f/ II 1 I ® WETLAND AREA

b!G \ , -
-HARDM
?h
X1571N
cAR or ? _ -Z ?
61.6
/ SEi'47']0'IY ?974'py56'W

J ? 1
k ;
k
4 s\??-? PASTURE,)
0
a f OITC \ I
>(L
-? \
PASruRE
1 W
\?I?d ? \ I I QN
1ST N WE-TLAN AREA P \
I!// r an w
/ / ` ? /\ \ of Q1 ? \
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 5A
LEGEND
EXISTING CONDITIONS
HARDWOODS Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
\?? \ B, 5 \ 1 \ I + R\\ 1 Macon County, North Carolina
u /- -\ \ 1 1 I 1'
WHITE PINE
I k ?
? ? ? ISFB ?1, ` ` \ It WETLAND AREA 100' 50' 0 100' 200'
/ V \ Z \ 1 ''`, ® FEET
41
1 Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
There is one main drainage ditch, labeled as Existing Ditch #3 in Figure 5, in Reach 2
that enters Patton Branch approximately 450 feet below Patton Road. This ditch is about
275 feet long with a 6.3 percent slope. This ditch contains low-growing shrubby
vegetation that has developed since the cattle were removed from this pasture. There are
also a few other smaller drainage ditches on-site as noted on Figure 5.
3.2.2 Existing Stream Characteristics

fl
n
0

Field surveys of the existing stream channel and surrounding floodplain were conducted
on August 5-6, 2002 to determine the potential for stream mitigation on-site. Additional
measurements were taken October 9-10, 2001 during the feasibility study. The stream
measurements are critical to the classification and assessment of the existing stream type
and provide data to classify the stream using the Rosgen classification method, Levels I
and II (Rosgen 1996). Appendix A contains the complete set of existing conditions data
from both field surveys. Appendix B contains a photo log of the site.
The morphological characteristics of the nine (9) cross-sections surveyed during the field
visits are contained in Table 1. The table contains the cross-sectional width, mean depth,
width/depth ratio, cross sectional area, stream type, and the Bank Erosion Potential (BEP)
of the cross-section as estimated by the Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI) (Rosgen,
1996). With the exception of the last riffle listed in the table under Reach 2, all of the
riffles can be classified as an E stream type as indicated by entrenchment ratio,
width/depth ratio and water surface slope. However, the stream has been straightened in
the past and the majority of the streambanks are undergoing erosional processes as the
stream attempts to reduce the stream power through meandering. The BEP throughout
the site ranges from moderate to extreme erodibility as estimated by the BEHI. Appendix
A contains a blank BEHI form containing the ranges for BEP.
The DWQ Stream Habitat Evaluation Form was completed for Patton Branch. Reach 1
and Reach 2 were scored separately and recorded as an average for the different metrics.
According to this evaluation, Patton Branch has a final habitat score of 43.5. The
completed field data sheet can be found in Appendix C.
November 2002
15

L 7

u
n
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
Table 1 Morphological Characterization of Cross-Sections
Cross-
Section Width
(ft) Mean
Depth
(ft) Width/Depth
Ratio Cross-
Sectional
Area (fe) Stream
Type BE _J
Reach 1
Riffle 11.3 1.38 8.2 15.6 E 34.7 (High)
Pool 7.8 2.21 N/A 17.2 N/A 43.7
(V.Hi h)
Riffle 11.8 2.08 5.7 24.5 E 33.3 (High)
Riffle 12.4 1.68 7.4 20.9 E 34.8 (High)
Reach 2
Riffle 15.5 1.85 8.4 28.7 E 19.7
(Moderate)
Pool 16.0 1.88 N/A 30.1 N/A 31.5 (High)
Riffle 15.0 1.41 10.6 21.1 E 20.2
(Moderate)
Pool 12.3 3.00 N/A 30.9 N/A 52.5
(Extreme)
Riffle 19.2 1.30 14.7 25.0 C 33.8 (High)
' 3.2.3 Soils of the Mitigation Site
According to the Macon County Soil Survey (USDA, 1996) several soil types are present
' in the project area (Figure 3). These include Braddock clay loam, Dillard loam, Reddies
fine sandy loam, Rosman fine sandy loam, and Toxaway loam. The characteristics of
these soils are as follows:

• Braddock clay loam BrC2 - 8 to 15 percent slopes) consists mainly of strongly

' sloping, very deep, well-drained soils on high stream terraces. Permeability is
moderate and surface runoff is rapid. Clods will form if the soil is worked during
wet periods. Within the project area this soil occurs in the areas of pasture that are
slightly sloping.
very deep
moderately
• Dillard loam (DrB - 1 to 5
ercent slopes) is a nearly level
,
,
p
well drained soil on low stream terraces. Permeability is moderately slow and
surface runoff is slow or medium. The soil is subject to rare flooding. The
seasonally high water table is 2 to 3 feet below the surface. Dillard soils are present
in the pasture to the west of Patton Branch.
' 0 Reddies fine sandy loam (ReA - 0 to 3 percent slopes) consists of nearly level to
gently sloping, very deep, moderately well drained soils on floodplains adjacent to
small streams. The unit is in slightly elevated areas beside the stream channel.
' Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid or very
rapid in the underlying material. Surface runoff is slow. The soil is frequently
'
November 2002
16
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' flooded for very brief periods. The seasonally high water table is 2 to 3.5 feet below
the ground surface. This soil is present along Patton Branch south of Patton Road.
' • Rosman fine sandy loam (RsA - 0 to 2 percent slopes) is a nearly level, very deep,
well-drained soil in slightly elevated areas on floodplains. It occurs along major
streams and next to natural levees of sand along the inside of the curve at stream
bends. This soil has moderate permeability and surface runoff is slow. Within the
project area Rosman soils occur within the pasture areas on both sides of Patton
Branch along Cartoogechaye Creek.
• Toxaway loam (ToA - 0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of nearly level, very deep,
poorly drained and very poorly drained soils in depressions on floodplains along
large streams. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is very slow or ponded.
The soil is frequently flooded for very brief periods. The seasonal high water table
is at the surface to 1 foot below the surface. The Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) considers this soil a hydric soil. Toxaway soils occur along Patton
Branch north of Patton Road.
The on-site soils were investigated through a series of shallow hand auger borings. This
' investigation confirmed the presence of the soils as mapped by the NRCS. Within the
pasture area several small inclusions of hydric (low chroma) soils were found. However,
these areas were very small (10 ft by 10 ft) and localized.
' 3.2.4 Terrestrial Plant Communities
Four general plant communities are found adjacent to Patton Branch. These are
pastureland, emergent wetlands, white pine forest, and hardwood forest. These plant
communities are described below and shown in Figure 5. Nomenclature generally
' follows Radford (1968).
3.2.4.1 Pastureland
Much of the property south of Patton Road is in pasture. The pasture is dominated by
fescue grass (Festuca sp.) and clover (Trifolium sp.). Also present throughout were fox
' tail (Setaria sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginica), horsenettle (Solanum
carolinensis), and several spots with soft rush (Juncus effusus).
r Adjacent to the stream, the vegetation is allowed to grow but is typically mowed every
several years. Here the vegetation included tag alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow
(Salix nigra), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana),
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), beggar's tick (Bidens frondosa), aster (Aster
puniceus), fescue, goldenrods (Solidago spp.), and broomsedge.
' 3.2.4.2 Emergent Wetland
' To the west of Patton Branch but south of the road, Mr. Greenwood has allowed part of
the pasture area to "naturalize." This area is relatively wet. This wetland is dominated
by soft rush, umbrella sedge (Cyperus strigosus), tearthumb, knotweed (Polygonum sp.),
' November 2002
_ 17

0

0

i

0
fl

n

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), boneset (Eupatorium
perfoliatum), aster, ironweed (Vernonia glauca), monkey flower (Mimulus ringens),
purple willow herb (Epilobium coloratum), and arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia).
Soils within this area are dark (2.5 Y 2.5/1 loam with clay) and saturated to the surface.
Standing water 2 to 6 inches deep was observed in places. The source of the wetland
hydrology appears to be a spring that has been partially filled by Patton Road and a
number of seepage areas along the hill slope. Several ditches have been dug through the
wetland area to facilitate drainage. Spoil piles are adjacent to the ditches.
3.2.4.3 White Pine Forest
Immediately north of Patton Road is a mature white pine forest. This community is
dominated by white pines (Pinus strobus). The shrub and herbaceous layer includes
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), multiflora rose, yellow-root (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and grape vines (Vitus sp.).
3.2.4.4 Hardwood Forest
North of the white pine forest community is a hardwood forest community. This
community is dominated by red maple (Ater rubrum), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). In the understory, privet (Ligustrum
sinense), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), yellow-root, jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), cinnamon vine (Dioscorea batatas), ground nut (Apios americana) and
Virgin's bower (Clematis virginiana) are present. Along the stream bank are thick stands
of tag alder.
3.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The
USFWS lists seven species under federal protection for Macon County as of May 31,
2002 (USFWS, 2002). These species are listed in Table 2. Critical Habitat for the
spotfin chub and Appalachian elktoe are also designated within this county. NCDOT
staff will conduct a survey for the species listed below with an Unresolved Biological
Conclusion.
18
November 2002

r
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon Countv. NC
Table 2 Species Under Federal Protection in Macon County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E
S otfin chub Cy rinella monacha T
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmodonta raveneliana E
Littlewin earl mussel Pegias fibula E
Vascular Plants
Small-whorled ogonia Isotaria meeoloides T
Virginia s irea Spirea virginiana T
E =

T =

T(S/A) = Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Threatened-A species that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened due to similarity of appearance-a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Vertebrate Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: 1997
The bog turtle is a small freshwater turtle with a maximum carapace length of
11.4 cm (4.5 in). These turtles have a domed carapace that is weakly keeled and
is light brown to ebony in color. The scutes have a lighter-colored starburst
pattern. The plastron is brownish-black with contrasting yellow or cream areas
along the midline. This species is distinguished by a conspicuous orange, yellow,
or red blotch on each side of the head.
The bog turtle is semi-aquatic and is typically found in freshwater wetlands
' characterized by open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow-moving streams,
ditches, and boggy areas. The bog turtle is also found in wetlands in agricultural
' areas subject to light to moderate livestock grazing, which helps to maintain an
intermediate stage of succession. During the winter, this species hibernates just
below the upper surface of mud. Mating occurs in May and June, and the female
' deposits two to six eggs in sphagnum moss or sedge tussocks in May, June, or
July. The diet of the bog turtle is varied, consisting of beetles, lepidopteran and
caddisfly larvae, snails, millipedes, pondweed and sedge seeds, and carrion.
' The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance to the northern population; therefore, the southern population is
' not afforded protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. No
habitat exists in the project area for the bog turtle. There are no freshwater
wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow moving
November 2002
19

1

u
P

u
' This small, elongate fish is recognized by the large black spot in the caudal
region. The spotfin chub grows to a length of 9.2 cm (3.6 in). The mouth is
inferior, with a tiny pair of terminal labial barbels. Breeding males are brilliant
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon Countv. NC
streams, ditches, or boggy areas near the bridge. A search of the NHP database
revealed no occurrences of the bog turtle within 3.2 km (2 mi)
No habitat for the bog turtle exists within the project area. No bogs are located on
the site, and the single wetland area is small and isolated. No individuals of this
species were observed during the site visit and none are recorded at NHP within
two miles of the project site. This project will have no effect on this federally
threatened species.
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: 1967
The Indiana bat is a medium-sized myotis, less than two inches (5 cm) long, with
a wingspan of nine to eleven inches (23-28 cm). They weigh only 0.3 ounces (8.5
grams). Fur is brownish to grayish black above and buff to light brown below.
The feet are small and delicate and the calcar is strongly keeled.
Though extremely rare this bat is found in 27 states in the eastern United States.
Hibernation occurs from October to April primarily in limestone caves or mines
with stable temperatures between 38° and 43°F, and a relative humidity averaging
87 percent. The bats form large, dense clusters up to several thousand
individuals. During the summer, Indiana bat maternity colonies require dead or
dying trees with loose bark, a nearby water source, and areas to hunt for insects.
Males roost nearby, and have the same habitat requirements. The bats roost under
the loose bark for warmth and protection from the elements or predators
Biological Conclusion
No habitat for the Indiana bat exists within the project area. No caves or mines are
nearby, and no dead or dying trees with loose bark were observed. Patton Branch is not
sufficiently wide to provide suitable foraging habitat for the bat. No individuals of this
species were observed during the site visit and none are recorded at NHP within two
miles of the project site. This project will have no effect on this federally endangered
species.
Spotfin chub (Cyprinella monacha)
Vertebrate Family: Cyprinidae
Federally Listed: 1977
Endangered
No Effect
Threatened
' turquoise on the back and sides and have white-tipped fins. Juveniles and adult
females have olive-colored backs, silvery sides, and white undersides. The

20
November 2002
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
spotfin chub is believed to spawn in June. It apparently is a sight feeder, and its
diet consists mainly of dipterans.
' The habitat of the spotfin chub is moderate to large streams with alternating riffles
and pools and clear, cool to warm, fast-flowing water. It is restricted to the
Tennessee River drainage area. In North Carolina, it is known only from the
Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain counties, and has never been found in
streams with significantly silted substrates.
Biological Conclusion Unresolved

The USFWS has designated critical habitat for this species within Macon County. The
habitat includes the main channel of the Little Tennessee River from Lake Emory Dam at
Franklin, downstream to the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County. Patton
Branch flows into Cartoogechaye Creek, which flows into the Little Tennessee River
upstream from this Critical Habitat area.
Marginal habitat for the spotfin chub may exist within the project area. Patton Branch is
a small stream, however it is relatively free of silt and fast flowing. It is also within the
Little Tennessee Rvier drainage. No individuals of this species were observed during the
site visit and none are recorded at NHP within two miles of the project site. NCDOT
staff will conduct a survey for this species. The Biological Conclusion will remain
unresolved until a determination is made as to the presence or absence of this species.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1994
Endangered
The Appalachian elktoe is recognized by a thin, kidney-shaped shell about 8.1 cm
(3.2 in) long, 3.5 cm (1. 4 in) high, and 2.5 cm (1 inch) wide. The outer shell surface
of juvenile mussels is yellowish-brown whereas the adult shell is dark brown to
greenish-black in color. Rays may be prominent to obscure. The inside shell surface
is shiny white to bluish-white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in
the central and beak cavity portions of the shell.
Historical records reveal that this species once proliferated throughout the Upper
Tennessee River system in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. In North
' Carolina populations were found in the Little Tennessee River system (Talula Creek,
Graham County) and the French Broad River system, including the Nolichucky
River (county unknown), the Little River (Transylvania County), and Swannanoa
River (county unknown), the Pigeon River (Haywood county), and the main stem of
the French Broad River (Buncombe County and an unknown county).
The Federal Register lists two known surviving populations of the Appalachian
elktoe. One is in the Little Tennessee River between Emory Lake in Macon County
and Fontana Reservoir in Swain County. The other is in the Nolichucky River
November 2002
21

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
system in Yancey and Mitchell counties. The habitat in these locations can be
described as relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, well-
oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. Substrates are gravelly mixed with
cobble and boulders, or occasionally coarse and sandy.
Biological Conclusion

0

0

Unresolved
The USFWS has designated critical habitat for this species within Macon County. The
habitat includes the main channel of the Little Tennessee River from the backwaters of
Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line. Patton Branch flows
into Cartoogechaye Creek, which flows into the Little Tennessee River within this
Critical Habitat area.
Patton Branch may provide marginal habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. It is a small to
medium-sized creek within the Little Tennessee River drainage. The substrate is mainly
gravel and cobble. Near the project area, Cartoogechaye Creek contains high levels of
silt, so it may not be suitable for this species. No individuals of this species were
observed during the site visit and none are recorded at NHP within two miles of the
project site. NCDOT staff will conduct a survey for this species. The Biological
Conclusion will remain unresolved until a determination is made as to the presence or
absence of this species.
Littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias fibula)
Family:Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1988
Endangered
This small freshwater bivalve mollusk attains an average adult size of 0.95 inches
(24 millimeters) in length. The species name is descriptive of its wing-like
appearance. The outer shell is usually eroded away in mature individuals, giving
the shell a chalky appearance. In younger individuals the shell may appear light
green or dark yellowish brown with dark rays of variable width along the shell's
anterior surface. The nacre is whitish on the anterior border and salmon or flesh
colored in the beak cavity.
This mussel is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains and the
Cumberland Plateau regions. Historical records place this species in 24 stream
reaches in several southeastern states, however the species is presently known
from only six stream reaches. In North Carolina it is only known from a small
portion of the Little Tennessee River Basin.
The littlewing pearlymussel prefers cool, clear, high-gradient streams. It is
commonly found at the head of riffles, but also found in and below riffles on sand
and gravel substrates with scattered cobbles. It also inhabits sand pockets between
rocks, cobbles and boulders, and underneath large rocks. During spawning, it can
22
November 2002

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
be found lying on top or partially buried in sand and fine gravel between cobbles
in only 6 to 10 inches (15-25 centimeters) of water.
Biological Conclusion
Unresolved
' Patton Branch may provide marginal habitat for the littlewing pearly mussel. Patton
Branch meets most of these habitat requirements but is not considered a high-gradient
stream within the study area. The average slope of Patton Branch within the study area is
between 1 to 2 percent. No individuals of this species were observed during the site visit
and none are recorded at NHP within two miles of the project site. NCDOT staff will
conduct a survey for this species. The Biological Conclusion will remain unresolved
' until a determination is made as to the presence or absence of this species.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 1982
' The specific epithet of the small whorled pogonia comes from the resemblance of
this perennial orchid to young plants of Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana).
However, the small whorled pogonia has a stout, hollow stem in contrast to the solid,
' slender stem of Indian cucumber root. The stem is 9.5 to 25 cm (3.7 to 9.8 in) tall,
with a terminal whorl of 5 or 6 light green leaves that are elliptical in shape and
measure up to 8 by 4 cm (3 in by 1.5 in). One or two flowers are borne at the top of
' the stem, appearing from mid-May to mid-June. The flowers lack fragrance and
nectar guides, and apparently are self-pollinating.
' The small whorled pogonia was formerly scattered in 48 counties in 16 eastern
states. Currently, the majority of populations are found in New England at the
' foothills of the Appalachian Mountains and in northern coastal Massachusetts. The
habitat of the small whorled pogonia varies widely throughout its range, although
there are a few common characteristics among the majority of sites. These include
sparse to moderate ground cover; a relatively open understory; and proximity to
' features that create extensive, stable breaks in the canopy, such as logging roads or
streams. The pogonia has been found in mature forests as well as stands as young as
30 years old. Forest types include mixed-deciduous/ white pine or hemlock in New
England, mixed deciduous in Virginia, white pine/mixed-deciduous or white
pine/oak-hickory in Georgia, and red maple in Michigan. Understory components in
the southern part of the range are most commonly found to be flowering dogwood
(Corpus florida), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), American chestnut (Castanea dentata), witch hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), and flame azalea (Rhododendron calendulaceum). Early descriptions
placed the small whorled pogonia on dry sites, but it has since been found on sites
with high soil moisture.

23
November 2002

Biological Conclusion
Virginia spiraea is a perennial shrub with arching, upright stems. Its growth form is
described as "plastic" and varies depending upon age and environmental conditions.
The roots are a complex system of horizontal rootstock with mats of small fibrous
roots. If exposed, the horizontal rootstock gives rise to upright stems. Virginia
spiraea typically has a diffuse branching pattern and grows to 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 ft) in
height. Leaves are simple, ovate to lanceolate, with an acute base. The leaf margins
range from entire to completely serrate. Virginia spiraea flowers from late May to
late July, with bright to creamy white flowers forming a corymb.
' No habitat for the small whorled pogonia exists within the project area. In open areas,
ground cover is dense, and within forested areas, the understory is dense. No individuals
of this species were observed during the site visit and none are recorded at NHP within
' two miles of the project site. This project will have no effect on this federally threatened
species.
Virginia spiraea (spiraea virginiana) Threatened
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 1990

i

1
Virginia spiraea is typically found in disturbed sites along rivers and streams. It forms
dense clumps around boulders and in rock crevices, and apparently depends on flood
scour to eliminate woody competitors and create suitable early successional habitats.
Typical habitat includes scoured banks of high gradient streams, or on meander
scrolls, point bars, natural levees and braided features of lower stream reaches. In
North Carolina, extant populations are known from Ashe, Macon, Mitchell, and
Yancey counties. In Graham County, there is an historic record of an extirpated
population.
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
No Effect
No habitat for the Virginia spiraea exists within the project area. Patton Branch, although
a high gradient stream, is not lined with rock, nor are any early successional habitats
present along the stream. Natural levees are minimal, and point bars are virtually non-
existent. No individuals of this species were observed during the site visit and none are
recorded at NHP within two miles of the project site. This project will have no effect on
this federally threatened species.
3.2.6 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
24
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
November 2002
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 3 contains a complete listing of the federal
species of concern in Macon County, their state status, and an indication of habitat
presence on the Patton Branch site.
Table 3 Federal Species of Concern in Macon Count
Y

0
0

Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
Present
Vertebrates
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus E No
Appalachian cottontail Sylvila us transitionalis SR Yes
Bachman's sparrow Aimo hila aestivalis SC No
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea SR No
Green salamander Aneides aeneus E No
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis SC No
Olive darter Percina squamata SC Yes
Olive-sided flycatcher Conto us borealis NL No
Rafines ue's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii T No
Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. NL No
Southern Appalachian
woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia Sc No
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis SC No
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus SC Yes
Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis SC Yes
Invertebrates
Carolina skistodia tomus Skistodiaptomus carolinensis SR No
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Diana SR No
Lost Nantahala cavespider Nesticus cooperia SR No
Margarita River skimmer Macromis margarita SR** No
Tawny cresent butterfly Phycoides batesii maconensis SR No
Vascular Plants
Butternut Juglans cinerea NL Yes
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana SR _T No
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium T No
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri E Yes
Gladespurge Euphorbia purpurea SR _T No
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata SR _T No
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla E No
Sweet inesa Monotropsis odorata SR_T No
West Indian dwarf of ody Grammitis nimbata E No
Piedmont aster Aster mirabilis SR _T No
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii SR L No
25
November 2002
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC

Common Name Scientific Name State Habitat
Status Present
Nonvascular plants
Anderson's melon moss Brachymenium andersonii SR _L No
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula NL* No
A liverwort Chiloscyphus appalchianus SR_T No
A liverwort Plagiochila shay ii SR _T No
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii NL No
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana SR _T No
A liverwort Porella japonica var. appalachiana NL No
A liverwort Porella wataugensis SR_L No
NL = Not tracked by NHP
T = Threatened
E = Endangered
SC= Special Concern
SR= Significantly Rare
T = Fewer than 100 populations throughout the species' range
_L = Fewer than 50 populations throughout the species' range
* = Historic record; the species was observed over 20 years ago
** = Obscure record; the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 2002; LeGrand, Hall, and Finnegan, 2001
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, although suitable habitat is present
within the project area for several Federal Species of Concern.
A review of files a the NC Natural Heritage Program did not reveal records of any known
federally listed species on or in the vicinity of the mitigation site. Cartoogechaye Creek
is listed as aquatic habitat due to the presence of a variety of state listed species. These
' include Little Tennessee River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae), hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), and the olive
darter (Percina squamata).

4.0 RACCOON CREEK REFERENCE REACH
' Raccoon Creek, a fourth order stream, is located in Waynesville, North Carolina. Ron
Morris of the Area 1 Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts located the site
and provided the reference reach survey data. The stream was surveyed prior to
disturbance by the town of Waynesville while installing sewer lines adjacent to the
stream. As is the case with most E-Type streams, following vegetation removal, the
' stream channel has begun to move towards instability. In addition, the headwaters of the
stream have begun to feel development pressures. However, at the time of the initial
survey, the stream channel was stable and has been approved for use as a reference reach
' by Mike Parker of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Mike Parker was contacted
prior to inclusion of this reference reach, and he supported the use of this stream for the
' Patton Branch project.

26
November 2002

r f :? ? 1. f a ?. /
(276,
??ai r I ?
,r, . _ Watershed Area"-
2.9 ?r•`.'r sq mt
? y
q,a. PROJECT
SITE
r n ? t f?!
V • r
? r
- `

F ,
C'
`
- ?--

16
r E ?,F _ 1 % r
r
Y
s ,'i ?t V " 1 '1L E! ; f
t
I f
??
-,
'Z14---'1
SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle: Waynesville, NC, 1941, Photorevised 1979.
MaptechO USGS Topographic SeriesTM, ©MaptechO, Inc. 978-933-3000, www.maptech.com/topo
Copyright 2001 Maptech

tip.?7ti ?,
?1 t
t'.
F MADISON Pl0, p North Carolina - Department of Transportation
5 Division of Highways
HAYWOOD BUNCOMBE Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r 7RSWAIN

FIGURE 6
RACCOON CREEK REFERENCE REACH
WATERSHED MAP
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet
6=00d MEM

1
n
Table 4 Morphological Characteristics: Existing, Reference, and Proposed Reaches

Variables Existing
Channel
(Reach 1) Existing
Channel
(Reach 2) Reference
Reach-
Raccoon Creek Proposed

(Reach 1 & 2)
Stream Type E5 C/E 5 E5 E5
Draina a Area sq. mi.) 1.3 1.5 2.9 1.5
Bankfull Width W bkf, ft 11.3-12.4 15.0-19.2 15.4-15.9 17.4
MEAN 11.8 16.6 15.7
Bankfull Mean Depth dbkf, ft) 1.38-2.08 1.3-1.85 1.49-1.54 1.64
MEAN 1.71 1.52 1.52
Width/depth Ratio (Wbkfldbkf) 5.7-8.2 8.4-14.7 10.03-10.67 10.6
MEAN 7.1 11.2 10.35
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area Abkf s q. ft. 15.6-24.5 21.1-28.7 23.74-23.76 28
MEAN 20.3 24.9 23.75
Bankfull Maximum Depth dmaxft 2.11-2.56 2.11-3.82 2.4-2.7 2.8
MEAN 2.34 3.04 2.6
Ratio Bankfull Maximum Depth to Mean
Bankfull Depth dmaxldbkf
1.4
2.0
1.7
1.7
Lowest Bank Height to Bankfull Maximum
Depth Ratio
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.0
Width of Flood Prone Area fpa ft >28-50 >54-70 >100 >38
MEAN >41 >70
Entrenchment Ratio (W fpaMbkf >3.5 >4.3 >2.2 >2.2
Meander Length Lm ft * 56-93 30-84 33-93
MEAN * 77 49 56
Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width * 1.5-2.5 1.9-5.3 1.9-5.3
(LmMbkf)
MEAN
*
2.1
3.2
3.2
Radius of Curvature Rc ft 17.8 8.5-15.8 35-70
MEAN 17.8 12.2 53
Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width 1.07 0.55-0.99 2.0-4.0**
(RcMbkf)
MEAN
*
1.07
0.78
3.0
Belt Width bit ft * 29-47 52 52-88
MEAN * 35 52 70
Meander Width Ratio WbftMbkf 0.8-1.3 3.3-3.4 3.0-5.0
MEAN * 1 3.4 4.0
Sinuosity (Stream LengthNalley Length, k -
ft/ft)
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
Valle Slope (Svaney) ft/ft 0.0109 0.0087 0.0140 0.0096
Average Water Surface Slope Savg) 0.0115 0.0116 0.0109 ***
Pool Slope (Spoof) 0.000-0.021 0.000-0.0014 0.0003-0.006 ***
MEAN 0.0008 0.0004 0.003 ***
Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
SpooflSavg
0.0693
0.0345
0.027-0.55 0.275
0.027-0.55 0.275
Riffle Slope (Stiff fdit 0.012-0.029 0.0139-0.0238 0.0190 ***
MEAN 0.0185 0.0175 ***
Ratio of Riff le Slope to Average Slope
StifflSavg
1.0-2.4
1.2-2.0
0.92-1.3
***
MEAN 1.6 1.5 1.1 ***
Maximum Pool Depth dpooi ft 3.0 3.8 3.7 3.9
Ratio of pool depth to mean bankfull depth
dpoolldbkf)
1.8
2.5
2.4
2.4
Pool Area Apoof ft) 17.5 30.5 29-32 36
Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apoo#Abkf 1.5 1.8 1.2-1.4 1.3
Pool to Pool Spacing (P-P ft) 47-156 40-121 42-163 47-180
MEAN 83 74 102.5 113
Ratio of P-P to Bankfull Width (P-PM bkf 4.0-13.2 2.4-7.3 2.7-10.3 2.7-10.3
MEAN 7 4.5 1.6 6.5
' *Reach 1 is straight without significant sinuosity.
**Rosgen recommends keeping the Rc/Wbkf >2.0 (4.0-6.0 for C type streams) for stability.
The reference reach is in a stable hardwood forest => lower Rc/Wbkf is possible and maintain stability
***These values cannot be determined at this stage in the planning process.
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' The reach classifies as an E5 stream type with a drainage area of 2.9 square miles (Figure
6). Raccoon Creek has an average bankfull width of 15.7 feet and a water surface slope
' of 0.0109 ft/ft. At the time of the survey, the stream had a 1.3 sinuosity and a dense stand
of trees and shrubs lining the streambanks forming a buffer. The stream has a wide
floodplain that extends over 100 feet for an entrenchment ratio greater than 6.0. Table 4
' contains a summary of the reference reach data for Raccoon Creek.
' 5.0 STREAM MITIGATION DESIGN
The design was based upon Dave Rosgen's 40-step natural channel design methodology.
Morphological characteristics were measured on the existing stream and reference reach
to determine a range of values for the stable dimension, pattern, and profile of the
proposed channel.
5.1 COMPONENTS
Priority 1 mitigation will be used to adjust the stream dimension, pattern and profile of
Patton Branch to allow the stream to more fully transport its water and sediment load. A
plan view of the proposed stream mitigation is contained in Figure 7. A combination of
' bedform transformations, channel dimension adjustments, pattern alterations, structures
installation, and vegetation will be used to accomplish this. In addition, the culvert under
Patton Road may be replaced as a component of this project to allow for improved fish
' passage. This determination will be made during the hydraulic analysis of the proposed
stream.

u

I
5.1.1 Dimension
Reach 1 has an existing width of 11.3-12.4 ft. with cross-sectional areas between 15-25
sq. ft. Reach 2 has a width between 15.0-19.2 ft and cross-sectional areas ranging from
21.1 to 28.7. The design channels will be constructed to bankfull target dimensions that
are based on the existing site morphology, reference reach surveys, and the North
Carolina Rural Mountain Regional Curve (Figure 3) under the Rosgen Stream
Classification System.
Raccoon Creek, an E-type channel with a width-to-depth ratio of 10.6, will be used as the
reference reach for the design of Patton Branch. This reference reach has a width-to-
depth ratio that is on the cusp of a C-type channel (A width-to-depth ratio of greater than
12 classifies as a C-type channel, while less than 12 is an E-type channel in a slightly
entrenched stream system. Width-to-Depth ratios can vary by +/-2.0 units.) This is
preferable since C-type channels typically have less shear stress on the streambanks than
do E-type channels. Since the watershed area in Reach 1 is only 0.2 square miles smaller
than Reach 2, the cross sectional area between the two reaches varies by 2.0 square feet.
For this reason, Table 4 reflects that only one typical cross-section was designed for the
proposed conditions of Patton Branch. The channel will be designed with 28 sq. ft. cross-
sectional area in the riffles (as taken from the Mountain Regional Curve) and a width of
29
November 2002

1

is

r
I?P MENT

b

-------------- -
xisrrrr? \
? cap cOT /
I`

SFD
ti
? APO g3
N +
14pE•EM? +
Loan,' wA PROP EA56ME
ZS E
r t? d I O IjENCG

\ 76B
7fi9 79.95•
N }
AU LP-
MENT /+ 4
W
W ? v
x x x -_ f "
Zp S39.3,
42
?? vv
. \
W 69• 61.62' SAJS'
X6'1"- )? 62? 7'I2')0'w _574V256'Y v ?'- ? ' '•V '? ? ?,\\ ? ?;
_ SJ2n5r50.N fW\ .\ +n \ \
??7A -39Y09'M 6/.2M VLb6• ? \
/ S356r4 vp 5 7 h' \
41 VlAff-
--?_\\\ \ 1,,1 \?
soar WAD-
on
Po'omllan uNyklta'dsoand sMfOe
as Nncsd by &Wde s Enafmw.
J
EXISTING WETiAII?AREA

1
C

IJ

r_

k

J
i
20' GATED CATTLE ACCESS &
GRAVEL STREAM CRDSSlNG \
P WP. EA-EMENT
D FENCE ` I
?x --m X
?x fir--
x-?X?X X + k\
x ? ? k
X? /+ \k\ x
w + k\k
+ ? \k
4 -- ? ' X X-?k \k?
W X
z x-? x-??^^ \k\ + PROP. EASEMENT
X X-x?? x x k\k\k + AND FENCE
CT1
v \k
nlz --N
PROP.ED F ENT Drr k\ +\
?_ 1 J _ENLE` CC(J ,??? +\+ }?} ?N WITH CARTOOGEC AY CREEK x AT TIE
V J,

?t s
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
REEA
EA5EME;
a? 45B AN'\
i / ? \ '2 ? ? 9q•4B'19'
G / ?\/may _ l \\ ` SNEO ( LEGEND
VANE-
1 a' i ?? n 1 Isk I 1 Boo? WA&
II C? ?Av \1\ Oa ctakn GW.ldu0Fptate61f 7fd169
1 `\ `` n ; \ \ \ \ `,11 `?1 .1 ` / ?1 1141 I?;1 v be dIrODW q/ AWdaY Enp'nw.
FIGURE 7A
PROPOSED STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina
100' 50' 0' 100' 200'
FEET
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
E
U
N
X
co
LL
Q
r
Y
2.5
AREA=28 SQ. Fr.
MEAN DEPTH=1.6 Fr
MAX. DEPTH=2.7.
W/D= 10.9
AREA=36 SO. Fr.
MEAN DEPTH=2.0 Fr
MAX DEPTH=3.4 Fr
COIR MATTING
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
` o Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 8
PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS
Patton Branch Stream Mitigation Plan
Macon County, North Carolina
TYPICAL SECTION-RIFFLE
E-TYPE STREAM
17.5' -
BANKFULL STAGE
L 2.•r 21
6.5'
COIR MATTING
TYPICAL SECTION-POOL
E-TYPE STREAM
12:1
18.0' -
BANKFULL STAGE
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' 17.5. The pools will have a width of 18.0 feet and a larger cross-sectional area of 36 sq.
ft. Figure 8 depicts the proposed riffle and pool typical sections for Patton Branch. For
' stabilization purposes, all streambank and bed slopes are 2:1 or flatter. The measured and
proposed morphological characteristics are shown in Table 4.
' 5.1.2 Pattern
Historically, Patton Branch was channelized to form a straight channel. Pattern will be
' introduced back into the stream by increasing the sinuosity through a Priority 1
restoration. A Priority 1 restoration involves building a new C- or E-type channel
connected to the original floodplain. Meanders will be introduced into the channels with
' appropriate radius of curvatures based on the reference reach data and existing site
constraints. Because the site has minimal constraints, the sinuosity will be maximized to
the extent possible. Introduction of these meanders will increase stream length, sinuosity,
' and habitat while lowering the slope and shear stress in the channel.
5.1.3 Bedform

The design channels will incorporate riffles and pools to provide bedform found in E
stream types with sand and gravel bottoms. Pools will be located in the outside of
meander bends with riffles in inflection points between meanders. The proposed riffles
will have a thalweg depth of 2.7 feet in Reach 1 and 2. Cross-vanes will be utilized as
grade control and as an extension of the pools in both reaches. The cross-vanes will be
constructed out of natural materials such as boulders. Modifications to the bedform will
provide stability and habitat to the channel.
5.1.4 Structures
Several structure types may be installed in the stream channels. These structures include
cross vanes, single-arm vanes, j-hook vanes, step-pool structures, and root wads. Natural
materials such as boulders, rocks, and trunk and root sections from trees will be used to
create these structures. These materials may be obtained from both on-site and off-site
sources. In addition to the natural materials, the need for incorporating a geotextile fabric
into the structures will be assessed. Geotextile fabric can be used upstream of a cross-

r vane, for example, to help solidify the structure and prevent piping through the voids
between boulders. A determination of the specific types and locations of structures will
be assessed during the final design stage.
' 5.1.5 Fencing, Crossings, and Watering Systems
Fencing will be installed around the limits of the proposed easement in Reach 2 since
there is a possibility that Mr. Greenwood will lease the land for cattle production. The
fencing will be offset from the top-of-bank of the proposed channel approximately 30-
feet. This will form a dedicated easement of approximately 6.5 acres: 1.8 acres in Reach
1 and 4.7 acres in Reach 2. The proposed fencing in Reach 2 will tie into the existing
fencing on-site that runs along Cartoogechaye Creek and the fencing around the house
i
November 2002
33
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
and yard. The existing fencing was installed on the Greenwood's property by the Macon
County NRCS and is in excellent condition. Approximately 4,100 feet of additional
' fencing will need to be installed in Reach 2 (Figure 7).
A crossing may need to be installed in Reach 2 to allow for cattle and equipment access
' to Mr. Greenwood's land on either side of the easement. A gravel access ramp into and
out of the stream is proposed with a cross-vane installed immediately downstream of the
crossing (Figure 7). The cross-vane would hold the grade of the stream immediately
upstream to help ensure a stable crossing. On either side of the crossing, fencing will be
placed across the stream to prevent cattle from entering the stream.
' A watering system will need to be installed if Mr. Greenwood intends to lease the land
for cattle production. The Macon County NRCS has been contacted to discuss the
options for watering systems in the mountain region. During the design phase of this
' project, Mr. Greenwood and the Macon County NRCS will be included the development
of the design of this structure.

I?

11
5.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
A stable stream has the capacity to move its sediment load without aggrading or
degrading. The total load of sediment can be divided into wash load and bed load. Wash
load is normally composed of fine sands, silts and clay and transported in suspension at a
rate that is determined by availability and not hydraulically controlled. Bed load is
transported by rolling, sliding, or hoping (saltating) along the bed. At higher discharges,
some portion of the bed load can be suspended, especially if there is a sand component in
the bed load. Bed material transport rates are essentially controlled by the size and nature
of the bed material and hydraulic conditions (Hey 1997).
Shear stress was checked using the Shield's Curve for a proposed riffle cross-section. The
shear stress placed on the sediment particles is the force that entrains and moves the
particles, given by:
Z = AIRS
where, r = shear stress (lb/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = water surface slope (ft/ft)
Hydraulic radius is calculated by:
R_A
P
where, R = hydraulic radius
A = cross-sectional area (ft)
P = wetted perimeter (ft)
34
November 2002
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
Thus,
R_28.0ftz =1.516,
18.6 ft
' Therefore,
z = (62.4 lb )(1.51 ft)(0.0117 ) =1.101b / ft2 ft3 The critical shear stress for the proposed channel has to be sufficient to move the D84 of
' the bed material. Based on a shear stresses calculated, the Shield's Curve predicts that
these streams can move a particle that is in the range of 45 mm to 400 mm, (very coarse
gravel to small boulder). Because the existing D84 in riffles is small cobble in Reach 1
' and coarse gravel in Reach 2, the proposed stream has the competency to move its bed
load according to Shield's Curve and preliminary design calculations.
5.3 FLOODING ANALYSIS
Flooding analysis will be performed during the design phase to insure that the floodplain
' is not raised significantly along the stream. An analysis will be conducted to compare the
existing conditions to the proposed conditions. The U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 01-4207 (a revised version of USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 99-4114), Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
Rural Basins of North Carolina-Revised, was used to estimate the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and
100-year peak discharges for the one and one-half (1.5) square mile drainage area as
follows:
Q2 = 180 cfs
Q5 = 320 cfs
Qio 435 cfs
Q25 = 620 cfs
' Q50 780 cfs
Qioo 960 cfs
' Once a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) is obtained for the project site, HEC-RAS, version
3.0, will be used to compute a flooding analysis for the existing and proposed conditions.
This analysis will ensure that the project will not significantly change existing floodwater
limits and that shear stresses are not unreasonable.
The lower 800 feet of Patton Branch are classified as Zone A by FEMA. This zone
1 indicates an area within the 100-year floodplain with no base flood elevations
determined. Due to the relative size differences between Cartoogechaye Creek and
Patton Branch, it is assumed that Patton Branch water surface elevations are controlled by
the backwater from Cartoogechaye Creek during flooding events such as the 100-year
storm.
November 2002
' 35

5.4
HABITAT MITIGATION
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
' Vegetation that quickly develops a canopy, has extensive rooting, and a substantial
above-ground plant structure is needed to help stabilize the banks of restored stream
channel in order to reduce scour and runoff erosion. In natural riparian environments,
' pioneer plants that often provide these functions are alder, river birch, boxelder, silky
dogwood, and willow. Once established, these trees and shrubs create an environment
that allows for the succession of other riparian species including ashes, black walnut, red
maple, sycamore, oaks and other riparian species.
In the newly restored stream channel, revegetation will be vital to help stabilize the
' stream banks and establish a riparian zone around the restored channel. Revegetation
efforts on this project will emulate natural vegetation communities found along relatively
undisturbed stream corridors. The riparian buffer will contain dominant vegetation
similar to the Montane Alluvial Forest community type described in Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation (Schafle and Weakly
1990).
All seeds and other plant material should be native species collected
or propagated from
' material within the mountain physiographic province and within 200 miles north or south
latitude. The use of material that is genetically adapted to specific site conditions
enhances long-term growth and survival and avoids contaminating the gene pool of the
surrounding vegetation with non-adapted ecotypes. Vigorous growth of well-adapted
ecotypes can also minimize problems with exotic invasive plants. However, NCDOT
occasionally must plant stock from sources outside of the site eco-region due to plant and
' seed availability.
Along the stream there are many individuals of the appropriate species suitable for
transplants and live stakes. A mixture of seeds, live stakes, and bare root nursery stock,
will be utilized to stabilize the banks.
5.4.1 Streambank Vegetation
Areas around structure installations will be revegetated with live stakes and bare root
' trees. Live stakes will be installed on the outside of the meander bends to ensure a dense
root mass in those areas of high stress. Woody vegetation will be planted between
November and March to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set roots
during the spring season. Species that may be proposed for planting in these areas are
listed in
' Live stakes and bare root trees
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
Black willow (Salix nigra)*
Silky willow (Salix sericea)
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)

36
November 2002

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
*to be used only in outer meander bends
Woody vegetation will be planted between November and March to allow plants to
stabilize during the dormant period and set roots during the spring season.
' 5.4.2 Riparian Buffer
The riparian buffer will extend from the bankfull stage of the stream channel out a
' minimum distance of 30-feet. Along the tops of the channel banks (riparian buffer), trees
and the grass mixture will be planted. A mixture of seeds, live stakes, and bare root trees
will be utilized to stabilize the banks. A minimum of 680 stems per acre will be planted
' in portions of the buffer that have been disturbed by construction activities. Suggested
species are listed below. The final planting list will be dependent upon availability at the
time of construction.
'
Serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)
Witch hazel (Hammamelis virginiana)
Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Yellow
o
lar (Liriodendron tuli
ifera)
p
p
p
6.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
The NCDOT will provide an "as-built" of the stream mitigation site within 90 days after
construction has been completed. The "as-built" will include both profile and plan view
of the completed stream project. The "as-built" will serve as the baseline during the
monitoring phase. The as-built will. consist of "red line" design plans which will also
' include the location of permanent photographic points and vegetation plots.
The mitigation project will be monitored biannually for three years. The NCDOT
recommends this "preventive" review in order to identify early the potential problem
areas that may develop along the stream reach. As part of the biannual review, the entire
stream reach will be visually monitored for stability and vegetation establishment. The
NCDOT believes this walkthrough will ensure that the entire stream reach remains in
good condition and provides a thorough, preventive review of the stream. Permanent
' photographic reference points along the stream will be established a part of the biannual
monitoring.
n
U

37
November 2002
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
i During the biannual review of the stream, the entire stream reach will be evaluated for
any potential problem areas such as stream bank instability, in-stream structure failure or
unsuccessful vegetation establishment. Beside permanent photographic points,
photographs of good stable sections of the stream as well as potential problem areas will
be taken. This will document the stability of the stream and the severity of the potential
' problem area(s) that may be encountered.
A yearly report documenting the biannual visits to the stream mitigation site will be
' prepared. The report will contain photographs and written documentation of the stream
during the monitoring phase.
If during the biannual review a failure area of the stream reach is noted, the area will be
evaluated in more detail to determine the corrective actions needed to resolve the
problem. The NCDOT will take cross sections in these failure areas and compare them to
the established as-built cross sections. If remediation of a failure area is required, a
proposal will be submitted to the resource agencies for the needed work. Remedial
actions will be taken as soon as possible barring any seasonal limitations at the site.
The NCDOT recommends taking cross sections under this proposal in order to avoid
unnecessary survey work of areas that are not failing. The NCDOT believes surveying a
large number of cross sections and reviewing them in the office will not provide
1 conclusive evidence about where cross sections of the stream may be failing. A site visit
would be needed to define whether the stream is actually failing.
' Upon completion of monitoring the stream site for three successful growing seasons, a
final report will. be prepared and presented to the resource agencies prior to a "Final
Review" of the project. If remedial action has been required during the monitoring
period, an updated "as-built" section will be attached to the report. The stream mitigation
site will be reviewed with the resource agencies for final approval of the stream reach. If
the resource agencies require additional work to the stream, then the work will be
performed as soon as possible barring any seasonal limitations of the site.
1 7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT will hold a conservation easement on the property 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 Patton Branch mitigation site has been
developed, NCDOT will likely transfer the easement to a land trust or resource agency
(public or private). acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agencies. Covenants and/or
restrictions on the deed will insure adequate management and protection of the site in
' perpetuity.

38
November 2002
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
8.0 STREAM MITIGATION CREDIT
' Since a Priority 1 restoration will be conducted on both Reach 1 and Reach 2 of Patton
Branch, the site will qualifying for a 1:1 mitigation credit ratio. The proposed restoration
of Patton Branch will contain about 3061 feet of new channel; 661 in Reach 1 and 2400
in Reach 2. In addition, 265 feet of channel will classify as preservation in Reach 1. The
final stream length will be determined during the design phase and therefore these stream
lengths are approximate. As a part of the stream restoration, a 30-foot vegetated buffer
' will be planted adjacent to the bankfull channel. The total buffer acreage will be
approximately 6.5 acres.
1 The culvert under Patton Road may be replaced as a part of this project to connect Reach
1 with Reach 2 for improved fish passage. A determination will be made during the
HEC-RAS analysis phase of the project as to whether this culvert will be replaced.
Table 5 Mitigation Credits

f.
Channel Existing
Stream
Length Proposed Stream
Length
(Thalwe ) Mitigation
Ratio Mitigation
Credits
Reach 1 840 661 1:1 661
265 7:1 38
Reach 2 2040 2400 1:1 2400
Total 3099
This project will meet the following goals and objectives:
1. Restore 3,061 linear feet of Patton Branch and protect the reach through a
conservation easement.
2. Preserve 265 linear feet Patton Branch.
' 3. Provide a stable stream channel that neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining
its dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport its watershed's water
and sediment load.
4. Improve water quality and reduce erosion for Patton Branch by stabilizing the stream
banks and eliminating cattle access to the streams.
' 5. Reconnect Patton Branch to its floodplain.
6. Improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures such
as root wads, rock vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer.
7. Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through the creation or
enhancement of a riparian zone that connects to the existing buffer along
Cartoogechaye Creek.
8. Improve water quality to Cartoogechaye Creek, which is listed with the Natural
' Heritage Program as aquatic habitat due to the presence of a variety of state listed
November 2002
39

Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
t species. These include Little Tennessee River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae),
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis),
' and the olive darter (Percina squamata).
9. Protect Cartoogechaye Creek receiving waters for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout. Cartoogechaye Creek is classified as Trout Waters (Tr) by
t NCDWQ.

November 2002
40
' Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
9.0 REFERENCES
' Amoroso, J.L., ed. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
' North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

0

n

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Macon County Flood Hazard Boundary Map
Community Panel Number 370150 0006 A. June 30, 1978.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern
United States. Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern
United States. Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Harrelson, Cheryl, C.L. Rawlings and John Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference
Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Fort Collins, CO: United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-245. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Hey, Richard and Dave Rosgen. 1997. Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers. Wildland
Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 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, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (16 October 2002).
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. "Standard Operating Procedures, Biological Monitoring". January, 1997.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land
Resources and Division of Water Quality, "Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in
North Carolina", April 2001, Version 3.0.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
41
November 2002
Stream Mitigation Plan, Patton Branch
Macon County, NC
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Rosgen, Dave. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Mitigation of Incised Rivers.
Wildland Hydrology. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes
Disturbed by Channel Incision.
Schafale, M.P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
' North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
' United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 1996. Soil Survey of Macon County, North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.

1
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services. http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html (31 May 2002).
USGS, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4207. 2001. Estimating the Magnitude
and Frequency of Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina-Revised.
42
November 2002

a
v
CL
x
a

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crew: Jan PatteYson, Heather Rennin•,er, and Ron Johnson
River Basin: Little Tennessee
Stream Reach: - Patton Branch Above Patton Road (Reach 1)
DA(sgmi): 15...
Date: 8,,C!L602
Feature: Riffle k1 Q US Se-d. Transport site

Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 100 4.00 96.00
5.0 100 4.01 95.99 0.0 0.00 0.0
8.2 100 4.10 95.90 LTOB 0.7 0.43 0.2
9.5 100 4.65 95.35 0.5 0.65 0.3
11.0 100 5.38 94.62 0.7 2.02 0.9
11.8 100 5.60 94.40 1.5 1.98 3.0
12.0 100 5.74 94.26 LBKF/LTOB 1.2 2.04 2.4
12.7 100 6.17 93.83 0.9 2.05 1.8
13.2 100 6.39 93.61 1.2 2.11 2.5
13.9 100 7.76 92.24 LEW 0.9 1.87 1.8
15.4 100 7.72 92.28 0.7 1.51 1.2
16.6 100 7.78 92.22 0.7 0.79 0.8
17.5 100 7.79 92.21 1.2 0.24 0.6
18.7 100 7.85 92.15 TW 1.1 0.00 0.1
19.6 100 7.61 92.39 REW/WS 11.3 15.6
20.3 100 7.25 92.75
21.0 100 6.53 93.47 Summary Data
22.2 100 5.98 94.02 Area 15.6
23.3 100 5.74 94.26 RBKF Width 11.3
23.9 100 5.39 94.61 Max d 2.11
24.6 100 4.68 95.32 Mean d 1.38
25.4 100 4.31 95.69 W/D 8.2
30.0 100 4.36 95.64 FPA Etev 96.37
37.0 100 4.39 95.61 FPA Width >50
43.0 100 4.74 95.26 ER >4.4
Stream Type E
100 8.45 91.55 WS
BEHL
CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
Bank/BKF Ht 1.8 7.0
Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.00 1.0
Root Density c5 10
Bank Angle 45 2.4
Surface Protection 50 4.3
Bank Materials Sand 10
34.7 High
Pool Cross Section #1
Patton Branch Project Site
98
d
0) 96
c
0
a 94
w
c
92
a`
90 +
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (feet)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crew: Jan Ra f6icon, Heidi ftr Fi Kh ng?r. and R°cn Johnsen
River Basin: Little Tennessee
Stream Reach: Patton Branch Above Patt en Road (Reach 1)
DA (sq mi): 1.5
Date: 8/6/2002
Feature: Pool #1
Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft)
0.0 100 3.39 96.61 LTOB 0.0 0.00 0.0
2.0 100 3.50 96.50 0.3 0.26 0.0
3.0 100 3.60 96.20 0.2 1.31 0.2
4.0 100 4.33 95.67 1.4 1.93 2.3
5.0 100 4.59 95.41 1.6 2.32 3.4
6.0 100 4.82 95.18 0.9 2.97 2.4
6.5 100 5.02 94.98 LBKF 0.9 2.89 2.6
6.8 100 5.28 94.72 1.4 2.79 4.0
7.0 100 6.33 93.67 0.9 2.06 2.2
8.4 100 6.95 93.05 LEW 0.2 0.00 0.2
10.0 100 7.34 92.66 7.8 17.2
10.9 100 7.99 92.01 TW
11.8 100 7.91 92.09 Summary Data BEHI:
13.2 100 7.81 92.19 Area 17.2 CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
14.1 100 7.08 92.92 REW Width 7.8 BankBKF Ht 1.2 4.0
14.3 100 5.02 94.98 RBKF Max d 2.97 Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.00 1.0
15.6 100 4.66 95.34 Mean d 2.21 Root Density <5 10
16.7 100 4.34 95.66 Bank Angle 110 8.7
17.9 100 4.28 95.72 RTOB Surface Protection <10 10
20.2 100 4.59 95.41 Bank Materials Sand 10
24.0 100 5.63 94.37 43.7 Very High
29.0 100 4.15 95.85
32.0 100 3.77 96.23
13.2 100 6.79 93.21 WS
Blaine Branch Project Site
Pool Cross Section #1
Reach 1
97-
,Z96 --
95
a2i 94
W
c?o 93 -
a` 92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (feet)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crew: Jan Patterson and Ron Johnson
River Basin: L ttleTennessee
Stream Reach: Blaine Branch Above Pattoc Road.
DA (sq mi): 5
Date: 10/9/2001 -
Bcd Materials: Fine Sand to Gravei vi/ Few Small to Med Cobble
Reach Slope: 0,022 See Note
Note: There ate 4 relic beaver damsJog vanes in this area
reAlure: Riffle #4
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0.0 100 1.25 98.75
5.0 100 1.69 98.31
8.7 100 2.54 97.46 LBKF/LTOB
9.0 100 3.20 96.80
9.9 100 4.05 95.95
10.2 100 5.01 94.99 LEW
12.0 100 5.10 94.90
13.7 100 4.96 95.04
15.2 100 5.08 94.92
17.0 100 5.01 94.99 REW
18.4 100 4.69 95.31
19.5 100 4.14 95.86
19.7 100 3.52 96.48
20.2 100 2.74 97.26
20.5 100 2.54 97.46 RBKF
21.0 100 2.23 97.77 RTOB
23.0 100 2.08 97.92
25.0 100 1.85 98.15
26.0 100 1.56 98.44
28.0 100 1.33 98.67 '
100 4.85 95.15 WS
'About 20 It beyond Station 28 is the relic Patton Springs Branch
100.02
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (So. Ft.
0.0 0.00 0.0
0.3 0.66 0.1
0.9 1.51 1.0
0.3 2.47 0.6
1.8 2.56 4.5
1.7 2.42 4.2
1.5 2.54 3.7
1.8 2.47 4.5
1.4 2.15 3.2
1.1 1.60 2.1
0.2 0.98 0.3
0.5 0.20 0.3
0.3 0.00 0.0
11.8 24.5
Summary Data BEHI:
Area 24.5 CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
Width 11.8 BankBKF Ht 1.1 1.9
Max d 2.56 Root DepthBKF Ht 0.18 7.5
Mean d 2.08 Root Density <5 10
W/D 5.7 Bank Angle 60 3.9
FPA Elev 100.02 Surface Protection <10 10
FPA Width >28 Bank Materials Silt/Clay 0
ER >2.4 TOTAL 33.3 High
Stream Type E"
"Disregarding stream slope due to beaver dams.
Riffle Cross Section #4
Blaine Branch Project Site
99
c
ss 97
d
W
95
:o
93
0 7 14 21 28 35 42.
Distance (feet)
1
1
1
1
1
Crew: Jan Patterson and Ron Jchnson
River Basin: Lide Tennessee
Stream Reach: Blaine 3ranch Above Patton Road
DA (sq mi): 1.5
Date: 10/10/2001_
Bed Materials: Fine Sand to Gravel w! Med to Large Cobble and Fey; Boulders
Reach Slope: 0.063
Feature: Riffle 45
Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0.0 100 3.54 96.46
2.2 100 3.94 96.06
4.0 100 4.26 95.74 LFPA
10.0 100 5.34 94.66
15.0 100 6.10 94.30
19.5 100 6.32 93.68
20.2 100 6.44 93.56
21.1 100 6.60 93.40 LBKF/LTOB
21.8 100 7.09 92.91
22.1 100 7.55 92.45
22.4 100 8.16 91.84
22.9 100 8.45 91.55
23.1 100 8.52 91.48 LEW
24.5 100 8.67 91.33
25.5 100 8.79 91.21
25.9 100 8.94 91.06 TW
27.0 100 8.81 91.19
28.0 100 8.74 91.26
30.1 100 8.56 91.44 REW/WS
32.0 100 8.07 91.93
32.4 100 7.37 92.63
32.9 100 6.90 93.10
33.5 100 6.60 93.40 RBKF
34.5 100 6.44 93.56 RTOB
39.0 100 6.37 93.63
42.0 100 5.97 94.03
46.8 100 5.24 94.76
49.0 100 4.92 95.08
100 8.56 91.44 WS
Width
(Feet) Depth
(Feet) Area
(Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.00 0.0
0.7 0.49 0.2
0.3 0.95 0.2
0.3 1.56 0.4
0.5 1.85 0.9
0.2 1.92 0.4
1.4 2.07 2.8
1.0 2.19 2.1
0.4 2.34 0.9
1.1 2.21 2.5
1.0 2.14 2.2
2.1 1.96 4.3
1.9 1.47 3.3
0.4 0.77 0.4
0.5 0.30 0.3
0.6 0.00 0.1
12.4 20.9
Summarv Data
Area 20.9
Width 12.4
Max d 2.34
Mean of 1.68
W/D 7.4
FPA Elev 95.74
FPA Width >45
ER >3.6
Stream Type E
BEHI:
Riffle Cross Section #5
Blaine Branch Project Site
97
96 ---
95
0
94 -.. - - ---- - - -- ?__. ------- . -
i
>
ur 93 --
? I
92 --._.. _. .. _ __..._. __ .. __ I
a 91
90
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet) I
CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
Bank/BKF Ht 1.1 1.9
Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.0 1.0
Root Density 30 5.9
Bank Angle 114 8.8
Surface Protection 20 7.2
Bank Materials Sand 10
TOTAL 34.8 High

Crew: J&n?Patterson. Heather Renninger, and Rondohnson
River Basin: Little Tennessee
Stream Reach: Patton Branch Above Patton Road (Reach 1)
DA (sq mi). 1,28
Date: 8/6/2002
Fgature: Riffle/Pool Spacing &Profile
Reach Slope
Station BS HI FS ELEV Notes

TBM 1 8.86 108.86 100.00 rock Ut white pines
Riffle 1 WS 9.06 99.80
new setup, same TBM
TBM 1 10.06 110.06 100.00 rock b't white pines
TP 1 9.48 119.32 0.22 109.84
TP 2 0.1 106.4 13.02 106.30
End Reach 1 16.29 90.11
TP 3 13.03 119.33 0.1 106.30
TP 4 0.32 110.15 9.5 109.83
TBM 1 10.15 100.00 close
Reach Fall (field measured)= 9.69
Reach Length (from mapping)= 840
Reach Slope (%)= 1.153571
Reach 1 Riffle Slopes/Lengths/Bank Ht Ratio

Riffle #
Length (ft)
US WS
DS WS
Slope (%)
Low TOB
BKF
TW Bank Ht
Ratio Notes
1 30 9.06 9.41 1.17 7.32 8.47 9.42 2.2
2 30 4.84 5.71 2.90 2.77 4.22 5.99 1.8
3 43 3.84 4.8 2.23 4.31 5.74 7.85 1.7 Riffle 1 (8/02)
4 67 4.15 4.9 1.12 1.9 3.46 5.22 1.9
170 1.85
Reach 1 Pool Slopes/Lengths/Max Depth/P-P Spacing
Pool # Length (ft) US WS DS WS Slope (%) P-P Spacing P-P/Dmean
1 20 5.74 5.74 0.00 156 13.2
2 31 6.77 6.81 0.13 54 4.6
3 19 6.9 6.94 0.21 73 6.2
4 33 6.57 6.57 0.00 47 4.0
103 0.0849 82.5 7.0

I?

1
n

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Patton Branch, Franklin, NC Date: 8/6/02
Part : R. Johnson, H. Rennin er, J. Patterson Reach: 1
Notes:
Inches Particle Millimeter Particle Count Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 9 12 21 21% 21%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 7 4 11 11% 32%
Fine .125-.25 A 3 10 13 13% 45%
Medium .25-.50 N 7 8 15 15% 60%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 2 5 7 7% 67%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 3 3 3% 70%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.o 2 2 2% 72%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 1 1 1 % 73%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 1 1 1 % 74%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A 2 1 3 3% 77%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 4 4 4% 81%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 2 2 2% 83%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 1 1 1 % 84%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 2 2 2% 86%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 2 2 2% 88%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 6 6 6% 94%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 - 128 O 4 4 4% 98%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 - 180 B 1 1 1 % 99%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L 1 1 1 % 100%
10.1 - 14.3 Small 256 -362 B 0 0% 1000
14.3 - 20 Small 362- 512 L 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Very Lr 1024- 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
Totals 60 40 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
Patton B ranch-Reach 1
100%
9o% - --- ---------- ---
80% --- ---------- ---- - ----- ---- ---

so°i° - - ----- --- - -
---------
----

r_ 50% - --- --- -------- - D50=Medium Sand - --..--- --.._
F 40% -- -- --- - -- ---- --- - D84=32 mm (Coarse G ravel) -__ __--
c 30% _ --- ----------
LL
0 20%
10%
0%

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

i Particle Size - Millimeter

U

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Patton Branch, Franklin, NC Date: 8/5/02
Pa : R. Johnson, H. Rennin er, J. Patterson Reach:
Notes:
Inches Particle Millimeter Particle Count Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 2 2 2% 2%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 11 11 11% 13%
Fine .125-.25 A 11 11 11% 24%
Medium .25-.50 N 7 7 7% 31%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 7 7 7% 38%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 11 11 11% 49%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 7 7 7% 56%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 9 9 9% 65%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 9 9 9% 74%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A 7 7 7% 81%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 8 8 8% 89%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 4 4 4% 93%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32..0 L 0 0% 93%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 4 4 4% 97%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 0 0% 97%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 2 2 20/. 99%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 - 128 O 0 0% 99%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 - 180 B 1 1 1% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0% 100%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Very Lr 1024 - 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRR 0 0% 100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
Patton Branch-Reach 1
Sediment Transport Analysis
100%
90% - --
a 80% _ - -- ----- ----- -------------- ---- ..
70% --
--
--
----------
-
--------------
-----

50°/, D50=2.0 mm (Very Fine Gravel)
40% D84=13 mm (Medium Gravel) _
c 30% ----
W
0 20%
-
10%
0%

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeter

J 'o N
J ? ° o
as?',a

tn T
n
o
0
co
N 0
T 0
T

N
N
N
N
°? O
o O
° O
o'
1? c
D
N r ct) I r D C7 N cc
lA -0 0' t
o
0
v
o

N N
N
1
CO
1
N
h
O
c?
r O Cl) o Cv N r,-

O c9 't
p
r
r
°
N CO Y V N p N V

CV N M ;N

7 r co
0
N
o
O
N
r T r C O N T
Lr,
_ T

T co

N

N
N
r
CO
r
,o
,o
o
o
r r O co C7 in r VN'

to co r-

QJ C 'a' r ?- IIC'? o N. T N (n m

r CO 07 tD CO p o
0
?.
0
`J
76 O O CD O In T 'T N N
J a- ar"_

E - - - - 0 '0 (D
? E E
E
E
_ > > y >
N ? •- ai fII CS ?
in ? 'd 'a? '? °J a a a
C)
LU
J d i d d U)
H
E ;? CL) a)
Q
U) u) ?
(@ a)
a
V
3
?ccc E
W (a M C e
. 2

Lt-
- o

N

O

7

U Z

Y
?
'N 1L o
m
L.
W V
L CL

am
a/ N
O i
y
.. n
r i W

V
.Q D
L L
N co 0..
D
O 1
d
N R T
in 9L
d1 ?
V j
(6

? j

0 0 0 0 0
0 0
' 0
o o a o oT
O W W 0 CO O 0 'a M N O O
eni 3ein mC ) %

`Crew: Jan PJ"f66n; HdFi.er Renninger, and Ron Johnson
River Basin: Little Tenne ssee
Stream Reac h: Patton Bran ch Below Patt on Road (Reach 2)
DA (sq ml): 1.5
Date: 8/6/2DO2
Feature: Riffle #2
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Hydraulic Geometry
0.0 100 5.37 94.63 pasture Width Depth Area
9.0 100 5.11 94.89 pasture (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
22.0 100 4.75 95.25 pasture 0.0 0.00 0.0
30.0 100 4.68 95.32 LTOB 1.0 0.28 0.1
31.0 100 4.88 95.12 LBKF 0.8 0.86 0.5
32.0 100 5.16 94.84 1.2 1.12 1.2
32.8 100 5.74 94.26 0.7 1.48 0.9
34.0 100 6.00 94.00 0.4 1.79 0.7
34.7 100 6.36 93.64 0.9 2.06 1.7
35.1 100 6.67 93.33 0.2 3.11 0.5
36.0 100 6.94 93.06 1.3 3.18 4.1
36.2 100 7.99 92.01 LEW 1.1 3.12 3.5
37.5 100 8.06 91.94 TW 0.9 2.23 2.4
38.6 100 8.00 92.00 REW 0.8 1.52 1.5
39.5 100 7.11 92.89 0.8 0.99 1.0
40.3 100 6.40 93.60 1.1 1.00 1.1
41.1 100 5.87 94.13 0.5 0.86 0.5
42.2 100 5.88 94.12 0.8 0.59 0.6
42.7 100 5.74 94.26 1.0 0.34 0.5
43.5 100 5.47 94.53 0.5 0.52 0.2.
44.5 100 5.22 94.78 1.0 0.00 0.3
45.0 100 5.40 94.60 15.0 21.1
46.0 100 4.88 95.12 RBKF/RTOB
55.0 100 4.61 95.39 Summary Data
68.0 100 4.63 95.37 Area 21.1
Width 15.0
38.6 100 7.79 92.21 WS Max d 3.18
Mean d 1.41
W/D 10.6
FPA Elev 98.30
FPA Width >70
ER >4.7
Stream Type E
Patton Branch Project Site-Reach 2
Riffle Cross Section #2
96
m 95
m
c
94
m
93
ee
a 92
91
BEHI:
Bank/BKF Ht 1.0 1
Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.0 1.0
Root Density 50 4.3
Bank Angle 30 2.4
Surface Protection 90 1.5
Bank Materials Sand 10
20.2
0 10 20 30 40
Distance (feet)
50 60 70

Crew: Jan Patterson, Heathe-P2rr ^2[, an*R n Jci-rscn
River Basin: Little Tenne ssee
Stream Reac h: Patton Bran ch Below Patton Road (Reach 2)
DA (sq mi):' 11 .50
Date: 8/6/2002
Feature: Pool 42 -

Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 100 5.48 94.52
10.0 100 4.75 95.25 0.0 0.00 0.0
12.0 100 4.79 95.21 0.7 1.97 0.7
13.8 100 4.93 95.07 LTOB 2.7 2.02 5.4
15.4 100 5.34 94.66 0.7 3.25 1.8
16.6 100 6.04 93.96 LBKF 1.0 3.28 3.3
17.3 100 8.01 91.99 0.4 3.51 1.4
20.0 100 8.06 91.94 0.9 3.53 3.2
20.7 100 9.29 90.71 LEW 1.0 3.46 3.5
21.7 100 9.32 90.68 1.0 3.30 3.4
22.1 100 9.55 90.45 1.0 2.77 3.0
23.0 100 9.57 90.43 TW 1.3 2,38 3.3
24.0 100 9.50 90.50 0.3 1.97 0.7
25.0 100 9.34 90.66 1.3 0.04 1.3
26.0 100 8.81 91.19 REW/WS 12.3 30.9
27.3 100 8.42 91.58
27.6 100 8.01 91.99 BEHI:
28.9 100 6.08 93.92 RBKF CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
30.0 100 5.21 94.79 Summar y Data Bank/BKF Ht 3.0 10.0
33.0 100 4.37 95.63 Area 30.9 Root Depth/BKF Ht 0.32 5.7
38.0 100 4.42 95.58 Width 12.3 Root Density <10 10
Max d 3.53 Bank Angle 85 6.8
100 8.81 91.19 WS Mean d 2.51 Surface Protection <10 10
Bank Materials Sand 10
TOTAL 52.5 Extreme
Patton Branch Project Site-Reach 2
Pool Cross Section #2
96
95
d
094
.is
93 -
w
R 92
:c
a 91
90
0 10 20 30 40
Distance (feet)

Crew: Jan Patterson and Pon Johnscn
River Basin: Little Tennessee
Stream Reach: Blaine Branch Below Patton Road
DA (sq mi): 1.5
Date: 10/92001
Bed Materials: Fine Sand to Cobble
Reach Slope: 2,06
Feature: Riffle 91
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0.0 100 6.11 93.89
20.0 100 6.04 93.96
35.0 100 5.43 94.57
44.0 100 5.19 94.81 LBKF/LTOB
46.0 100 5.94 94.06
47.0 100 6.47 93.53
47.3 100 7.26 92.74
48.0 100 7.45 92.55
49.5 100 7.49 92.51
50.0 100 7.98 92.02
50.1 100 8.97 91.03 LEW
51.0 100 9.01 90.99 TW
51.5 100 8.99 91.01
52.2 100 9.00 91.00
52.5 100 8.90 91.10 REW
53.0 100 8.34 91.66
53.5 100 8.12 91.88
54.3 100 8.13 91.87
54.9 100 7.79 92.21
55.0 100 7.09 92.91
55.5 100 6.72. 93.28
55.9 100 6.47 93.53
56.2 100 6.33 93.67
57.5 100 5.68 94.32
59.5 100 5.19 94.81 RBKF
63.0 100 4.85 95.15
74.0 100 5.28 94.72
85.0 100 5.27 94.73
100 8.64 91.36 WS
Hydraulic Geometry
Width
(Feet) Depth
(Feet) Area
(Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.00 0.0
2.0 0.75 0.8
1.0 1.28 1.0
0.3 2.07 0.5
0.7 2.26 1.5
1.5 2.30 3.4
0.5 2.79 1.3
0.1 3.78 0.3
0.9 3.82 3.4
0.5 3.80 1.9
0.7 3.81 2.7
0.3 3.71 1.1
0.5 3.15 1.7
0.5 2.93 1.5
0.8 2.94 2.3
0.6 2.60 1.7
0.1 1.90 0.2
0.5 1.53 0.9
0.4 1.28 0.6
0.3 1.14 0.4
1.3 0.49 1. t
2.0 0.00 0.5
15.5 28.7
Summarv Data
Area 28.7
Width 15.5
Max d 3.82
Mean d 1.85
W/D 8.4
FPA Elev 98.63
FPA Width >85
ER >5.5
Stream Type E
BEHI:
CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
Bank/BKF Ht 1.0 1.0
Root Depth/BKF Ht 0.87 2.1
Root Density 80 1.9
Bank Angle 38 2.8
Surface Protection 80 1.9
Bank Materials Sand 10
19.7 Moderate
Riffle Cross Section #1
Blaine Branch Project Site
97 - - - - -^_..._
d
d
w
C
O
0 95 - -'--- - -
a)
W -.. i _. ._..
93 -
i
Q
f
i
91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (feet)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crew: Jan Patterson and'FRon Johnson
River Basin: Little Tennessee
Stream Reach: Blaine Branch Below Patton Read
DA (sg ml): 1.5
Date: 10/9/2001
Bed Materials: Rne Sand to Gravel
Reach Slope: 0.003
Feature: Riffle P2
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0.0 100 5.34 94.66
32.0 100 5.50 94.50
34.0 100 5.70 94.30
47.0 100 6.91 93.09
50.5 100 7.64 92.36
53.1 100 8.06 91.94
58.0 100 8.91 91.09
63.0 100 9.16 90.84
68.0 100 9.00 91.00
69.3 100 8.86 91.14
70.0 100 8.31 91.69 LBKF
72.0 100 9.28 90.72
74.5 100 9.45 90.55
77.5 100 9.44 90.56
80.0 100 9.60 90.40
82.7 100 10.19 89.81 LEW/WS
83.8 100 10.38 89.62
84.5 100 10.42 89.58 TW
85.8 100 10.41 89.59
86.3 100 10.30 89.70 REW
87.6 100 9.64 90.36
88.5 100 9.00 91.00
89.2 100 8.31 91.69 RBKF
89.6 100 8.06 91.94
90.7 100 7.10 92.90
92.0 100 5.67 94.33 RTOB/RFPA
94.0 100 5.55 94.45
110.0 100 5.65 94.35
150.0 100 3.99 96.01
100 10.19 89.81 WS
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.00 0.0
2.0 0.97 1.0
2.5 1.14 2.6
3.0 1.13 3.4
2.5 1.29 3.0
2.7 1.88 4.3
1.1 2.07 2.2
0.7 2.11 1.5
1.3 2.10 2.7
0.5 1.99 1.0
1.3 1.33 2.2
0.9 0.69 0.9
0.7 0.00 0.2
19.2 25.0
Summary Data
Area 25.0
Width 19.2
Max d 2.11
Mean d 1.30
W/D 14.7
FPA Bev 93.80
FPA Width 54.0
ER 2.8
Stream Type C
BEHi:
Bank/BKF Ht 2.3 8.3
Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.0 1.0
Root Density 30 5.9
Bank Angle 36 2.7
Surface Protection 30 5.9
Bank Materials Sand 10
33.8
Riffle Cross Section #2
Blaine Branch Project Site
97
96
m
,a.' 95
r-
.2 94
R
93
W
?-' 92
L
91
Q
90
89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
I
Distance (feet)

1

n

?j

Crew: Jan Patterson and Ron Johnson
River Basin: Little Tennessee
Stream Reach: Bla'neBranch Below Patton Road
DA (sq mi): ' 1.5
Date: 16/9/2001
Feature: Pool ,#1
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0.0 100 4.49 95.51
8.0 100 5.11 94.89
25.0 100 5.68 94.32
35.0 100 5.91 94.09
36.3 100 6.33 93.67
38.0 100 5.89 94.11
39.5 100 5.90 94.10 LBKF/LTOB
40.6 100 6.38 93.62
41.1 100 6.62 93.38
41.3 100 7.31 92.69
42.5 100 7.59 92.41
43.5 100 7.90 92.10
44.1 100 8.25 91.75
44.3 100 9.01 90.99
45.0 100 9.30 90.70 ROCK
45.3 100 9.71 90.29
46.0 100 9.91 90.09
46.7 100 9.98 90.02
47.0 100 10.00 90.00 TW
47.7 100 9.90 90.10
48.6 100 9.80 90.20
49.0 100 9.40 90.60
49.2 100 8.92 91.08
49.7 100 7.46 92.54
51.0 100 7.24 92.76
53.0 100 6.23 93.77
55.5 100 5.90 94.10 RBKF
58.0 100 5.27 94.73
62.5 100 5.18 94.82
67.0 100 5.69 94.31
77.0 100 6.00 94.00
85.0 100 6.60 93.40
100 8.45 91.55 WS
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)

0.0 0.00 0.0
1.1 0.48 0.3
0.5 0.72 0.3
0.2 1.41 0.2
1.2 1.69 1.9
1.0 2.00 1.8
0.6 2.35 1.3
0.2 3.11 0.5
0.7 3.40 2.3
0.3 3.81 1.1
0.7 4.01 2.7
0.7 4.08 2.8
0.3 4.10 1.2
0.7 4.00 2.8
0.9 3.90 3.6
0.4 3.50 1.5
0.2 3.02 0.7
0.5 1.56 1.1
1.3 1.34 1.9
2.0 0.33 1.7
2.5 0.00 0.4
16.0 30.1
Summary Data
Area 30.1
Width 16.0
Max d 4.10
Mean d 1.88
Pool Cross Section #1
Patton Branch Project Site
96 -...i.......---?
o
c
w 92
j
? I
I
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Distance (feet)

PATTERN MEASUREMENTS
Reach 2: Below Patton Road
Bankfull Width=
36.5
Radius of Curvature
Radius of
Curvature Rc/Bkf W
17.8 0.5
Meander Width Ratio
Meander
Belt Width ft Width Ratio
30 0.8
47 1.3
29 0.8
ave 35.3 1.0
min 29.0 0.8
max 47.0 1.3
Meander Wavelength
Meander
Wavelength (ft) Lm/Bkf W
93 2.5
82 2.2
56 1.5
ave 77.0 2.1
min 56.0 1.5
max 93.0 2.5

;rew: Jan Patterson, H(aNfher Renninger, and Ron Johnson
3iver Basin: Cttle Tennessee
Stream Reach: Patton Branch Below Patton Road (Reach 2) ,
)A (sq mi): 1,50
)ate: 8/6/2002
-eature: Riffle/Pool Spacing &:Proftle
Reach 2 Riffle Slopes/Lengths/Bank Ht Ratio
Bank Ht
Riffle # Length (ft) US WS DS WS Slope (%) Low TOB BKF TW Ratio Notes
' 1 60 7.2 8.25 1.75 5.4 5.74 8.06 1.1 10' BKF W Riffle #2 (8/02)
2 27 8.36 8.82 1.70 5.4 6.94 8.75 1.9
3 34 8.34 9.15 2.38 3.64 7.72 9.18 3.8
4 37 10.58 11.15 1.54 5.74 10.33 11.08 7.1 11' BKF W
5 38 9.26 9.79 1.39 5.24 8.78 9.86 4.3 13' BKF W
' 196 1.75
Reach 2 Pool Slopes/Lengths/Max Depth/P-P Spacing
' Pool # Length (ft) US WS DS WS Slope (%) P-P Spacing P-P/Dmean
1 14 8.24 8.26 0.14 80 4.8
2 21 8.81 8.82 0.05 121 7.3
3 21 8.79 8.82 0.14 56 3.4
4 14 7.6 7.61 0.07 40 2.4
5 38 9.82 9.82 0.00 75 4.5
108 0.081 74.4 4.5
Est Slope (ft/ft) 1.160

u

11

C?

u

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Patton Branch, Franklin, NC Date: 8/7/02
Pa : R. Johnson, H. Rennin er, J. Patterson Reach: 2
Notes:
Inches Particle Millimeter Particle Count Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 3 2 5 5% 5%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 4 5 9 9% 14%
Fine .125-.25 A 6 5 11 11% 25%
Medium .25-.50 N 3 1 4 4% 29%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 5 6 11 11% 40%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 6 4 10 10% 50%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 5 3 8 8% 58%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 1 2 3 3% 61%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 7 7 7% 68%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A 5 1 6 6% 74%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 7 1 8 8% 82%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 2 2 2% 84%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 6 6 6% 90%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 5 5 5% 95%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 2 2 2% 97%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 2 2 2% 99%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 - 128 O 1 1 1 % 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 - 180 B 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0% 100%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Very Lr 1024 - 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
Totals 70 30 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
Patton B ranch-Reach 2
100%
so% - -- ---
8o?io - ------ -------- -------- --..
7o?io -- ----- --- --- - - - ..------- -------- -------- --
60% - --- - --- -
----
--
50%-- -. D50=2mm(VeryCoarseSand) _ ___-__.__ _.

40% D84-22 mm (Coarse Gravel)

c 30% - -------- --- -----
-----
--------

_ _
------

_ .
LL
20%
__._--____--
_.___...
_ ----- .-------
--------
---------
--
10% '---- - -- -
0%

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeter
L -

i

Fj
C

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Patton Branch, Franklin, NC Date: 8/6/02
Part : R. Johnson, H. Rennin er, J. Patterson Reach:
Notes:
Inches Particle Millimeter Particle Count Total No. Item % % Cumulative-
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 5 5 5% 5%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 2 2 2% 7%
Fine .125-.25 A 2 2 2% 9%
Medium .25-.50 N 8 8 8% 17%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 14 14 14% 31%
.04 -.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 8 8 8% 39%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 8 8 8% 47%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 4 4 4% 51%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 10 10 10% 61%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A 15 15 15% 76%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 12 12 12% 88%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 6 6 6% 94%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 1 1 1% 95%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 1 1 1 % 96%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 1 1 1 % 97%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 1 1 1 % 98%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 - 128 O 2 2 2% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 - 180 B 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Lar a 180 - 256 L 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0% 100%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Very Lr 1024 - 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
Totals 0 100 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
Patton B ranch-Reach 2
Sediment Transport Analysis
100%
90% ------ --
80% - ------- ------------------ ----- .-.-- --

U 60%

50% - - - - - - - - - - D50=5.0 mm (Fine Gravel) - - -
40% - - - - D84-15 mm (Medium Gravel)
= 30% ----- - -
0 20% ---
10% --- - ------- -------- - ----
0

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeter

N
U
N
U U
? C
m m 0
C O
O N
J r co
L
U
a Cj r o r
--? N O O N
d ? N ? N
.JCOO p
? ? o 0
Q7 O O O
r O O O
T

N 0
N co
O
O
o O
?°?,?
T° o
A r C) T O 0 0 (\ Ql
CO N m T r
?7 o \°
° o
N N r r? ? ro o
`?
?-' O r O O (p O
IN IR
r T r N 0
T co
N CA
U') Ln
r N
a)
^ NO LO C ? ? 0
I F;
: (? [\
T
r co
N co
u7 T r--
E 0 O O O

O
r
T
o
O
N N
r O
N f?
N m
CD
LO
I? Co
O CA
O
m CD
O
o7
oo
0
o o , o

0
?
co O

,--- N

`?
CO U-) Lf? V
o
o o
° 0
'
N 00 W ty O m

r r
m m m m m Co o c o mc
.
N 'C L -C > > v
R R
y m

0
?:

?

? a

\ s n.

.
.
(D a)
07 :
?>
N ..
O x
* .3..
(f1 ,3
Cn
N Z Z m
'
r
m
(n
w ; E
L
n
m
v
=
"'
s
IL :n c
? o

N
C
O

5
V
V Z m
r C
N Y
?
C
C i
LL _
E
E
3
j
. ?
CV m
o
`q N
a
L j ,C
U
a t
CL

c
w d
?
1
w
T
O
O C
? !C ?
E
L
N ;
co
0
O
N
a
d E
V E
t
I
a
1y?T
1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r
0o rn oc o ° co o ? ao coo cow 0 0
enl Jein wno %
I BEVEL III: ASSESSMENT OF STREAM CONDITION AND DEPARTURE

0

TABLE 6-8. Bank erodibility hazard rating guide. (Rosgen, 1990)
BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
CRITERIA VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX VALUE INDEX
Bank HtBkf Ht 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.9 1.1-1.19 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
Root DepthBank 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 <.05 10
Root Density (%) 80-100 1.0-1.9 55-79 2.0-3.9 30-54 4.0-5.9 15-29 6.0-7.9 5-14 8.0-9.0 <5.0 10
Bank Angle (Degrees) 0-20 1.0-119 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
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
TOTALS
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
Numerical
Adjustments
BANK MATERIALS: BEDROCK: BANK EROSION POTENTIAL ALWAYS VERY LOW7
BOULDERS: BANK EROSION POTENTIAL LOW
COBBLE: DECREASE BY ONE CATEGORY UNLESS MIXTURE OF GRAVEL/SAND IS OVER 50%t
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
' TABLE 6-9. Stress in the near-bank region, conversion of numerical indices to adjective ratings.

CONVERSION OF NUMERICAL INDICES TO ADJECTIVE RATINGS

Near Bank
Stress Rating
Velocity
Gradient***

A nb/A** Near Bank
Stress/Mean
Shear Stress*
Low 1.0-1.2 .32 or less .32 or less
Moderate 1.21-1.6 .33-.41 .3-.5
High 1.61-2.0 .42-.45 .6-1.0
Very High 2.1-2.3 .46-.50 1.1-113
Extreme 2.4 or more .51 or more 1.4 or more

**

Near bank shear stress/mean shear stress
(shear stress = depth*slope*water density)
A = cross-sectional area: Near-bank cross-sectional area =
width*depth* for 1/3 of the channel width in the near bank region.
Velocity gradient in ft/sec/ft is the difference in velocity from the core of velocity isovel
along the orthogonal length to bank region in feet.
- - 6-41

1

a
10
a
x
W

2. Step formed from log and debris jam. Several exist in the channel above
Patton Road probably from past beaver activities.
Photo Log
Blaine Branch, Macon County, North Carolina
1. General view of Blaine Branch upstream from Patton Road.

3. Wetland area adjacent to Blaine Branch. Undisturbed for approximately
I year. Located immediately below Patton Road.
4. Longitudinal view of Blaine Branch below Patton Road, looking
downstream.

5. View of Blaine Branch tloodplain anct tie in witn neia cirainage uiwii.
{
semi
6. Riffle Cross Section. Note high bank height on opposite bank.

8. Blaine Branch at confluence with Cartoogechaye Creek, looking
upstream.
7. Bank is experiencing mass wasting just above tie in with Cartoogechaye
Creek.
Raccoon Branch Reference Reach
Haywood County, North Carolina
1. General view of Raccoon Branch.
2. View of typical riffle, looking upstream towards pool.

u

CI'

u
u
u
r
P
3. View of typical pool.
11

a
V
V
CL

n
1
F'11
Appendix E DWQ Stream Habitat Evaluation Form
5/99 Revision 4

Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream
direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. All meter readings
need to be performed prior to walking the stream. When working the habitat index, select the description which best fits the
observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score.
There are eight different metrics in this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different
metrics.
Stream-Patton Branch- Location/Road-Patton Road County--Macon
Date_8/6/02 CC# Basin_Little Tennessee Subbasin 06-01-02
Observer(s)_R. Johnson, H. Renninger, J. Patterson_Office Location-Raleigh-Agency -Earth Tech
Type of Study: Fish Benthos Basinwide Special Study (Describe) -Stream Mitigation Plan
Latitude _83 deg, 25 min_Longitude _35 deg, 9 min_Ecoregion (circle one) MT P Distance Surveyed---915_meters
Physical Characterization: Land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you
see driving thru the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section for such descriptions as "deeply
incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other unusual conditions.

1
11

Land use: Forest_40_% Active Pasture_59_% Active Crops% Fallow Fields ._% Commercial _%
Industrial %a Residential_l_% Other -%-Describe:
Width: (meters) Stream_4.3 Channel Average Stream Depth: (m)_1.6 Velocity m/sec
Flow conditions (circle one): High Normal Low
Manmade Stabilization: Y[ ] N[ x ] Describe:
Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 Conductivity pmhos/cm pH
Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Tannic
Weather Conditions:-Sunny 85 degrees Photo #.
Remarks:-previously channelized

t
Typical Stream Cross-section
?1, , ? _ Extreme Hi h Water (Channel Width) -
Normal High Water
Normal Flow
?- - _ Upper Bank
Lowe

r
Bank
L
Stream Width
I. Channel Modification (Use topo map as an additional aid for this parameter)
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls) ................................................... Score
5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ..................................................................................................... 4
C. some channelization present ............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ...............................................................
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 2
0

u

Remarks Subtotal-
2-H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover.
C-ele Bold the habitats which occur- (Rocks) (Macrophytes) (sticks and leaf packs) (snags and logs) (undercut banks or root
mats) Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to decay. Piles of leaves in pool
areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ........................ ... 0
Remarks_Undercut banks are minimal, most have mass wasted into channel to form central bars-Upper
Subtotal_ll_
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look
at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
2. embeddedness 20-40% ..........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% .........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-40% .........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................
D. substrate homgeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ...................................................................................................
................................................................
2. substrate nearly all sand ........ ........:.......................
3. substrate nearly all detritus ....................................................................................................
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ..................................................................................................
Score
15
12
8
3
14
11
6
2
The Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina 2

fl

1
Remarks Subtotal_6
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ........................................................................................................ 10
b. pools same size ................................................................................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ......................................................................................................... 6
b.pools same size ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present .................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Runs absent ...................................................................................................................................... 0
Remarks Page Total-
6--V. Riffle Habitats

Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................10 3
D. riffles absent ........................................................................................................................0
Subtotal-
12-VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation

A. Banks stable
Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion .................................... 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... 5 5
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ....................... 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ............................................ 0 0
Total-7_
Remarks_Reach 1 scores as a 10, while Reach 2 scores as 4, thereported value is an average of the two
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block
out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No shading .................................................................................................................................. 0
4.5
' The Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina 3

' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the near-stream
portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
' Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)

' 1. zone width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2, zone width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 5
4 5
4
3. zone width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3 3
4. zone width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
' B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
b. zone width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 3
2 3
2
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
' a. zone width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 3
2 3
2
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks _Reach 1 contains trees, shrubs and grasses, while Reach 2 is predominately grasses with few trees. Min imal sediment
input from overland sources- Total-
6-TOTAL SCORE 43.5
5/99 Revision 4

1

1

it

The Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina 4

1

J

L
C V
O C
m Cl)
O N .?
N C >' ? ? ? 3 ? ? c
C a? N ?'?„l Ct 3
s a o R
C _
4 C C?3 3 Q
C
0 a)
Z 0 w cz WJ 3 C C C
^, m 33 c 3
N
i?5• k
I
O?
0
N
O
O
O N6
O
O

a.+
U
(a
a)
a)
N
a)
a
O
t?
L
a)
Y
L
cu
(L
a)
Z
c
O
U
O
?L
N
U
.O
C
as
Y
a)
a)
L
U
m
U
L
O
C
O
t6
E
O
C
a)
c
c
ca
Uo
0 Z
c
ca ?
o
0 0
U
c
to U
M (a
U2
c?
a?
cB
I--

cu
0
L
vJ
O
LO
0
O
U)
w
w
O
VJ
m
0
U-
-CL
LL
Y
I -
Y
m
m
N
Q
LL
Y
m
L

C
0
U
O
J
LO LO ?
c9 Li (9
m co
co ) V'
e-
O T- O O
O
O O O
O O O
M N M
? ? V-:
N N
? r
LO M
O co
N cej
M Ch
r- O In
M r- ?
? r
O O 00
f-- O
LO
U
vJ
LO
O
O
O
N
N
N
r
N
L6
O
N
Cl?
N
N
ti
CO 00
O
T-
00 U? U? lp
O O O O
?- O M co
O ti O
00 ? N CO
I? Cl?
T- N
00 lq'
? r
LO LO

0 0
O ti ?
M N
a)

co ,.,
c p (a

CL 0
Q- 0 0 a)
-
' oUU

'?'
m
o
o
a?
o _

N O
i a
i
a
L L L ? aa) a
i
N L o 0
o
? yr
ca o
YUUH ?c a
a

v7
E
a)
`m
-0 Cl)
0- cn
cu
E m
cn
ca
o
rn
(6
O
? c
c
SUMMARY CAT CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY
Parker Tract -Stream Restoration
The total length of potential stream mitigation on the Parker Tract is 2203 linear feet.
This includes 1793 feet on the main stem of Cat Creek and 410 feet on the two perennial
tributaries. Cat Creek on the Parker Tract is proposed for restoration from stream types G
and F to a stable C at or near the existing elevation. Segment three is separated from the
downstream segments by a nickpoint (bedrock) and is approximately 300' in length
(Figure 2). This stretch was classified as a Rosgen F5 (Table 3). Segment one has
several point bars and tighter meanders. Segment two is channelized with very shallow
meanders and is mostly runs. Both segments were found to be Rosgen Stream Type G5c.
Priority II work will be needed to stabilize the creek and near the boundary line where
there is little space to work, Priority III.
There were two tributaries located on the Parker Tract. Tributary #2 on the Parker Tract
is shown on USGS topo maps as a blue line stream. Both tributaries are perennial
streams although Tributary #1 is not shown as a blue line topo feature. Tributary #2 is
classified as a Rosgen Stream Type G6c (Table 3.). Tributary #1 was similar to Tributary
#2 in stream type and data was not collected for classification. The two tributaries
located on the Parker Tract are proposed for Priority I restoration
Riparian buffer reestablishment is proposed throughout all of the length of the creek and
tributaries, due to the mowed nature of the site.
Parker Tract -Wetlands Restoration
Three areas on the Parker Tract were identified as having potential restoration to
jurisdictional wetland communities. The total acreage was approximately 2.25 acres.
The large area between the dam and Cat Creek on the Parker Tract (W3) has hydric soils
and a source of water that could be directed into an expanded wetland area (Figure 1).
The second site was a small area on the south side of the creek on the Parker tract (W2).
It currently does not have a source of water and restoration or expansion of that area will
depend on a hydrologic source. The third site (W5, W6, W7, W8, W9 and W10) is an
area parallel to the property line on the north side of the Parker Tract. The soils in this
area showed amendments on the surface, but distinctly hydric at depths of 9"or more.
Some wetland restoration in this area may be possible based on the soils characterization
but it has limited hydrological sources. Removal of the amendments in the tract,
particularly around the hydric soil locations, may allow for restoration of large tracts of
wetlands.
L r-- N
.o
? c
o m` C/1
c
Q Cl)

co

c
' C C
0
UE0 ^
?I ?
c .
04Q)°
c (V
w
zoa

A p
O N
'1? m U ? ti ? y ? a
a?
LL
0
0
!P 1
o
0
0
o?
0
ON
0
0
0
L C
Vv
.? c
? c
-z

?5
Table 1. Stream segments available for restoration, Cat Creek, Parker Tract, Macon County, NC.
Creek Subsection Length of creek
(feet)

Cat Creek 1793
Segment 1 approx. 300
Segment 2 approx. 1190
Segment 3 approx. 300

Tributary 1 167

Tributary 2 243

Total Length 2203
Parker Tract
Cat Creek - Upper Site
3.5
3
2.5
a?
2
S.1.5
m
0.5
Top of bank Top of bank
Flood prone elevation
Bankfull elevation
Stream channel
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213
Width (feet)
Figure 3. Parker Tract Cat Creek Upper Site Plot
Parker Tract
Cat Creek - Middle Site
F
L
a+
d
d
4- `
s
a -
as
C
Parker Tract
Tributary 2
4
m
m?
s
fl.
as ?
D
1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
Width (feet)
Figure 4. Parker Tract Cat Creek Middle Site Plot
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Width (feet)
Figure 5. Parker Tract Tributary #2 Plot
, I 'k
SUMMARY CAT CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Preserve - Stream Restoration
The total length of potential stream mitigation available on the Preserve is 1983 linear
feet. This includes 1840 feet of the main stem of Cat Creek and 143 feet for two
tributaries. These are existing lengths and not restored lengths. Cat Creek on The
Preserve is proposed for restoration from an unstable stream type C to a stable C.
Riparian buffer reestablishment is proposed throughout all of the lengths of all creeks and
tributaries. Priority II restoration work will be necessary throughout the project on Cat
Creek. This is an unstable C stream with bank cutting on the outside of meanders and
point bar development on the inside.
The two tributaries on this tract can be a Priority I restoration. Tributary #1 is partially
culverted and needs to be daylighted. The channel should continue to enter the old pond
bed in order to maintain the wetland that has developed there. Tributary #2 is heavily
silted. Several possibilities exist for the tributaries including Priority I restoration,
establishment of wetlands, or hydrating existing wetlands.
The Preserve - Wetlands Restoration
A potential 2.25 acres of wetland restoration are possible on this tract. The long, narrow
area on the northeast side of Cat Creek (P1) has hydric soils and an existing wetland area.
There is also the existing wetland in the abandoned pond. There are two small tributaries
that could be used as a hydrologic source for wetlands (Figure 7). An expanded area of
wetlands between the existing two wetlands and the two creeks is possible. Other areas
in the Preserve with amendments do not have the sources of hydrology necessary to
create wetlands. Tributary 41 is proposed for a Priority I restoration to a D5 stream type
and would be directed into the existing wetland in the pond depression. The walls on the
pond would be sloped and the wetland expanded in north-south directions, to the extent
the hydrology of the tributary allowed. For Tributary #2, there are two alternatives
(Figure 7). The first alternative is to do Priority I restoration on the tributary to create a
D5 stream type and to create an associated wetland along its length. The second
alternative would be a Priority I restoration to D5, but to direct the flow towards the
existing wetland to the north. The extent of this methodology will depend on the
hydrology of Tributary #2 as there is available area for restoration and soil disposal on
site.
v U
o

yam` CC3
i-?
?

N
0 •--
CL cn
y = T
? N f0
C
aQ
C 0 ; _ Ct

Q E
V o
N
L f0 N
0 ? 0 >
Z0a W
.. C?3

w
0
a
c v
?! C
? o N ? 07
b o b a 2
R 2 2
J
C. V] 0. p1 Q 0.
II.I
v
3
3
0
0
°r
o?
0
0
0
o?
0
O
1
o?
o?
O
O
LO
Table 5. Stream segments available for restoration, Cat Creek, The Preserve, Macon County,
NC.
Creek Length of creek
(feet)

Cat Creek 1840

Tributary 1 20

Tributary 2 123

Total Length 1983
The Preserve

a?
a?
o:
Figure 6. The Preserve Cat Creek Plot
0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34
Width (feet)

AGENCY MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2001
BLAINE BRANCH, MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requested that Earth Tech conduct a
feasibility study on the portion of Blaine Branch owned by Sam K. Greenwood in Franklin,
North Carolina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the site for potential stream and
wetland mitigation and to assess the willingness of Mr. Greenwood to place a riparian buffer in
an easement through NCDOT.
Through the analysis of the field data, Earth Tech estimates that approximately 2,500 linear feet
of stream mitigation is feasible as measured along the existing channel centerline, 522 feet above
Patton Road and 1,982 feet below. The 522 feet above Patton Road and an additional 231feet
below the road would be classified as stream enhancement while 1,751 below Patton Road
would be stream restoration. The restoration portion would be composed of a combination of
Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration for a total of 2,227 linear feet as measured along the thalweg
of the channel. In addition, a 50-foot wide fenced riparian buffer on either side of the stream
would be used to protect the stream from cattle impacts that currently lend to the impairment of
the stream channel. Above Patton Road, the buffer would be approximately 1.2 acres while.
Below Patton Road, the buffer would be about 5.4 acres. A cattle and equipment crossing and a
watering system would be installed on either side of the stream below Patton Road since the
cattle would be fenced out of the stream.
Restoration techniques used on the site will include:
• Alteration of stream channel dimension, pattern, and profile to achieve stream stability.
• Placement of natural material structures in the stream to reduce erosion and enhance aquatic
habitat.
• Stabilization of stream banks with herbaceous and woody vegetation.
• Establishing a riparian buffer.
• Fencing out the cattle while providing equipment and cattle crossings and a watering system.
A small amount of wetland restoration/enhancement may be possible in a 1.3-acre wetland area
just south of Patton Road. Mitigation in this wetland would likely generate less than 1 credit.
Several other small seeps and springs were determined unsuitable for mitigation.
s ` 1,9 #6 aJJQ.+.a.
e
Table 1 Morphological Characterization of Existing Cross-Sections.
Location Field Cross- Width Mean Depth Cross-Sectional BEP
Section ID (ft) (ft) Area (fe)
Beginning- Riffle #3 8.5 1.12 9.5 23.5 (Moderate)
Reach 1
Mid- Riffle #4 11.8 2.08 24.5 33.3
Reach 1 (High)
End- Riffle #5 12.4 1.68 20.9 34.8
Reach 1 (High)
Mid- Pool #1 16.0 1.88 30.1 N/A
Reach 2
Mid- Riffle #1 15.5 1.85 28.7 19.7 (Moderate)
Reach 2
End- Riffle #2 36.5 1.19 43.5 33.4
Reach 2 (High)
Figure 6 Proposed Riffle Cross Section--Reach 2
'C4' Stream Type

0 99
0

> 98

m

97 - -- _ l A rea=29.5 sq. ft
s.. I Width=20.0'
Mean Depth=1.5'
96
-? ( _ -
Max Depth=2.3'
Q W/D=13.6
95
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Station (ft)
Proposed Mitigation
Reach 1: 522' of vegetation, in-stream structures, and fencing
Reach 2: 231' of vegetation, in-stream structures, and fencing
2227' (est. thalweg length) of full restoration
Existing Wetlands 1.33 acres
Potential Restoration 0.37 acres
? 1 t .;

NOldo
Nll 1133H5 3
10 0 1
Z, - 47
14
;r0'• r fir, xr ! ? ??? R,`fly.' x, A R ^?.
.qr rte' ? ? i} JIM 0111111t}'a0.1'?y?,.-'.
%

-Ara ..
r E :ys-e , 1..e('R +?rp"'. d+,?., r? t _ 1yF1- r - q s}..- •
't? .-
•kka ?a ;ti 1",? • 9??.
t ¢•
;? * Air ? ?s% r }: ?4 1 r A-11
0 5 r , *, . x T * ...•v r r `s?6 ..p, ii +o ° a ° 4 `',- ?
r?A ? ' 4 ? tl`-?r? ?,n,. ?i" ?. ? RR•t. l? ,? ? r i. .,.?':.'k, 1?.d ?, ? ,s+C.;R r?''i?`•'
J?j,+?c...? r kt A4Y` R;"h?f ? e . ,N,:?. ( r.p i? ?,a «p '?'r s6'+• ? .??,';k3?'t+•
fir- s i
.,
- 4,4
a) F
'F',?4'«° ?.,.^" t ? , ' ..? a' •?' ill .. ' , . ,?. "A0.' _ E' L• } ', `9 r
Nit
? e it 'R
04, r4 ' .? sr { tf ".o?' •* v 1qw ;4'MK"R` `t +p
**V v ¢.A
y? V4 ?! a A
#,? 2rt.. , '4 T'om' r
,? t r? _ A' r n yr &t ,+6 t`? '? `.'-«"#-'* w °` • n
Yll
a?d9
AA,
71
F X"• ,t _.? T }7c `. ,y

47,
o
I p
? tr
A
s
r . .,
., iii
I ?` sit
. r 1
'rYfr. S ? ,?1?h
c #r-F `- i Via,- •s.g .4'-,..
m o ? BLAINE BRANCH MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
°" NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
z o m z FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
?o FIGURE 4a
'?-
t .W? P ea 91r a ° t
S
?r r ?ydFr,A a ? ti ? ,; ?;, , ipa{w ,? `?Y .? ls?R? kt•"6?p? 4
- -/tR -° ? mo'd' ?s,• .. ? ? .? '? ? ?. ? ??R.?, ?p ? # ?.. !°? ?f?
t.
?+ 3'r?yr" y i? R A Z
SQq ' .? 4? * Y. wv. ,? ?? ?' •x.01 +',. ,
k
P ?
E A R T H G1 T E C H
SS-ED CDR BIDS

REVISIONS

A
O
O
A
O
00
O

° ISSUED FOR BIDS 01/29/2001

" BLAINE BRANCH MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
-
m ? NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
R
T
0 o m FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY, NOR
H CA
OLINA
a p E A R T H T E C H
cl o PROPOSED
CONDITIONS

w/
N FIGURE
o J NO REVISIONS ORN CRK DATE

.. ¢ i # a
9s 5q , ,?.. i ?' Y ,c
T o n BLAINE BRANCH MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ss Eo FOR BIDS 01/29/2001
- °" NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
o m o ; FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
a A E A R T H T E C H
PROPOSED CONDITIONS v
Uol FIGURE 5a
NO REVISI DNS DRN CNK DATE