20071394 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070815

n

' RESTORATION PLAN

1
n

n

n
I

Prepared for: ,~.
r
,~
1'~t'()S~StClll
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 A~ ~ ~~~~~~
F1~JC~ 1 ~ 2QQ7
July 27, 2007 ~E~R. w~ar~R c~.:a~,irv
' !~q ~~Q $TQ~+~-Vg7~t 9RANCH
0
UT TO BEAR CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Chatham County, North Carolina
Project ID No. 060684901

Project ID No. 060634901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, Nort1~ Carolina
RF~STORATfON PLAN
Prepared by:
KO c~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consulting Engineers
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
919.851.6066
919.851.6846 (fax)
R. Kevin Williams, PE, PLS, CPESC, CPSWQ
Project Engineer/Manager
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. Page i
Conrultin~~ En~,fineers

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek ~lrealll Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"TORATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....... I
......................................................................................................
1.0 PROJET SITE LOCATION ........................................................................................... .. 1
1.1 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE .................................................................................... .. 1
1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION ........... .. 1
1.3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP ............................................................................................. .. 2
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... .. 3
2.1 DRAINAGE AREA ....................................................................................................... .. 3
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION/WATER QUALITY ............................................... .. 3
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ..................................................................... .. 3
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ................................................ .. 5
2.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................. .. 5
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES :............................................................................................ .. 6
2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................... .. 7
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ................................................................... .. 7
2.7.2 Project Access ................................................................................................... .. 7
2.7.3 Utilities .............................................................................................................. ..7
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................. .. 7
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................... .. 8
3.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................ .. 8
3.2 DISCHARGE ................................................................................................................ ..8
3.3 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ........................................................................................... .. 9
3.4 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ .. 9
3.5 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ......................................................................................... 10
3.6 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 10
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS .............................................................................................. 12
4.1 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................. 12
4.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................ 12
4.3 DISCHARGE ................................................................................................................ 12
4.4 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ........................................................................................... 12
4.5 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 12
4.6 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ......................................................................................... 13
4.7 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ............................................................................... 13
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS,~ :...................................... 15
5.1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ...................................................................................... I S
S.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................... 1S
5.3 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................. 15
S.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................. 16
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. Page ii
Conrrdtin~ En~~ineer~

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
0

G
I
C

ii
0

i

6.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ...................................................................... 17
6.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................... 17
6.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ...................................................................... 17
6.1.2 Stream Restoration Activities ........................................................................... 18
6.1.3 In-stream Structures .......................................................................................... 21
6.1.4 Target Buffer Communities .............................................................................. 21
6.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 21
6.3 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 22
6.3.1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis ............................................................................ 22
6.3.2 No-Rise ............................................................................................................. 23
6.3.3 Hydrologic Trespass ......................................................................................... 23
6.4 SOIL RESTORATION .................................................................................................... 23
6.4.1 Floodplain Soil Scarification ............................................................................ 23
6.5 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ........................................................... 23
6.5.1 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 25
6.5.2 Invasive Species Management .......................................................................... 26
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 27
7.1 STREAMS ................................................................................................................... 27
7.1.1 Stream Success Criteria .................................................................................... 27
7.1.2 Stream Contingency .......................................................................................... 28
7.2 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 28
7.2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria .............................................................................. 28
7.2.2 Vegetation Contingency .................................................................................... 29
7.3 SCHEDULING AND REPORTING ................................................................................... 29
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 30
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Cunsuhing En~~incers
Page iii

Project [D No. OE06849O1
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATIC)N PLAN
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Restoration Structures and Objectives ...............
Table 2. Drainage Areas ..............................................................
Table 3. USDA Soils Mapped within the Project ........................
Table 4. Land Use of Watershed ..................................................
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Chatham County .........
Table 6. Reference Forest Ecosystem ..........................................
Table 7. Planting Plan ..................................................................
Table 8. Project Scheduling and Reporting .................................
................................................. 1
................................................. 3
................................................. 4
................................................. 5
................................................. 6
............................................... 14
............................................... 25
............................................... 29
Appendices
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Watershed Map
Figure 3 Soil Survey Map
Figure 4 Hydrological Features Map
Figure 5 Landrum Creek Vicinity Map
Figure 6 Landrum Creek Watershed Map
Figure 7 Landrum Creek Soil Survey Map
Figure 8 Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map
Appendix B. Sheets
Sheets 1-lA Existing Conditions
Sheets 2-2C Proposed Conditions
Sheets 3-3A Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 4 Planting Plan
Appendix C. Existing Conditions Site Photographs
Appendix D. Morphological Stream Characteristics
Appendix E. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix F. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Appendix G. Restoration Site Concurrence Letters
Appendix H. Sediment Transport Analysis
Appendix I. Reference Site Photographs
Appendix J. Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Appendix K. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix L. Regional Curve Plots
Appendix M. CE Documentation
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. Page ~~
Cunstdlin~ En~,~ineet~

Project ID No. 06068901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is currently developing stream
restoration plans for the UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project (Project) located on the
southeast side of Highway 902 between the town of Bear Creek and Johnsons Crossings. The
Project is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03030003070050 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-06-12) of
the Cape Fear River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit HU 03030003. The Project is not
located within a Targeted Local Watershed.
This document details planned stream restoration activities on the Project. An approximately 32
acre conservation easement will be placed on the Project to incorporate all restoration activities.
The Project contains Bear Creek, two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Bear Creek (Northern and
Southern UTs), riparian buffer, floodplain, and upland slopes. The Project watersheds are
' characterized primarily by agriculture and forest land with scattered residential and business
development. Site land uses, including the removal of riparian vegetation, grazing by livestock,
and a lack of exclusionary fence for livestock adjacent to the Northern and Southern UTs have
resulted in degraded water quality and unstable channel characteristics (stream incision, erosion,
and bank collapse).
The primary goals of the Project focus on improving water quality by reducing nutrient loading
from the on-site cattle operation, reducing excess sedimentation input from channel banks,
increasing the attenuation of floodwater flows, and restoring and enhancing aquatic and riparian
habitat. These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives:
• Reduce point and non-point source pollution associated with an on-site cattle
' operation by fencing out cattle from the stream and riparian buffer, and by providing
a vegetative buffer on stream banks and floodplain to treat surface runoff. Virtually
all research shows vegetated riparian buffers substantially decrease pollutants such as
nitrate-nitrogen, phosphorous, chloride, ammonium, and sedimentation prior to
entering the waterway.
• Stabilize on-site streams by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile so they
1 will transport watershed flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading.
• Improve aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability, providing shading/cover
t areas within the stream channel, and introducing woody debris in the form of
rootwads, Iog vanes, and log sills.
• Enhance wildlife habitat by vegetating the existing fescue dominated riparian buffers
1 with native trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses. Forest vegetation species were selected
by studying a Reference Forest Ecosystem located immediately upstream of the
Project and reviewing Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest species listed in
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Executive Summary
KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. page 1
Coirsullin~,~ En~incus

Project IU No. 0606S49t)1
UT to Bear (.'reek Stream EZestoration ['reject, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"TORATION PLAN
• Create wildlife corridors through agricultural lands which have significantly dissected
the landscape. The corridors will provide connectivity to a diversity of habitats
including mature forest, early successional forest, stream-side forest, riparian
wetlands, and uplands.
The proposed restoration plan, depicted on Sheets 2 through 2C, is expected to produce a
restored length of 3,132 linear feet of the Northern UT and 1,745 linear feet of the Southern UT.
Additionally, 0.39 acres of riparian wetlands will be enhanced by supplemental vegetation
plantings, 15 acres of buffers along the Northern and Southern UTs will be planted with native
species, 3.23 acres of buffers along Bear Creek will be planted with native species, and 12.15
acres of buffers along Bear Creek will be preserved.
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the
Project limits. The plan includes: 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream and
forest studies; 3) restoration plans; and 4) Project monitoring and success criteria. Upon
approval of this plan by EEP, engineering construction plans will be prepared and activities
implemented as outlined. Proposed restoration activities may be modified during the civil design
stage due to constraints such as access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs
(floodway constraints), or other design considerations.
Executive Summary
a KO c4c ASSOCIATES, P.G Page I1
Consulting En~,~inee~s

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear G°eek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
r
C

0

C
r
1.0 PROJET SITE LOCATION: The UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project
(Project) is located south of Siler City, in Chatham County, North Carolina. The Project
is located immediately east of SR 1009 (Bear Creek Church Road) and southeast of NC
Highway 902 between the town of Bear Creek and Johnsons Crossroads (Figure 1). The
Project includes Bear Creek and two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Bear Creek (Northern
and Southern UTs). The Latitude and Longitude (WGS 84 datum) of the mid-point for
the restoration channels are 35.609497101°N and 79.387817088°W for the Northern UT
and 35.609497101°N and 79.394411255°W for the Southern UT.
Approximately 4,877 linear feet of stream are to be restored. Table 1 describes the
Project restoration structures and objectives.
Table 1. Project Restoration Structures and Objectives
Project ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restoration Proiectl
Restoration Existing Designed
Segment/ Station Range Restoration Priority Linear Linear Comment
Reach ID Type Approach Footage/ Footage/
Acrea a Acrea e
Bear Creek __ Buffer __ __ 12
15 ac
Preservation .
Vegetative
Buffer plantings to
Bear Creek --
Enhancement -- -- 3.23 ac pasture areas
within 50' of
Bear Creek
10 + 00 - 15+50 PI SSO If
15+50 - 16+75 ___
_____
PII 125 if
Northern UT 16+75 - 19+00
i PI 225 If Restore channel
to Bear Creek 19+00 - 23+00 Restorat
on ------PII------ 2,832 if 400 if on new location
23+00 - 39+75 PI 1,675 if
39+75 - 41+32 _
____
PII 157 if
Southern UT 10 + 00 - 23+50
R
i PI
1
63
1f 1 350 If
' Restore channel
to Bear Creek 23+50 - 27 + 45 estorat
on ---- -------------
PII ,
5 395 if on new location
Riparian Supplemental
Wetlands '- Enhancement -- 0.49 ac 0.39 ac plantings to
existin wetlands
1.1 Directions to Project Site: From Siler City, North Carolina take US Highway
421 South for approximately 8 miles. Turn right on NC Highway 902 West and
proceed approximately 2 miles. The Project is located on the southeast side of
NC Highway 902 between Bear Creek and Johnsons Crossing across from Central
Chatham High School.
1.2 _USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation: The
Project is located in Chatham County, North Carolina within United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030003070050 (North
' ~ KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
a v sr ~ ~'
C n r llrn~, bn~,rneers

Project ID No. OhO6849~1
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, C'hathain County, North Carolina
RES"TORATION PLAN
r
Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-06-12) of the Cape
Fear River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit HU 03030003 (USGS 1974).
The Project is not located wrthin a Targeted Local Watershed (NCWRP 2001).
NCDWQ Subbasin 03-06-12 of the Cape Fear River Basin includes the Rocky
River, Loves Creek, Tick Creek, and Bear Creek. This subbasin is located in the
Carolina Slate Belt and is characterized by seasonally low flowing streams
(NCDWQ 2005).
1.3 Protect Vicinity Map: The Project vicinity is depicted on Figure 1.

i

C

C

a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. G 2 '
Consullin~ En~,~ineers

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, C1latham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area: Table 2 depicts drainage areas of Project streams (Figure 2).
Onsite elevations range from a high of 440 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD) at the upstream extent of the Project to a low of approximately 410 feet
NGVD at the downstream extent of the Project.
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Proiect ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restoration Proiectl
1

ii

ii

1
Stream Draina a Area
Reach Order Acres S uare Mile(s)
Bear Creek at South UT to Bear Creek) 4t 14020 21.9
Bear Creek (at North UT to Bear Creek) 4` 16034 25.0
North UT to Bear Creek (at NC 902) 2° 1385 2.16
North UT to Bear Creek (at Bear Creek) 2° 1510 2.36
South UT to Bear Creek (at NC 902) 1st 175 0.27
South UT to Bear Creek (at Bear Creek) 1 s` 215 0.34
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality: Bear Creek has been assigned
Stream Index Number 17-43-16, a Best Usage Classification of C, and is not rated
for its intended uses (NCDWQ 2005, NCDWQ 2007). Class C waters are
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. 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.
Bear Creek is not listed on the draft 2006 or final 2004 303d lists (NCDWQ
2006a, 2006b)
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils: The Project is located within the Piedmont
of North Carolina in the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion. The Carolina Slate Belt is
characterized by dissected, irregular plains, some hills, linear ridges, isolated
monadnocks, and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly boulder or cobble
substrates (Griffith 2002).
Soils that occur within the Project limits, according to the Soil Survey of Chatham
County, North Carolina are depicted in Figure 3 and described in Table 3 (USDA
2006).
' a KO c~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consnhin~; En~;rnurs
3

Project [D No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham C"ounty, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
Table 3. USDA Soils Mapped within the Project
PrOleCt 1D NO. 060684901 (UT to Rear Creek Rectnratinn PrniP~tl
Soil Series Hydri~
Status Family Description
This series consists of moderately deep, well-drained,
Badin Nonhydric Typic moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes.
Hapludults Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than
6 feet.
This series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly
Chewacla Class B Fluvaquentic drained, moderately permeable soils on floodplains.
Dystrudepts Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs at 0.5 to
1.5 feet.
This series consists of moderately deep, somewhat
Aquic poorly to moderately well-drained, slowly permeable
Cid Nonhydric Hapludults soils on interstream divides, broad ridges,
drainageways, and heads of drainageways. Depth to
the seasonal hi h water table is 1.5 to 2.5 feet.
This series consists of very deep, well-drained,
Georgeville Nonhydric Typic moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes.
Kanhapludults Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than
6 feet.
This series consists of deep, somewhat poorly to

Aquic moderately well-drained, very slowly permeable soils
Lignum Class B
Hapludults on interstream divides, broad ridges, drainageways,
and heads of drainageways. Depth to the seasonal
hi h water table is 1.0 to 2.5 feet.

Typic This series consists of deep, well-drained, moderately
Nanford Nonhydric
Kanhapludults permeable soils on ridges and side slopes. Depth to
the seasonal hi h water table is reater than 6 feet.
Fluventic This series consists of very deep, well-drained,
Riverview Class B Dystrudepts moderately permeable soils on floodplains. Depth to
the seasonal hi h water table occurs at 3 to 5 feet.
Typic This series consists of very deep, well-drained,
State Nonhydric
Hapludult moderately permeable soils on stream terraces. Depth
to the seasonal hi h water table occurs at 4 to 6 feet.
This series consists of very deep, poorly drained,
Wehadkee Class A Fluvaquentic moderately permeable soils on floodplains. Depth to
Endoaquepts the seasonal high water table occurs at the surface to 1
foot.
~,rass H = nyarrc sons; Mass is = nonnyarrc sous, whrch may contain hydnc soil inclusions
a KO 8c ASSOCIATES, P. C. 4
Cunsuhin~~ En~,•ineei ~

Project ID No. 0606f34901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends: Land use within the Project
watershed is characterized primarily by agriculture, forest, impervious surfaces,
and sparse residential/commercial development (Table 4 and Figure 2). The
adjacent US Highway 64 corridor is developing between Siler City and Pittsboro
and is expected to continue expanding into this subbasin (03-06-12) (NCDWQ
2005).
Table 4. Land Use of Watershed
Proiect ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restnrati~n Proiectl
Land Use Acrea a Percenta e
Develo ed Land 300 2
A ricultural Land 6250 40
Forest Land 9210 58
TOTAL 15760 100
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species: Species with a Federal classification of
Endangered or Threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is
defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened species" is defined as
"any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C.
1532).
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed
species in North Carolina as posted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, four federally protected
species are listed for Chatham County. Table 5 lists the federally protected
species for Chatham County and indicates if potential habitat exists within the
Project for each.
' a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C. 5
Consuhing En~~ineers

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to E3ear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Chatham County
Proiect ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restoration Proiectl
Habitat

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Present Biolo ical
within Conclusion
Pro'ect
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Threatened No No Effect
leucoce halus
Cape Fear shiner Notropis Endangered No No Effect
mekistocholas
Red-cockaded
wood ecker Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
Vascular Plants
Ha erella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered No No Effect
*1ndangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a
taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range".
No potential habitat is located in the Project for bald eagle, Cape Fear shiner, red-
cockaded woodpecker, or harperella. In addition, no known occurrences for the
species are documented by NCNHP within 3 miles of the Project; therefore, this
Project will have no effect on these species.
Critical habitat for the Cape Fear shiner has been designated on Bear Creek in
Chatham County, the Rocky River in Chatham County, the Deep River in
Chatham and Lee Counties, Fork Creek in Randolph County, and the Deep River
in Randolph and Moore Counties. No designated critical habitat occurs within the
Project reach of Bear Creek. The closest reach of designated critical habitat is
greater than 11 miles downstream from the Project.
2.6 Cultural Resources: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for compliance with Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) concurrence will be received
for the Project from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(NCSHPO) prior to initiating Project implementation.
No known archaeological sites or structures of historical or architectural
importance were identified during field investigations.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 6
Cunsrrltin~> End>irrcers

Project ID No. 060684901
LIT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATIC)N PLAN
2.7 Potential Constraints: The presence of conditions or characteristics that have
the potential to hinder restoration activities at the Project were evaluated. The
evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities and
restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, and
the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding constraints
was acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Project conditions that have the
potential to restrict the restoration design and implementation were documented
during the field investigation.
Environmental screening of the Project was conducted during field investigations
to evaluate the presence of potentially harmful environmental hazards.
Environmental concerns under review include past or present storage of
hazardous or regulated materials and/or waste, illicit dumping of solids or
hazardous waste, and degradation of surface waters that may have a negative
impact on the environment. Visual screening for objects such as storage tanks,
' debris, hazardous materials, and evidence of waste burial was conducted through
field reconnaissance. No evidence of storage tanks or illicit dumps was identified
during field investigations. In addition, no point source discharges were
identified. Based on field reviews, hazardous materials will not be a hindrance to
proposed project activities.
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The Project is contained in a parcel owned by Mr. James R. Weaver. The
permanent conservation easement will total approximately 32 acres.
2.7.2 Proiect Access
Numerous potential access points have been located along the property boundary
of NC Highway 902, including existing dirt roads. There are no significant
constraints because the Project is in a rural. area.
2.7.3 Utilities
No existing utilities or easements will be disturbed/impacted by this Project.
L 2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
The HEC-RAS analysis indicates that the restoration design will result in a no-rise
in the 100-year floodplain water surface elevations outside of the Project area.
The results of this analysis affirm that hydrologic trespass to adjacent properties
will not occur. The HEC-RAS mod is discussed in more detail in Section 6.3
(HEC-RAS Analysis).
' ~ KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 7
,-
Consrdrrrt~, 6n~uxers

Project ID No. 06068901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS): There are two streams
(Northern UT and Southern UT) in the Project that were studied for restoration potential.
Existing conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, loss of aquatic and terrestrial
habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, unstable channel characteristics (mass
wasting of channel banks, sediment loading, and the loss of bed form diversity), and
channel banks and floodplain that have been denuded of native trees and shrubs at the
Project (Figure 4 and Sheets 1 through lA).
3.1 Channel Classification: Stream geometry and substrate data have been
evaluated to classify existing stream conditions, utilizing fluvial geomorphic
principles (Rosgen 1996). Appendix D provides a summary of measured stream
geometry attributes for the Northern and Southern UTs under existing conditions
(considered to be unstable), in addition to stable stream attributes (reference and
proposed).
Data collected during a Rosgen Level II survey were used to classify the Northern
and Southern UTs as an unstable E4-type channels that are both transitioning
towards a G4-type channel. G-type channels typically display low entrenchment
and width-to-depth ratios, and a low sinuosity. This can lead to higher shear
stresses on channel banks and bed, and an over abundance of stream power,
which leads to channel degradation. Evidence of channel degradation can be seen
in the existing conditions photographs (Appendix C). The primary causes of
degradation in both channels stems from cattle access and the denudation of
vegetation along the channel banks from cattle grazing. The second descriptor, 4,
indicates that channel materials are dominated by gravel.
It should be noted that the dominant channel type is an E-4 type channel
transitioning towards a G4-type channel, however there are significant portions of
each channel (approximately one third to one half) that are over widened and
could be classified as an F4 type channel. F4 type channels display high width-
to-depth ratios (greater than 12) and are entrenched. F4 type channels typically
loose their capacity to transport sediment loads because shear stress drops
dramatically. This condition is apparent in numerous sections of the Northern UT
and Southern UT where the channel has over widened due to cattle access or
because the landowner has dug out the channel for watering purposes. These
areas are where the channel has begun to aggrade because the channel's shear
stress is not high enough to transport the contributing sediment load.
3.2 Discharge: The Northern and Southern UTs have a bankfull discharge of 100
cubic feet per second (cfs) and 22 cfs, respectively.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. g
Consullin~,~ Engincu•s

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Leek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' 3.3 Channel Morpholo~y: Channel cross-sections were measured on the existing
streams. The Morphological Stream Characteristics table (Appendix D) includes
a summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for the stream.
i 3.4 Channel Stability Assessment: A visual assessment accompanied by a
morphological assessment using data collected during a Rosgen Level II survey
was used to deterrnine channel stability. These data, which can be found in
Appendix D (Morphological Stream Characteristics), Appendix C (Existing
Conditions Site Photographs), and Appendix F (Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream
Classification Forms), confirmed the channel attributes do not fall within
acceptable ranges for a stable channel as evidenced by: 1) mass wasting of
channel banks; 2) incision of the bankfull elevation below the rooting depth of
existing vegetation on the channel banks; 3) undermining of existing trees along
the channel bank; 4) over widening of the channels in select spaces by the
landowner to provide watering holes for cattle; 5) sections of braided and over
' widened channel in both the Northern and Southern UTs where cattle have eroded
channel banks and side slopes; and 6) a lack of riparian vegetation on many
sections of banks.
Data collected during field surveys of the Northern UT indicate that: 1)
approximately 80% of the channel length displays signs of instability; 2) the Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) of 39 is considered High; 3) the bedform is
comprised of sand and gravel; 4) the channel profile 30% riffles with 70% pools;
5) a Band Height Ratio (BHR) of 1.35; 6) approximately 80% of the channel
contains a baseflow depth that is below the rooting depth of vegetation along the
banks.
Data collected during field surveys of the Southern UT indicate that: 1)
approximately 90% of the channel length displays signs of instability; 2) the
BEHI of 48 is considered Very High; 3) the bedform is comprised of sand and
' gravel; 4) the channel profile 40% riffles with 60% pools; 5) a Band Height Ratio
(BHR) of 1.39; 6) approximately 90% of the channel contains a baseflow depth
that is below the rooting depth of vegetation along the banks.
' An existing conditions entrainment analysis was completed for the Northern and
Southern UTs (Section 6.2 and Appendix H). The analysis confirms that the
existing slope and dimension for both channels provides an overabundance of
shear stress during bankfull flows. Evidence of an overabundance of shear stress
can be seen in eroding meander bends, and the fact that both channels have
' incised into the landscape and down cut to bedrock.
The landowner has not placed a fence around either the Northern or Southern UT.
As a result cattle grazing in the adjacent pastures are accessing both channels as a
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 9
Consubin~,~ En~,~inurs

Project ID No. 0606x4901
U"h to Bear Creek Streatu Restoration Pruj~ct. Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"I'ORATION PLAN
watering and cooling source. Massive amounts of algal blooms were noted
during all site inspections. The algal blooms are likely a direct result of nutrient
loading from cattle defecating directly into the stream channels.
Primary vegetation along the Northern UT is Chinese privet (Ligustru~n sinense).
This invasive species should be eradicated and controlled. If this species is
removed from the Project, it would enhance the ability of native flora to populate
the site however, it would cause significant physical disturbance to the soils on
the channel banks and floodplain. So, although the existing privet is not a
physical hindrance to channel stability, it likely would become a hindrance
following its eradication because of soil disturbance.
3.5 Bankfull Verification: Bankfull indicators were identified along the Northern
and Southern UTs during field inspections. Existing conditions surveys were
conducted which included surveying representative riffle cross-sections,
representative hydraulic (Bankfull) slope, and determining an existing Manning's
n coefficient for the surveyed reaches. The surveyed data and calculated
Manning's n were correlated with identified Bankfull indicators to estimate
Bankfull cross-sectional area and velocity, and consequently Bankfull discharge.
The estimated Bankfull cross-sectional area and discharge were compared with a
calculated Bankfull cross-sectional area and discharge using the Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams (Harman, W. H. et
al., 1999) (Piedmont regional curve). Data obtained from on-site falls within a
level of confidence of the data obtained from the Piedmont regional curve.
3.6 Vegetation: Two plant communities are currently present within the Project
limits: 1) pasture and 2) disturbed riparian fringe.
Pasture land contains fields that are grazed by livestock and/or used for hay
production. The fields are vegetated by a mixture of cultivated grasses, as well as
clover (Trifolium sp.), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and nightshade (Solanum sp.).
The disturbed riparian fringe is characterized by a thin, disturbed strip of
vegetation located adjacent to existing Project streams. The canopy layer consists
of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), slippery elm
(Ulmus rubs), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa/alba), box elder (Ater
negundo), willow oak (Quercus phellos), white ash (Fraxinus americana), black
walnut (Juglans nigra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The subcanopy consists of
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), deciduous holly
(Ilex decidua), flowering dogwood (Corms Florida), and eastern red cedar
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. G 10
Consul~in~~ En~,~ineers

Project ID No. 0606K49U1
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, ('hatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
(Juniperus virgrniana). The understory consists of species listed above, as well as
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), red bud (Cercis canadensis), greenbrier
(Smilax rot~ndifolia), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), jewelweed, blackberry
(Rubus argatus), and poison ivy.
In addition, several invasive species are present within the disturbed buffer
including tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and China-berry (Melia
azedarach).
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 11
Cunsrd~in~,~ En,~~nrecrs
1

['roiect 1[J Nu. 060(,x4901
UT to t3ear Crick Stream 1Zcstoration Projrct, Chatham County, North Carolina
RE,S~TORA~CION ('LAN
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS: One stream, Landrum Creek, was surveyed and used as a
reference reach for the design of the Northern and Southern UTs. Distinct bankfull
variables were identifiable in Landnim Creek and pattern/profile characteristics appear to
have not been degraded, allowing for assistance with proposed design characteristics.
The Landrum Creek reference site vicinity, watershed, and soils are depicted in Figures 5
through 7. Photographs for the reference reach can be found in Appendix I.
Landrum Creek was specifically used as a reference stream because it is a stable stream
that depicts a similar valley type and substrate as streams on-site.
4.1 Watershed Characterization: Land use within Landrum Creek's watershed can
be characterized as rural in nature with the majority of lands historically being
mature forest and utilized for agriculture. Many areas of mature forests have
recently been clear cut and can now be classified as early succesional
communities. The watershed is approximately 60 percent wooded, 35 percent
agriculture, and five percent residential.
4.2 Channel Classification: Landrum Creek is characterized as a C4-type stream,
with a moderate sinuosity (1.12), gravel-dominated substrate (Appendix D), and a
bank height ratio of 1.02. C-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched
(entrenchment ratios higher than 2.2) streams with high width-to-depth ratios
(typically 12 (+/- 2) and higher) that display riffle-pool complexes.
4.3 Discharge: The UT to Ledge Creek reference reach has a drainage area of 2.53
square miles and a bankfull discharge of 173.7 cfs. '
4.4 Channel Morphology: Channel cross-sections (dimension), channel profiles,
and plan form variables were measured along Landrum Creek to obtain '
morphological data. Additionally, bed material was evaluated, and a vegetation
assessment in the buffer was completed. The reaches are transporting their
sediment supply while maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile. The table of
Morphological Stream Characteristics (Appendix D) includes a summary of
dimension, profile, and plan form data of Landrum Creek.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment: Major components for stability include
determining if the channel is conveying its discharge and sediment load without
aggrading or degrading. Evidence that a channel does not fit these criteria ,
includes: bank degradation, channel incision, channel widening, channel
aggradation, massive amounts of sediment loading within and/or outside of the
channel banks, channel armoring, and no sparse vegetation on the channel's '
banks.
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. 12 ,
COl1S71~1lq~ ~;ll~lllGCl:Y

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Scar Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
R1:S'TORA"LION PLAN
A visual assessment accompanied by a morphological assessment using data
collected during a Rosgen Level II survey was used to determine channel
stability. These data, which can be found m Appendix D (Morphological Stream
Characteristics), Appendix I (Reference Site Photographs), and J (Reference Site
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form), confirmed the channels fell within
acceptable ranges for a stable reference channel. Landrum Creek was determined
' to be a stable channel suitable as a reference reach.
4.6 Bankfull Verification: Bankfull indicators were identified along Landrum Creek
' during field inspections. Surveys were conducted which included surveying
representative riffle cross-sections, representative hydraulic (bankfull) slope, and
determining an existing Manning's n coefficient for the surveyed reach. The
surveyed data and calculated Manning's n were correlated with identified bankfull
indicators to estimate bankfull cross-sectional area and velocity, and consequently
bankfull discharge. The estimated on-site bankfull cross-sectional area (28.2
square feet) and discharge (173.7 cfs) were compared with a calculated bankfull
cross-sectional area and discharge using the Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for North Carolina Streams (Harman, W. H. et al., 1999) (Piedmont
regional curve). Data obtained from on-site falls within a level of confidence of
the data obtained from the Piedmont regional curve.
4.7 Reference Forest Ecosystem: According to Mitigation Site Classification
(MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) must be
established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which to model
restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs
should be ecologically stable climax communities and should represent believed
historical (predisturbance) conditions of the restoration site. Data describing plant
' community composition and structure are collected at the RFEs and subsequently
applied as reference data for design of the restoration Project planting scheme.
The RFE is located immediately upstream of the Project within a small area
(approximately 2 acres) of mature Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Tree and shrub
species identified within the reference forest are identified in Table 6 and Figure 8
and will be used, in addition to other relevant species within the Project and
Schafale and Weakley (1990) to supplement community descriptions.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 13
Consullin~,~ En~~nmers
1

Project I D No. O60(~K49U 1
UT to Bear Crcek Sh~cam Eestoration Project. ('hatham County, North ('arolina
RESTORA"LION PLAN
Table 6. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Proiect ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restoration Proiectl
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Cano S ecies Understor S ecies
Car ~a tomentosa/alba Acer fre zmdo
Caf• a ovata Acer rcrbrum
Li uidambar st ~f•aci zra Car inars caroliniana
Liriodendron tali ifera Cercis cai~adensis
uercus alba Cor•nus florida
uercus hellos Ulmzrs rubs
Pinus taeda
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C. 14 ,
Cuusul~in~,~ En~~ineers

Project lD No. 06064901
U"1' to Bear Crcek Strea-n Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' S.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS):
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands: A jurisdictional wetland delineation occurred within
the Project limits in May 2007. The Project was evaluated using the three-
parameter approach (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology) as
outlined m the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987).
Four jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within the boundaries of the Project
(Sheets 1 through 1 A, and 2 through 2C), totaling 0.49 acres. The delineation has
yet to be verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Routine
Wetland Determination Data Forms can be found in Appendix E.
5.2 Hydrological Characteristics: All four (4) jurisdictional Project wetlands are
riparian wetlands. Riparian wetlands within the Project receive hydrological
' inputs from periodic overbank flooding of the Northern UT, groundwater
migration into the Project, upland/stormwater runoff, and direct precipitation.
Three of the four wetlands are located in abandoned sections of the Northern UT
(meander scrolls) that receive and retain floodwater flows from the Northern UT.
One wetland's hydrology is fed primarily by overland flow from the Northern UT
' and from groundwater seeps from an adjacent hill slope.
5.3 Soil Characteristics: Soils within the Project consist primarily of the Chewacla
and Wehadkee mapping units (Figure 3). Chewacla soils are classified as fine-
loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts. Atypical soil profile
obtained on-site from a wetland is as follows.
0 -5" 10 YR 4/2 silt loam
Mottles 10 YR 4/4 few/faint
5 - 10" 2.5 Y 5/3 Silty clay loam
Mottles 10 YR 3/6 common/distinct
' 10 -16" 2.5 Y 5/2 Silty clay loam
Mottles 10 YR 3/6 common/distinct
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 15
Consullin~~ En~,~ineers

Project ID No. 06O6K4901
LJT to E3car C'rcck Strcam Rc~toration Projeri. Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
5.4 Plant Community Characterization: Project wetlands can be classified as
disturbed pasture wetlands dominated by Joncus effuses and Carex spp. The
wetlands are located within pash-re lands, which are used for cattle grazing. The
following primary vegetated species were identified within the Project wetlands:
• Common rush (Juncos effuses)
• Sedge (Carex spp.)
• Black willow (Salix nigra)
• Sweetgum
• Smartweed (Polygonaim sp.)
• Green ash (Fraxinus ~ennsylvanica)
• Lizard's tail (Saururos cernuos)
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 16
Conrrdlin~; En},~ineers

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
6.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives: The primary goals of this Project
focus on improving water quality by reducing nutrient loading from the on-site
cattle operation, reducing excess sedimentation input from channel banks,
increasing the attenuation of floodwater flows, and restoring and enhancing
aquatic and riparian habitat. These goals will be accomplished through the
following objectives:
' • Reduce point and non-point source pollution associated with an on-site cattle
operation by fencing out cattle from the stream and riparian buffer, and by
providing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams to treat surface runoff.
• Stabilize on-site streams by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile
so they will transport watershed flows and sediment loads without aggrading
or degrading.
' • Improve aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability, providing
shading/cover areas within the stream channel, and introducing woody debris
in the form of rootwads, log vanes, and log sills.
• Enhance wildlife habitat by vegetating the existing fescue dominated riparian
buffers with native trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses.
• Create wildlife corridors through agricultural lands which have significantly
dissected the landscape. The corridors will provide connectivity to a diversity
of habitats including mature forest, early successional forest, stream-side
forest, riparian wetlands, and uplands.
'
The proposed restoration plan, depicted on Sheets 2 through 2C, is expected to
produce a restored length of 3,132 linear feet of the Northern UT and 1,745 linear
feet of the Southern UT. Additionally, 0.39 acres of riparian wetlands will be
enhanced by supplemental vegetation plantings, 15 acres of buffers along the
Northern and Southern UTs will be planted with native species, 3.2 acres of
buffers along Bear Creek will be planted with native species, and 12.15 acres of
buffers along Bear Creek will be preserved. All activities within the Project limits
will be protected in perpetuity by a 32 acre permanent conservation easement.
6.1.1 Desi ned Channel Classification
' Both streams on-site were designed using Natural Channel Design principals.
Appendix D (Morphological Stream Characteristics) details channel classification
and variables used to classify the design channels. Both the Northern and
' Southern UTs are designed as C4 type stream channels with moderately low
width-to-depth ratios (12). The Northern UT will be constructed as a Priority I
and Priority II restoration (Sheets 3 through 3A). Priority I restorations reconnect
' the bankfull discharge to the historic floodplain (existing ground). A floodplain
' a KO cYc ASSOCIATES, P. C. 17
Consrdlinst En.~~ineers

Project I U No. OfiO(,K49O1
U~1• to Scar Crock ~hl'aRl Restoration Project, ('Latham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
bench is cut at the baukfiill elevation for a Priority II restoration. The Northern
UT will begin as a Priority II restoration at the beginning of the Project. The
channel invert will be raised as the channel falls through the valley so that the
bankfull elevation eventually mirrors existing ground.
The Southern UT will be constructed as a Priority I and Priority II restoration
(Sheets 3 through 3A). Like the Northern UT, the Southern UT will begin as a
Priority II restoration and eventually become a Priority I restoration as the channel
falls through the valley.
6.1.2 Stream Restoration Activities
The stream will be constructed partially on new location and partially in place.
The existing channel will be abandoned and filled. Primary activities that will
take place during channel restoration include: 1) the placement of permanent
fencing around all restored, enhanced, and preserved areas within the Project
limits; 2) channel and floodplain bench excavation; 3) installation of channel
plugs; 4) backfilling of the abandoned channel; and 5) installation of in-stream
structures.
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan are expected to be
developed during the next phase of this Project. Erosion control will be
performed locally throughout the Project and incorporated into construction
sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Project are unconsolidated, alluvial
sediments, which do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance. Therefore, seeding
with appropriate grasses and immediate planting with disturbance-adapted shrubs
will be employed following the earth-moving process.
A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas
will be designed to minimize Project disturbance to the maximum extent feasible.
The number of transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized
to avoid traversing long distances through the Project interior.
a KO c4c ASSOCIATES, P. C. 18
Carstrllin~; En~;incu•s

Project ID No. U60(,~4901
U"l~ to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham C ounty, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' Fencing and Ford Crossings
A permanent fence will be placed along the entire easement boundary that the
EEP is acquiring. The fence will protect the easement from cattle accessing the
streams or vegetation within the easement.
Three ford crossings are proposed for the Project. Two crossings are proposed for
' the Northern UT and one crossing is proposed for the Southern UT. A permanent
fence will be placed along the fords to block cattle from accessing the up and
down stream portions of the Project. Additionally, a gate will be placed at both
ends of the crossings to restrict cattle from accessing the streams during normal
grazing times.
' Design Channel Location
The objective to placing the channel in a new location was threefold. First, the
design channel was required to stay within the proposed easement boundary that
' the EEP and landowner have agreed upon.
Second, the design channel was placed back into the low point of its respective
valley. One-foot topographical data and data obtained from a site survey of
existing meander scrolls (using a sub foot accurate GPS) were used to determine
where the low points of the valley are. Where possible the design channel was
placed into meander scrolls that have not completely filled in.
Third, the design channel was strategically placed near existing trees. A survey of
existing trees eight inches or greater (diameter at breast height) was conducted
prior to design. All of these trees were taken into consideration during the design
process. The existing trees will provide root stabilization to the disturbed soils in
' the floodplain and on channel banks. Shading from the trees will help regulate
water temperatures, and woody materials such as leaves and branches will provide
biomass to the stream for foraging and cover.
' Channel and Fooodplain Bench Grading
The channel and corresponding floodplain will be excavated along the alignment
as shown in Sheets 2 through 2C. Material excavated during grading of the
channel and floodplain will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel
segments to be abandoned and backfilled. These segments will be backfilled after
' the design channel has been constructed. Preliminary earthwork estimates
indicate the Project will excavate approximately 7,800 cubic yards and fill
approximately 7,362 cubic yards of soil.
Soil material ma be laced to stabilize tem ora access roads and to minimize
P Y p p rY
compaction of the underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed
from floodplain surfaces upon completion of construction activities.
' a KO cPc ASSOCIATES, P. C. 19
Consulting En~~ineers

Project ID No. 060f~K4901
UT to E3ear C'rcck Stream Kestoration Project. ('hatham Co~mty, North (`arolina
RES'[~ORA~I~ION PLAN
Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. Due to
landowner constraints, the conservation easement is rather confined, which
dictated the need to meander the proposed alignment back and forth across the
existing channel. Impermeable plugs are installed along the downstream side of
the proposed channel banks where the proposed channel crosses the existing
channel. The will prevent the channel flow from accessing the abandoned
channel segment. The plugs will consist of low-permeability materials designed
to be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events
across the Project. Dense clays may be imported from off-site or existing
material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for plug construction.
The plug will be of sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in the
existing banks and channel bed.
Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled.
Backfilling will be performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the
channel. The channel will be filled to the extent that onsite material is available
and compacted to maximize microtopographic variability, including ruts,
ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of the backfilled channel.
Wetland Impacts
The proposed alignment of the Northern UT is expected to impact 0.10 acres of
existing riparian wetlands onsite. It is expected that enhancing 0.39 acres of
riparian wetlands will make up for the 0.1 acres of wetland impact.
Justification for Wetland Impacts
Project restoration activities will provide a functional uplift from existing
conditions. Current conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of
aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel
characteristics (mass wasting of channel banks, channel incision and aggradation,
sediment loading, and the loss of bed form diversity) at the Project. Restoration
of the channel will restore stable riffle-pool morphology, aid in energy
dissipation, and increase aquatic habitat. Wetlands occurring within the project
limits are considered low quality wetlands. The wetlands are located in and around
areas where abandoned channel scrolls and meanders were observed. The proposed
channel alignment took into account the constrained easement, existing low quality
wetlands, and the existing mature trees. Minimizing impact to the wetlands and the
loss of existing mature trees played an important role in determining the location of
the proposed alignment
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 20
Consrrllirr~ ~)r~incu~s

Project 1D No. 060684901
L1T to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
6.1.3 In-stream Structures
Stream restoration using Natural Channel Design techniques, typically involves
the use of in-stream structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat
improvement. Primary structures used to achieve these objectives may include
the installation of log and rock vanes, log sills, log and rock cross-vanes, root
wads, and other log type structures.
' 6.1.4 Target Buffer Communities
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development
' and expansion of characteristic species across the landscape. Community
associations that will be utilized to develop primary plant community associations
include: 1) Piedmont Alluvial Forest, 2) stream-side assemblage, and 3) riparian
wetland. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6.5 (Natural Plant
Community Restoration).
6.2 Sediment Transport Analysis: One of the primary goals of this Project is to
construct a stable channel that will transport its sediment and flow such that, over
time, the stream system neither aggrades nor degrades. This stability is achieved
when the sediment input to the design reach equals the sediment output.
It is common practice in gravel bed streams to study the competency of the
stream's ability to entrain the largest sized particle during bankfull flows for
stability analysis. The primary factor studied is shear stress of the bankfull
channel. The bankfull mean depth and slope are the two primary variables used
to determine if the channel has the competency to entrain its largest particle size
under bankfull flows. Entrainment calculations for both existing and proposed
conditions on the Northern and Southern UTs are included as Appendix H.
' 2
) as
In summary, the Northern UT has an excess amount of shear stress (0.53 lb/ft
evidenced by an average slope that is too steep (0.62 percent) and mean depth that
' is too dee~ (1.37 ft). The proposed design substantially lowers the shear stress to
0.22 lb/ft , by lowering the bankfull slope to 0.31 percent, and slightly lowering
the mean depth to 1.33 ft.
2
) as evidenced
The Southern UT has an excess amount of shear stress (0.76 lb/ft
by an average slope that is too steep (1.5 percent) and mean depth that is too dee~
(1.05 ft). The proposed design substantially lowers the shear stress to 0.16 lb/ft ,
by lowering the bankfull slope to 0.41 percent, and lowering the mean depth to
' 0.71 ft.
The designed channel slopes and dimensions for the Northern and Southern UTs
will produce a stable channel which will transport its sediment load without
aggrading or degrading.
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. G 21
Cunsrrl~irrg Engineers

Project ID No. 060(i~i~9t11
UT to Bear C'reck Stream Restoration Pr~~ject, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"CORATION PLAN
6.3 HEC-RAS Analysis: Given that the Project involves modifications to a stream
channel, it is important to analyze the effect of these changes on flood elevations.
Floodwater elevations were analyzed using HEC-RAS. HEC-RAS is a software
package designed to perform one-dimensional, steady flow, analysis of water
surface profiles for a network of natural and constructed channels.
HEC-RAS uses two equations, energy and/or momentum, depending upon the
water surface profile. The model is based on the energy equation. The energy
losses are evaluated by friction (Manning's equation) and contraction/expansion
(coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity head). The momentum equation
is used in situations where the water surface profile rapidly varies, such as
hydraulic jumps and stream junctions.
Backwater analysis was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for
both bankfull and 100-year discharges. In addition to steady flow data, geometric
data is also required to run HEC-RAS. Geometric data consists of establishing
the connectivity of the river system, which includes cross-section data, reach
lengths, energy loss coefficients (friction losses, contraction, and expansion
losses), and stream junction information.
6.3.1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Bankfull indicators were identified along both the Northern and Southern UTs
during field inspections. Existing conditions surveys were conducted which
included surveying representative riffle cross-sections, representative hydraulic
(bankfull) slope, and determining an existing Manning's n coefficient for the
surveyed reaches. The surveyed data and calculated Manning's n were correlated
with identified bankfull indicators to estimate bankfull cross-sectional area and
velocity, and consequently bankfull discharge. The estimated on-site bankfull
cross-sectional area and discharge were compared with a calculated bankfull
cross-sectional area and discharge using the Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for North Carolina Streams (Harman, W. H. et al., 1999) (Piedmont
regional curve). Data obtained from on-site falls within a level of confidence of
the data obtained from the Piedmont regional curve.
The Northern and Southern UTs have a bankfull discharge of 100 cfs and 22 cfs,
respectively. Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-
RAS Version 3.0.1, see Section 6.3.2 [No-Rise]) was used to evaluate how the
discharge flows within the proposed channel geometry. This evaluation verifies
that the proposed plan, dimension, and profile would adequately convey the
discharge at the bankfull stage; the point where water begins to overflow onto the
floodplain.
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C. 22
Consulliit~,~ En~;ineci•s

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"TORATION PLAN
' 6.3.2 No-Rise
A HEC-RAS analysis has been prepared and completed on existing and proposed
conditions of the Project channel(s). The resulting data output has been analyzed
to determine if the design channel is adequately conveying its bankfull discharge,
and to determine if a rise, fall, or no-rise in water surface elevations during the
100-year flood event has occurred.

The analysis indicates the proposed channel geometry will not increase the 100-
year flood elevations within or upstream of the Project area. Results are located
within the HEC-RAS Summary Table in Appendix K.
6.3.3 Hydrologic Trespass
' Hydrologic trespass includes any issue which may affect hydrology outside of the
property boundaries on which the project is located. These issues were reviewed
for this Project. All onsite modifications will not affect offsite hydrology.
'
6.4 Soil Restoration
Soil grading will occur during Project stream restoration activities. Topsoils will
be stockpiled during construction activities and spread on the soil surface once
grading activities have been completed. The replaced topsoil will serve as a
viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in
the survival of planted species.
6.4.1 Floodblain Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas
represent important components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the
region exhibit complex surface microtopography. Efforts to advance the
t development of characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented. In
areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be
' performed. After construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex
microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical asymmetry. Subsequently, plant
community restoration will be initiated.
6.5 Natural Plant Community Restoration: Restoration of floodplain forest and
stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of characteristic
species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types
contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding
and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
t Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community
descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary plant community
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 23
Corisultii~~,~ Engincus

Project [[) No. 060(~~;~901
U~h to Bear ('rock Strum (Ze;toration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"TY)RA'T10N PLAN
associations that will be promoted daring community restoration activities.
Community associations that will be utilized to develop primary plant community
associations include: 1) Piedmont Alluvial Forest, 2) stream-side assemblage, and
3) riparian wetland (Sheet 4). Planting elements are listed below.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
1. River birch (Betula nigra)
2. Slippery elm (Ulmus ruhra)
3. Winged elm (Ulmus alata)
4. Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)
5. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6. Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
7. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
8. Green ash (Fr°axinus pennsylvanica)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
10. Box elder (Ater negundo)
l 1. Painted buckeye (Aescult~s sylvatica)
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Silky dogwood (Cornt~s amomum)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthns occidentalis)
4. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
5. Tag alder (Alms serrulata)
6. Painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica)
7. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
Riparian Wetland
1. Green Ash
2. Slippery elm
3. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
4. Black willow
5. Silky dogwood
6. Buttonbush
7. Elderberry
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment
stabilization, rapid growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces
associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and
shrubs will be planted on all channel side slopes, concentrated along outer bends.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest is targeted for the remainder of the riparian buffer, with
the exception of existing riparian wetlands. Riparian wetland plantings include
a KO cfc ASSOCIATES, P. C. 24
Co,rrulri,r~; En~~inrci~

Project ID No. 060684901
IJT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
KESTORAT'ION PLAN
tree and shrub species that are adapted for wetter conditions. The following
planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration.
' 6.5.1 Planting Plan
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling
sources. Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified areas
at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species
in the stream-side assemblage will be planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre
on 4-foot centers.
Table 7 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each
vegetation association. Planting will be performed between December 1 and
March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root
during the spring season.
Table 7. Planting Plan
Project ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restoration Pro'ect)

ii
u
n

egetation Association

Piedmont
Alluvial Forest

Stream-side
Assemblage

Riparian
Wetland Piedmont Alluvial
Forest (Bear
Creek Buffer
Planting)

OTAL
Area (acres) 14.62 Acres 1.03 Acres 0.39 Acres 3.23 Acres 19.3 Acres
Number
planted* Number
planted** Number
planted*
Number planted*
Number
Species (% of total) (% of total) (% of total) (% of total) planted
Bercrla nigra 994 (l0) 220 (10) 1,214
Ulmas rtebra 497 (5) 113 (5) 610
Ulmus alara 495 (5) 110 (5) 605
Carya cordiformis 994 (10) 220 (l0) 1,214
Carya ovata 994 (l0) 220 (10) 1,214
Juglans nigra 994 (10) 220 (10) 1,214
Quercus phellos 994 (10) 220 (l0) 1,214
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 994 (10) 40 (1 S) 220 (] 0) 1,254
Carprnus carolininna 994 (10) 220 (10) 1,214
Acer negundo 994 (10) 220 (10) 1,214
Aesczrhrs sylvatica 994 (10) 280 (10) 220 (] 0) 1,494
Salix nigra 420 (15) 27 (10) 447
Corpus amomnm 420 (15) 40 (IS) 460
Cephalanthus occidenralis 420 (15) 40 (IS) 460
Sambucus canadensis 420 (15) 40 (IS) 460
Alnus serrulata 420 (15) 420
Lindera benzoin 420 (I S) 420
Ulmus americana 40 (15) 40
Quercus michauxii 40 (15) 40
0
TOTAL 9,940 (100) 2,802 (100) 265 (100) 2,200 (100) 15,206
' * Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
**Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acres
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 25
Consul-ing En~~ineers

Project ID No. OhO68~901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Pr~~ject, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
6.5.2 Invasive Species Management
Several invasive species were observed at the Project within the existing disturbed
riparian fringe including tree-of-heaven, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle,
and China-berry. These species will be controlled so none become dominant or
alter the desired community structure of the Project. It is likely that manual
removal (by cutting and grubbing); in addition to chemical herbicide treatments
may be required.
During the eve-year monitoring period, where necessary, undesirable plant or
animal species will be removed, treated, or otherwise managed by means of
physical removal, use of herbicides, live trapping, confining wires, or nets.
All vegetation removal from the Project shall be done by mechanical means only
unless EEP has first authorized the use of herbicides or algaecides for the control
of plants in or immediately adjacent to the Project.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. G 26
Consu!lin~,> Enl,>ineers

Project ID No. 060684901
U"I' to E3ear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: Monitoring of Project restoration efforts will be
performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream
channel, stormwater management devices, wetlands, and vegetation. In general, the
restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on Appendix II of
the Stream 1l~Iitigatiort Guidelines (USAGE et al. 2003).
7.1 Streams: The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for
geometric activity. Annual fall monitoring will include development of channel
cross-sections on riffles and pools and a water surface profile of the channel. The
data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will
include: 1) cross-sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth; 4) maximum
depth; 5) width-to-depth ratio; 6) meander wavelength; 7) belt-width; 8) water
I surface slope; and 9) sinuosity. The stream will subsequently be classified
according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes
in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data in each
' successive monitoring year. A photographic record that will include
preconstruction and post construction pictures has been initiated (Appendix C).
' 7.1.1 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) successful classification of
the reach as a functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996), and 2) channel variables
1 indicative of a stable stream system.
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track
changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to
determine the success in restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the
width-to-depth ratio should characterize an C-type or borderline E-/C-type
channel, bank-height ratios indicative of a stable or moderately unstable channel,
and minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width, and/or bank erosion
along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot
' cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain at approximately the
same design sinuosity (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The field
indicator of bankfull will be described in each monitoring year and indicated on a
' representative channel cross-section figure. If the stream channel is down-cutting
or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank or slope
stabilization methods will be employed.
' Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure
has occurred. Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure,
' undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel around the structure,
and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 27
Co~uullin~~ En~,~ineers

Project ID Nu. 060hh4901
U1' to Bear C'reck Strewn Restoration Project. ('Latham County, North Carolina
RES~IY)RATI(~N PLAN
7.1.2 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not
be limited to: 1) structure repair and/or installation, 2) repair of dimension,
pattern, and/or profile variables, and 3) bank stabilization. The method of
contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in
compliance with success criteria.
7.2 Vegetation: Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant
survival and species diversity. After planting has been completed in winter or
early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting methods
and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting
and additional modifications will be implemented, if necessary. A photographic
record of plant growth will be included in each annual monitoring report.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a
periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by
nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be
performed between June 1 and September 30, after each growing season, until the
vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to 17
sample plots (10 meters by 10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Project
however, best professional judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative
monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot,
vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and density.
7.2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria
are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of "Character
Tree Species." Character Tree Species include planted species along with species
identified through visual inventory of an approved reference (relatively
undisturbed) forest community used to orient the Project design. All canopy tree
species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to define
"Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be
surviving in the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Character Tree
Species per acre must be surviving in year four (4) and 260 Character Tree
Species per acre in year five (5).
a KO dt ASSOC/AYES, P. C. 28
CorrsrrM(n~; Gn~;irrcu•s

Project ID No. (160684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
7.2.2 Vegetation Continency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density
calculations from combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental
planting may be performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies.
Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of
vegetation success criteria.
7.3 Scheduling and Reporting: A tentative phasing schedule for the proposed
Project is presented below. Certain tasks may be dependant on seasonal
' conditions.
Table 8. Project Scheduling and Reporting
Proiect ID No. 060684901 (UT to Bear Creek Restoration Proiectl
Task Descri tion Date of Scheduled Com letion
Restoration Plan Finalized June 29, 2007
Submission of Final Desi n October 26, 2007
Permittin Initiated November 30, 2007
Advertise for Bidders Februa 29, 2008
Bid O enin March 28, 2008
Be in Construction Au st 22, 2008
End Construction December 2008
Pre are As-built Miti anon Plan and Miti anon Plan December 2008
First Year Monitorin Re ort December 2009
Second Year Monitorin Re ort December 2010
Third Year Monitorin Re ort December 2011
Fourth Year Monitorin Re ort December 2012
Fifth Year Monitorin Re ort December 2013
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C. 29
Co~tsulfin~; Engineers

Project III No. OE~0684901
U"h to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Pr~~ject, ('hatham County, North Car<,>lina
RESTORATION PLAN
8.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. United States
Geological Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman, W. H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D. S. Olsen
and J. P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the
Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/draftCPFApri12005.htm [May 23, 2007]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. Final North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report) (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCategories4-7.PDF [May 24, 2007].
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006b. Draft North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report). Public Review (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/tmdl/documents/2006303dListPublicReviewDraft.pdf [May 24,
2007]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 30
COAS)II/JllF,' ~/),Q!!)C'NP3

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
REST'ORA'TION PI.,AN
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007. North Carolina Waterbodies by
Subbasin (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/biros/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-06-12.pdf [May 24,
2007]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2001. Watershed Restoration Plan
for the Cape Fear River Basin (online). Available:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/cape_fear_2001.pdf [May 23, 2007]. North
' Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006c. Final North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report) (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCategories4-7.PDF [February 26, 2007].
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006d. Draft North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report). Public Review (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006303dListPublicReviewDraft.pdf [February
26, 2007]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
' Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Soil Survey of Chatham County,
North Carolina. United State Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
a KO c4c ASSOCIATES, P. C. 31
Constrhing Engineers

Project ID No. 06~E~84901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map. Reston, Virginia.
United States Geological Society (map scale I :500,000).

C~
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. 32 '
Cvnsrrllin~; En~,~inecrs

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ProjecC, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORAT[ON PLAN
APPENDIX A
' FIGURES
' , KO cPc ASSOCIATES, P. C.
rs ~,•
Co r ullar~, ~n~urcer•s

Chatham County
North Carolina
PROJECT
A-TGE~
2302 1176
i
902

113 9 ~~
' ~' ~~
~ /~ _
, ,
___
/
902

1009,
2301
~
-
10D9
~
'
~
, ~' 230
0,

PROJECT o iooo 2000
I ~ I ~ I
~~ FEET
r~-
7
Vicinity Map
~ ~,~~~
~~f
~~> >
~
- Restoration Ylan
l1'I' to Bear Creek
n
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, 1-.C. Chatham County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers
10/1 SCNAUB OR., SUITE #20l RALEIGI(, N. C. 27606 ~/~t,11
late: c 'n7
Figure: 1
[phone]
APPENDIX A

PROJECT
A~R~~.A
o Zooo 400o Chatham County
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ North Carolina
f t~-~~
LEGEND
Northern UT - R'atershed
Southern U"I' -Watershed
Project Area
r~
7
1',~c ~~y~titc~n ~
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB OR., SUITE #202 RALE/GH, N. C, 27606
[phone]
Watershed Topo
Map
Kestoration Ylans
U"I~ to Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
Date: 5!iL07 figure: 2
APPENDIX A

LEGEND
Symbol Name Symbol Name
ChA - Chewacla and Wehadkee GkE - Georgeville-Badin Complex
CkC - Cid Silt Loam GoC - Goldston-Badin Complex
Cm8 - Cid-Lignum Complex NaB - Nanford-Badin Complex
GaB - Georgeville Silt Loam NaC - Nadford-Badin Complex
GaC - Georgeville Silt Loam RvA - Riverview Silt Loam
GeB2 - Georgeville Silty Clay Loam St6 - State Sandy Loam
GkD - Georgeville-Badin Complex - Project Area
0 1000 2000
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALE/GH, K.C. 27606
[phone]
Soil Survey Map
Restoration Plans
U"1~ to Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
l) ate: 53 Ln 7 I I+ figure: 3
r~
' ~(.'nS~tf ~I11
APPENDIX A

• pp1 ~ ~ ~ X73 ~ ~. - ~+, , t. ~1~j
t ~ ~ .. ~ • ~
r ~ ~~., ~ ~- . ~' ~' . Bea 'reek '' ~ ~ . . ~ '
1~_ 1 ~~•~~: \ -.,~~!_ ,l l ~•Cemtrbtlli~htirfr~1~I ;,~ r ~ _-
,~ '! ,1 ,. ~..
~~4 \ ~'~ ~ 1 \' ~~
1t~`.. 113 9 ~~ . I ,~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `` _~ 1\~I ~ •.. _ ~ .~, ti
_ ~~~~, !~ '1' ',100'9 ~ ,I ~ j~, ~- ... \ ~?3Ul - ~ ,_
.1 1 , '~ ~ J
PROJECT o iooo 2000
~~
r~~T
I
-- Hydrological
r
7 Features Map
',(..'()Sy~tClil Restoration Ylan
U"I' to Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
KO ~' ASSOCIATESt P.C.
Consulting Engineers
10/1 SCHAUB DR., SU/TE #202 R.9LEIGN, N. C. 27606 llate: ~~7 I'l~llCe: 4
(9/9) 85I-6066
APPENDIX A

Chatham County . ,._, ; :...
North Carolina
PROJECT
AREA _ - . 4.«..
64 ~ 1506 ~, _ ( ~ ` 1511
~,
- . - -
-~
~~
~~~~ = ~ ~
2211 ~~. 64

,"
-
1506 ~ ~~
216 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~

-
~~"
;~"
,
~ ',
i,
,_ ,
~
;~
/ ~ _
-~
-
~
-~ - '~ ~;
~

~ ~ ~~
-~
"-
~
~~ -~ ~
~ ~

----
2167
-- -~'
2168 -
1506
PROJECT o iooo aooo
I ~ I ~ I
AREA rI:IJT
r~
Landrum Creek
1
~
t Vicinity Map
'ECOS~
S
('ill Kestoration Plan
'' UT to Bea
C
k
KO ~ ASSOCIATES, 1-.C r
ree
Chatham County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers
101] SCHAUB DR., SWTE #202 BALE/GH, N. C. 27606
[phone] Date: fvOl~D7 higure: 5
APPENDIX A

~ 1000 2000
~~-~a: ~~
LEGEND
Watershed
PROJECT
AREA
Chatham County
North Carolina
r~
~' ~'(ri~~tCl l l
/ _ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
101! SCHAUB DH., SUlTF, #202 RALE/GH, N. C. 27606
[phone]
Landrum Creek
Watershed Map
Restoration Ylans
U1' to Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
Uate: 6~OIN7 ~ Figure: 6
APPENDIX A

LEGEND
Symbol Name
Gab - Georgeville Silt Loam (6/10°/ Slope)
GaC Georgeville Silt Loam (2-6% Slope)
RvA - Riverview Silt Loam
- Project Area
r
~'lc'()S~StC'Il l
KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALE/GH, N. C. 27606
(919) 85I-6066
Date:
0 500 1000
I ~ I~ I~ I~ I
F L~:T
Landrum Creek
Soil Survey
Restoration Plan
LTT to Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
6~D]!C)7 Figure: 7
APPENDIX A

~~
.~
~° ~~~" titi 9 ' ~~
- ~
1 ;'
9 0 2 - ;
--~ i •~
* ~ : ~r~ '
. b~
~~~ ~-
~~~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ 4
~' '~ti
~Y
•~t
titi ti~
,. ~, yS~
~~~
~~~ ~
titi ,~,.~ -~ ~. ,~'~
ti.~~ti~ -.~~ ' ~'
1 'M ~~ If
,~~ V ,y .~ E - ~1
~+ i
y,
`'
i
.f' ~:
1~~

!~ ,~
y ~~-

LEGEND 0 500 1000
~ ~ ~
Vegetative Communities TEET
Location
~~ Project Area
r
7
1',C()S~StClll
KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N_C. 27606
[phone]
PROJECT
AREA
Reference Site
Vegetative
Communities Map
Restoration Plan
UT to Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
Uate: S3L07 Figure: 8
APPENDIX A

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Ct•eek Stream Resroration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN

' APPENDIX B
' SHEETS

1

l'
r
`I
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Cansuhini,= End=ineers

LEGEND
EXISTING PROPERTY
_ ~ ~ LINE AND CORNER
re EXISTING TOP OF BANK
x -x--x- EXISTING FENCE LINE
WOODS
'~ TREE
EXISTING WETLAND
BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
NORTHERN UT BEAR CREEK
- P
fi'~i
~~;
m~
.~ ,
G~~~~
P~
4
di
I I I I rr ~iLni~v.i

LEGEND
TB EXISTING TOP Of BANK
-x x- EXISTING FENCE LINE
WOODS
TREE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SOUTHERN UT BEAR CREEK
%- ~~\
i '' ~\\~°
i - ~~~
~~ SOUTHERN UT ~~~ I ~''~ ~ 1 ~~~
' -~~~ yr '~
l ~ I ~ Ate/ ~ ,-M ~I G / _ ~ n ~~.~ i. /92; y~~ a~~ n
'~' ~ _ i
i -~.
/ -~ s 1
~~ . `~~.
~~ ~ I~
I , . m w ~ ~ ~ ~a2e
~~ ~ _ _ _
I
~j ~'-- ~~ ~,~-~/ ~ FLOW DIRECTION I
t ~ ~ -- - _
t;. I {~N~ ~ *J (,3» = rm~h~. \ _425 ~ _- - ~ _. ` ~ ~ ~ -
i lii~ ~~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~
g~( !II~~~~/ ___ -
J
~,I~ ~ ~~K
i r~,E : ;
i i ~: E.

` ~

BEAR CREEK

LEGEND

EXISTING PROPERTY LOG VANE /
'" LINE AND CORNER ROOT WAD
_ __
Te EXISTING TOP OF BAN K

X- - EXISTING FENCE LINE ~ L-VANE
WOODS
TREE ~ ROCK
CROSS VANE

(f R OCK STEP
~`Q~ STRUCTURE LOG SILL

LOG STEP
SEQUENCE LOG CROSS
VANE
~~
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
NORTHERN UT BEAR CREEK
0
0 ~
x +
0 N
0 0
~ ~
O `~
ICI 0 0
~ Q ~ ~' o ~~
I ~~ ~ ° PROPOSED
_ PROPOSED a ~ NORTHERN UT
~~ ~ ~ ~ EASEMENT a ~ o ~_ ~
/ ~Z ~ ~ h o ~ N
o + J
I \I ~ I F~ ~ o ~ ~ w~:a"' Z
'` 920 / ~ ~ `~ ~, w
~~ ~ ( ~~F PROPOSED FORD ~ ~"~ / ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ CROSSING ~ ~ ~ ~ . w
\ ~ R~ ~ J
~\ ~ % ~ 420 - /E/ ;~ ,~ 'r; /
~'k ~ /
~ .. - j~ ~ `r' ~~~ '~ ~
V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an' ~- ~
,~ 4 ~'~~ ~ ,e ,. ~~F ~ ~ i Slb /
E / ~~-~ II
~"`'~ _ ~ ~ E _ i
PROPOSED ~
EXCAVATION ~ ~ J
LIMITS Sze ' ~ ,~~.n~„
NOTE:
EXISTING FEATURES ARE SHOWN WITH
THIN LINES AND SMALL TEXT.

LEGEND

EXISTING PROPERTY LOG VANE 1
,
-~ ~
LINE AND CORNER
ROOT WAD
~
TB EXISTING TOP OF BAN K

X - EXISTING FENCE LINE ~ L-VANE
WOODS
ROCK
TREE CROSS VANE
EXISTING WETLAND
BOUNDARY
LOG SILL
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE
LOG CROSS
PANE
LOG STEP
SEQUENCE
x~

ti
~0'
~~
~~
~~
~~~~ F~~
.r~' ~ -
G ~,
~~ ~ ~ , _ \
i - ` ~' _\
\\ z ~~
Tg
~~y
~ ;RS r
~~~F~ ~ ~
\ ~ ~~~
~ F
`\ I .
\~
1
PROPOSED FORD
CROSSING
~~
ti~
o°
~x
o°
ti~
PROPOSED
- -EASEMENT
w~-----,--E----__ ~ .

i ~~ ~

1
I ~ ~ ~ 2
1 y 4'
/I
I
\~

1 M -
T

E
~~ _c_
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
NORTHERN UT BEAR CREEK
420 420
410 „-. ~ '' 410
400 400
100 50 0 50 100
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
o°
x o
~ 0 0
o ° N ~'
00
I r
~ ~ `°~
PROPOSED s EX~AVOATION ~ ,1~ ~ ~ ' ~ ''
NORTHERN UT `~ LIMITS / ~
o ~~ ~ ~~:;.~ ~ ~~ 1
o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~
e

~~
CR
/ ', // // ~ \tl~ ~ w
_ ~~' ~z
/ ~ // ~~~
r~ i ,~~~F
/ ^~
PROPOSED- ~ ,~ ~ „ ~ ~ r;
BANKFULL ~ a ~' ~ ~.
~~ ~~~
- ' ~'~~
,~~~ ~ ,~~
\ ~
;,;; i
,~
~ `i.,p`
1S% T 9"7` 4 _
e ' agar-
~ ~
"'~ , ~.~
W
M1hf 1~
N
~E
-E~
E
NOTE:
EXISTING FEATURES ARE SHOWN WITH
THIN LINES AND SMALL TEXT.

/~,,.
KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
imp siauun ux, ecru: •:o~ xnuasu. n.c. naua
t919J tl51fi0hfi
50 0 100
SCALE
SHEET N0.
Sheet 2A
I PROIECi ENGINEER ~
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~;R~
~~
~~
~~ ~ 1'rE
~ ~~.
~ ~~~
i;~•
1~ b
. ~,A~ P!.yt\
1~ ~ ~/ s1
PROPOSED ~ ~ ~~
EASEMENT ~ ~ ~ ~
W
I
~ F LOCATION.
E
RESTORATION PLAN
UT TO BEAR CREEK
gEpR CREEK cauNrr: CHATHAM
DESIGNED BY: RVSRKW
-/E', "
3
CHECKED BY: RKWiRVS DATE: ~~~~
a=I o0
0
>~
4~s'gr

LEGEND

EXISTING PROPERTY LOG VANE I

%
;
- LINE AND CORNER
ROOT WAD
~'
Te EXISTING TOP OF BAN K

X EXISTING FENCE LINE ~ L-VANE
woods
ROCK
TREE ~ CROSS VANE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE LOG SILL

LOG STEP
SEQUENCE LOG CROSS
VANE

i
N
O
~ ~
~ _
~ C7
U
Z
~J
O
i

0 0 0
o ~ c~
~ PROPOSED
BANKFULL
~ ~` -
(J ~~
r w~~
I
o ~
~ ` ~''
l
E
~ ~~ ~
/ ~
. / ~-
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
I
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
SOUTHERN UT BEAR CREEK
-- --e --
420 ~ I 420
410 i 410
100 50 0 50 100
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
0
o °
~ ~ L~
~~ ~
PROPOSED
EXCAVATION ~
LIMITS ~
~ ~ .%;
~ ,-
.,
~~:
_ ;il~Y
=-.re

0
o
o +
+ C
PROPOSED FORD
CROSSING
E~

~~ ,~, ~ -
tB ~ ~ ,t ~~ ~`~Z~~ FOwON
~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pIREC~1
- - ~ 'a.?' ~~ 7
^~
E _ - ~___
,,
rROPOSED
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
SOUTHERN UT
~-~',
rn
~_
NOTE:
EXISTING FEATURES ARE SHOWN WITH
THIN LINES AND SMALL TEXT.
N
~0
``
r
~~
ti

~
2
v
Z
O
~
s
2

LEGEND

EXISTING PROPERTY ~i",~ LOG VANE I

~ LINE AND CORNER ROOT WAD
~
re EXISTING TOP OF BANK

X EXISTING FENCE LINE ~ L-VANE
WOODS
TREE ~ ROCK
CROSS VANE

ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE LOG SILL

LOG STEP
SEQUENCE ~ LOG CROSS
VANE
~
i,
0
0
PROPOSED
BANKFULL ~ ~
i
~,
i
i
C1 j
N ~
~~ i
~ U~~
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
SOUTHERN UT BEAR CREEK
~.:`
0
0
~~ PROPOSED
EXCAVATION
LIMITS
O~
k
~~
~~/
/~
1-
r
~,
w ~~~ ~~d ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~
W
,~i ~~~
W I ~ J
2 S8 ~~`
r
~ F~'Ow O ~Ct10N
~ ~
~/ /
_ - -PROPOSED FOR
CROSSING
~O
x
S~
I~
`~~
~~
~ ~;~
~,
PROPOSED
SOUTHERN UT
/__~2~
~ n~
~i ~~ ~ ~`
_ ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~~ ~
\ ~~
~k~~
~~~ ~ s ~
~ ~ A. '
~ ~ C~,. ,;
`~' ~~
~~
NOTE: W
EXISTING FEATURES ARE SHOWN WITH I
THIN LINES AND SMALL TEXT.
/~
PROPOSED
EASEMENT

. P
~
~ p. AQQO/~i ArE.~ry PRO1ECf REFERENCE NO. SHEn NO.
L 0 G T ~J I
.
AL P R f f L E l
.
,
a n
1~ lY HJJ 1dH1 a
Consulting );ngineers gEpR CREEK Sheaf 3

~i
' ,
1011 9CHAUR DR,9NIE '301 PAIBYf:H, N.G 14606 PaaEa ENGINEER
.. ~ ~. (9191 BSIfi066
',I _ _N RTHER UT

BEGI NO THER UT
STA O f 0 .00 _ .

PROP

SE . _B
UL_
NK
GRAD.
INS
~ o
o 0
~'

EXIS
ING
G
OUND
ON
AL
THAL __
EG _ c ^

' , o a
I. _ i

'i I

~

'~,,

~
I
i.

i
~

I

I

~ ~
, W

,.
~. ,,
.
it _ ~/ \ ~ ~ ti- _` _ ^ ii. ~,, i. I ~- -..
` ~~ I' ~'
..
' ~ ~ ~ _~~
~,
i
I

}
~
~
',,

_
~

PRO

OS~p _

HA WE

INVE
'
T

I ',
i
', ~,
'

~,
~ _ ~,
i
~_

I

I __. .__
'~
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23
'~ i ~
.
L ',

T
l~
1
A
PR
~I
~
,

~
__

'~ ~ _ _ __
_
TEIE
a.l~
r _
, _
_ I

~
~,
I
~ I_

O o ~
i

~ I ~ ~I ~ ~ I ~ ~ II

w _ . _
' E , _
ISTI
NG
GR
OU
D ALO
G
TH
LW~G ;_ _

a
;

~ __
, ~ W
~I
_.
i i _ ~ _
~-
~ - 4

_

- _-
--
-- ---- _

~

_

I

I _ _
--

~ ~
-

~ __

~

~

~
-
--

--

a

---

.

--

~

t--

~
-

~
-
' RO 0
S D
h'H WE, G I
I V~RT ~ i ~
I
~ ~

~
a ,,
~
I
__ ~
~

R
_ i

N[~ A

NG
1•IN

XIS,
V
IAL
EG i
j -__ F

~, ___ I ~ I
i
I ail _

~
' ,
'~ j
'
',
',
23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

n
^
Q p_ ~wp Owi~~pc PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.

LO

IT

D

A

F

E
'

L

G

TU

CI

--

~
L

I ,
.
'
^
lY. 00 ldtl LO I l'
a Consulting Engineers BEAR CREEK Sheet 3A
lou saws nx, suite ~xm nu.elce, n.r. xx666
,919)8516066 PROIEC7 ENGINEER

NOR
ERN
UT

s TH

u RN T
_ ,__ _ _ {~?_1,j~Q
'I BEGI SO THER UT
STA 0 ~- 0 OQ
.
ELEV = 4 6.~9 M
O
o ~, ,
~

a

o
I
n
n
o

i
~
~

N
~
0

HER

UT

i i

_
i

~
~

{

_
+
~

_

R

I c
~ EXI$TIN GRO ND A ONG HALWE a> W
+
~
M II
EXISTI
G '' GR
Ut~ID
LO G

yy~~
TH' L
G ''

C

LL~ I '
- ', i

'

w

I

I _.
~

.
_ ' _
µ--

_

~y _
..
-
~',
~
_P.
OPQSE
B
AN FULL. G
~ D LIN

~ _ _

'I I

I I

ROP

SED WE

AL INYE
.
_
-.~__
:. ~ '
i GRO ND AL NG E ISTING TH~4L EG
I~ _ ,

~ ~
r--
, I
_
._
,
~ ~ ;

, ~ _ PR©P ED!, T LV~EG INVERT
I'
_
: I
'~, i ', ~, I ''
I
36 37 38 39 14 41 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

L_
I ~ __

LO

~ ~

T,~J

1

AL

P
R ~

FI i

~

i

_

_

_
SO THER OJT
_ ',
I

'I

I O

o
. ar.

~ '. _~ _ j i

i

I

I
I

i.

~

~

,
_
,
I
I

-
a II
~

~

i

E
ISTf
G,
F GR

i
-
u
.
L ~

G

HAL

G

_,

~ i_ -
._ r _

_
__

~
~~
_1 ~ E D IS
7~

~ UTHE N UT

_
~ ~ $T / l 4~.4I

__ r i E_ , _ _ _

~_
-
-

-

I t

i ~- ROQOS D ~A_ KFULL_ RA[~ELI E ~

~ _ r ,_ =
I 4 ~. 63

,
--- --
-
_,

_

---

--

~-

,

-

____

-~-

-~

{

1 _ ~

_ ~

_ . ~ ~

_
_

_ ~
~

, _

_
l
_

_
~
,_ .
~RO
OS D
~
H LW

_
G KNV
R_T

_

.
__

~--

~...
I
G ~
0 I AL
ND ~
~ E
N ISTING THAL G I I I
I r

,
L
I i
1 '_
~:_ ~ ~ _

. _
_ '~ ' '~ '
~

I
~, ,

i

i
'~ I,
~ ~
!~,

~,

:
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

PLANTING PLAN
~o
~~
~ NC HIGHWAY 902
LEGEND

WOODS
STREAM-SIDE - (1.03 Ac)
ASSEMBLAGE
PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL - (14.62 Ac(
FOREST
PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL - (3.23 Ac)
FOREST (BEAR CREEK
BUFFER PLANTING)
RIPARIAN WETLAND - (0.39 Act

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES"I'ORATiON PLAN

0

u
ii

APPENDIX C
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
' a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consuhing Engineers

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
KESTORATION PLAN
.~ j
C
S ~ ~,. ' S . '~ it'.:y ' ,y
~'+.~'.tFg'F~ : _ !.r' .R'~ .. .r. .~' q. . X1,7 ...
:~!; ~ `.
~„s i +w` .. a ~iV ~R.
a
r
~~~ ~ _ `~ ~
~~`3 :s.. ~ st a~
a~ , ~
a j ~' .~, 1' ~ .~ ~ .a+- ~ '". eft
^~
# sal i ~ r ~ ~ ~~„r c
' s `~
t ~ y~.,_ ~,~~,
i _ ~e
1
Northern UT looking downstream at cattle access point, and channel
over widening. Notice aggradation where channel has over widened.
Northern UT where channel is incising and mass wasting of the
banks are occurring.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ConsulNn~~ En~~iru u•s
APPENDIX C

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear ('reek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
Northern UT where mass wasting of the banks is occurring because
of the loss of vegetation and incision of the channel.
~`
~a ~ ~~ ., _ '~'^ ~ ~~ ,
~~.
~rr z ~ ~ .~
:: ~t'`'s ~ i Yom` 1 s I
°r
r°
ri~p•.Y/~ ..
' ? Z+ r
r~' ..~p' '~ -`~'
4 y ~ ~-~
Y
Northern UT Cattle access point where the cattle are using the
channel for a watering hole and cooling area.
,~_
~tr;;:,~:~•
a KO cY~ ASSOC/AYES, P. C.
ConstrllDt~ En,~inea~a
APPENDIX C

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATi(~N PLAN
Northern UT where the channel has incised to bedrock and high shear
stress is being placed on banks.
Northern UT where channel has incised to bedrock and is
undercutting the trees that are left on the channel banks.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
C7~nsrdlint L•7~,tincu:~
APPENDIX C

Project lll No. 06064901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RF~.STORATION PLAN
Southern UT: notice slumpage of channel and the deep incision of
bankfiill (bankfiill depth should be-just over one foot from channel
Southern UT where channel has braided because of cattle access.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
C~on.~u!lin,L Cn,~inea•s
APPENDIX C

UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
,.,

~
,_ ,
~. ,
~ '
~ - .x"t t
! ~ ~:~
3 ~
~~
~
A ' ~~~ ~t ~'r Ate?,
{
! v~•~
~ r
~

7~1 pt b
~ h r: ~ . ~
,5}
.iii, 'Y~
} ~k ~ 4Sr
yy. r
~~.~~" y~'
~~t
iy~ ~'
1v
~ 5
•6 4
~
J~3
535
f ~~
' ~ `
4
~
_
r
~Y
~yj R
.
.
~
` tM.r 3~' ' ~ ~ ;.,,,~
~
n''#
` -
~ '~` %~~
C~y
.
.

tt 1°y1 \A'rti +r ff ~ ' ' ~
< ~.
~~ ~ .y Y~*4'ti.
i! ~ 5 ~,,~~ - ,
'-+'~
~ •..,

'
.~ e g ~ ~~ ~~
~~
~~~4~ ,fl r y _ Jam'}
r
, y
,..
~ ~
"
~ ,~ ~ «$ _
Vy Y
t ~

Southern UT has incised to the point that it is undercutting existing
vegetation on the banks.
Southern UT: banks are experiencing mass wasting because channel
is trying to increase belt width and because of the loss of vegetation.
a KO d'r ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Cunsullin~ En~incu•.v
APPENDIX C

Project 1D No. OC~0684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
REST(~RATfON PLAN
Southenl UT has incised and ruts in banks due to cattle access are
causing bank slumpage into the Middle of channel.

.
~
~ `; ` `f rr
`
~
~ , ~ s r
7
i
4~ ~
-.
r f -,~

-~: ~ ~
-' .. ~..
~ p .
~
J
~~
..
_ ~~
~Yf^(tgr~
y ~ ~. w~„~S ~ y y _

~.
.
Y
i W ~
~
.. 4 _ .~r
~y ; ~~ t
e'
~ ~„ : ; V, ~ ~ ' E J
~Y~ ~ ,fry k ..

a1
f
r
,~. ~ i t
~
~
~~
~ <
s j~ . ~,
Southern UT: the loss of bank vegetation and cattle access has
increased shear stress on banks causing mass wasting and slumpage.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
C'un.~uhiu~ l:ns;incrrs
APPENDIX C

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Streai~~ Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX D
MORPHOLOGICAL STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Canaullin~~ En~~ineer~

Project ID No. 060684901
~' ~ I~, 1 n ~~,~ ~ ~~•.~~, `„s~ .~a7 I',~~Ir=~~,~1~,, i~ ~ . ~ EJ:~(li ~~~ County, North Carolina
E~ ~:STORAT-iON Pl_AN
~,
Morphological Characteristics of Northern UT
Restoration Plan UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration
County: Chatham County, NC
Design bY~ RVSIRKW
Checked by RKW
ITEM Existin Conditions Pro sed Conditions Reference Reach
LOCATION Northern UT to Bear
Creek -Weaver Pro?ert
Northern UT Bear Creek
Land~un~ Creek
STREAM TYPE De raded E4 C4 C4
DRAINAGE AREA, Ac - Sq Mi 1508 Ac - 2.36 S Mi 1508 Ac - 2.36 S Mi 1619 Ac - 2.53 S Mi
BANKFULL WIDTH (Wye), ft 15.2 ft 19.0 ft 20.2 ft
BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH (den), ft 1.37 ft 1.36 ft 1.39 ft
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO (Wye/dyer) 11.0 14.0 14.5
BANKFULL X-SECTION AREA (Ayn), ft2 20.8 ft2 25.8 ft2 28.2 ftz
BANKFULL MEAN VELOCITY, fps 4.8 f s 3.5 f s 6.2 f s
BANKFULL DISCHARGE, cfs 100.0 cfs 100.0 cfs 173.7 cfs
BANKFULL MAX DEPTH (dma.)~ ft 1.72 ft 1.90 ft 1.87 ft
BANK HEIGHT RATIO 1.35 1.00 1.02
WIDTH Flood-Prone Area (Wroa), ft 40.0 ft 100.00 ft 140.0 ft
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO (ER) 2.6 5.3 6.9
MEANDER LENGTH (Lm), ft 125 - 250 ft 95.0 - 228.0 ft 94.0 - 100.0 ft
RATIO OF Lm TO Wyn 8.2 - 16.5 5.0 - 12.0 4.6 - 4.9
RADIUS OF CURVATURE, ft 21 - 75 ft 38.0 - 76.0 ft 10.2 - 13.3 ft
RATIO OF Rc TO Wy~r 1.4 - 4.9 2.0 - 4.0 0.5 - 0.7
BELT WIDTH, ft 41.00 - 116.00 ft 38.0 - 114.0 ft 20.0 - 77.0 ft
MEANDER WIDTH RATIO 2.70 - 7.65 ft 2.0 - 6.0 1.0 - 3.8
SINUOSITY (K) 1.05 1.13 1.12
VALLEY SLOPE, ftlft 0.0066 ft/ft 0.0040 ft/ft 0.0080 ft/ft
AVERAGE SLOPE (S), ft/ft 0.0062 fUft 0.0028 ft/ft 0.0077 ft/ft
POOL SLOPE, ft/ft 0.0003 ft/ft 0.0011 ft/ft 0.0000 ft/ft
RATIO OF POOL SLOPE TO AVERAGE
SLOPE
0.0
0.4
0.0
MAX POOL DEPTH, ft 2.03 ft 2.71 ft 2.71 ft
RATIO OF POOL DEPTH TO AVERAGE
BANKFULL DEPTH
1.5
2.0
1.9
POOL WIDTH, ft 13.7 ft 21.85 ft 22.08 ft
RATIO OF POOL WIDTH TO BANKFULL
WIDTH
0.9
1.15
1.09
POOL TO POOL SPACING, ft 25.50 - 127.00 ft 22.8 - 114.0 ft 25.0 - 104.0 ft
RATIO OF POOL TO POOL SPACING TO
BANKFULL WIDTH
1.68 - 8.38 ft
1.2 - 6.0
1.2 - 5.1
" Existing Conditions data was taken along a reach of stream. Data, such as stream and valley slopes, may not corrospond
to the entire length of channel inside of the Project Area.
r a KO cYr ASSOCIATF_S. P. C.
C'on.~rrllu;~ En,~incu•s
APPENDIX D

Project ID No. 060684~~
l1"l' to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carol:
RESTORATION PLAi\
Morphological Characteristics of Southern UT
Restoration Plan: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration
County. Chatham County, NC
Design by: RVS/RKW
Checked by: RKW
ITEM Existin Conditions Pro sed Conditions Reference Reach
LOCATION Southern UT to L3ear
Creek Weaver Pro ert~~
Southern UT Bear Cree!<:
Landrum Greek
STREAM TYPE De raded E4 C4 C4
DRAINAGE AREA, Ac - Sq Mi 212 Ac - 0.33 S Mi 212 Ac - 0.33 S Mi 1619 Ac - 2.53 S Mi
BANKFULL WIDTH (Woa), ft 5.0 ft 8.5 ft 20.2 ft
BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH (d„~), ft 1.05 ft 0.71 ft 1.39 ft
WIDTHIDEPTH RATIO (Wb~/db~) q 7 12.0 14.5
BANKFULL X-SECTION AREA (Ab,~}, ft2 5.2 ftZ 6.0 ft2 28.2 ft2
BANKFULL MEAN VELOCITY, fps 4.2 f s 3.9 f s 6.2 f s
BANKFULL DISCHARGE, cfs 22.0 cfs 22.0 cfs 173.7 cfs
BANKFULL MAX DEPTH (dmez)~ ft 1.31 ft 1.06 ft 1.87 ft
BANK HEIGHT RATIO 1.39 1.00 1.02
WIDTH Flood-Prone Area (WrPa), ft 14.3 ft 50.00 ft 140.0 ft
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO (ER) 2.9 5.9 6.9
MEANDER LENGTH (Lm), ft 40 - 53 ft 42.5 - 102.0 ft 94.0 - 100.0 ft
RATIO OF Lm TO Wb~, 8.1 - 10.7 5.0 - 12.0 4.6 - 4.9
RADIUS OF CURVATURE, ft 5 - 30 ft 17.0 - 34.0 ft 10.2 - 13.3 ft
RATIO OF Rc TO Wb~ 1.0 - 6.1 2.0 - 4.0 0.5 - 0.7
BELT WIDTH, ft 25.00 - 36.00 ft 34.0 - 51.0 ft 20.0 - 77.0 ft
MEANDER WIDTH RATIO 5.04 - 7.26 ft 4.0 - 6.0 1.0 - 3.8
SINUOSITY (K) 1.06 1.14 1.12
VALLEY SLOPE, ftfft 0.0150 ft/ft 0.0110 ft/ft 0.0087 ft/ft `~
AVERAGE SLOPE (S), fUft 0.0145 ft/ft 0.0041 ft/ft 0.0077 ft/ft
POOL SLOPE, ft/ft 0.0022 ftfft 0.0016 ft/ft 0.0000 ft/ft
RATIO OF POOL SLOPE TO AVERAGE
SLOPE
0.2
0.4
0.0 - 0.0
MAX POOL DEPTH, ft 1.73 ft 1.42 ft 2.71 ft
RATIO OF POOL DEPTH TO AVERAGE
BANKFULL DEPTH
1 6
2.0
1.9
POOL WIDTH, ft 6 8 ft 9.78 ft 22.08 ft
RATIO OF POOL WIDTH TO BANKFULL
WIDTH
1 4
1.15 °k
1.09
POOL TO POOL SPACING, ft 6.80 - 21.50 ft 10.2 - 51.0 ft 25.0 - 104.0 ft
RATIO OF POOL TO POOL SPACING TO
BANKFULL WIDTH
1.37 - 4.34 ft
1.2 - 6.0
1.2 - 5.1
" Existing Conditions data was taken along a reach of stream. Data, such as stream and valley slopes, may not corrospond
to the entire length of channel inside of the Project Area.
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
C'ottstrllin,L En~in«rs
APPENDIX D

Project ID No. OE~068490I
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX E
' RESTORATION SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS

a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Cansrrhin~~ En~~iaccrs

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project ID No. 06068901
UT to Bear CI-eek Stream Restoration Project. Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro ect/Site: UT to Bear Creek Date: 5-23-07
A icant /Owner. EEP Coun :Chatham
Irnesti a9 tor: RVS
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES ND State: N_C
Communi~ ID:
Is the site si nifican disturbed A ical Situation ? YES ND Transact ID:
Is the area a tential Problem Area? to needed. explain on reversal YES NO Plot ID: Wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 4
VEC3ETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 soft rush Herb FACW+ 9
2 se a Carex s Herb FAC 10 .
3 smartweed Pd ovum s . Herb FAC 11
American elm ~ .... ..FACW _ 1~
5 reen ash Sa FACW 13
6 lizard's tail herb OBL
7~

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excludirx,~ FACE: 100%
_ ~ - - -
Remarks
~YDROLOOY
[ ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage Primary Indicators:
[ ]Aerial Photographs (]Inundated
[ ]Other (x ]Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
( ]Water Marks
[ X ] No Recorded Data Available (]Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS (]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water -- (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ]Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit _
-- (in) [ ]Water-stained Leaves
[ ]Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil 10" (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other l=x lain in Remarks
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consulrrn~,> En~,~inecrs
APPENDIX E

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla sandy loam j Drainage Class: somewhat poorly ',
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches __ Munsell Moist Munsell Moist AbundanceiContrast Structure, etc.
j 0-5" _ 10 YR 412 10 YR 414 few/faint silt loam
5-10" 2.5 Y 5/3
__ _ 10 YR 3/6 4 common/distinct
_ clay loam
_ _ _.
10-16" 2.5 Y 5/2 10 YR 3/6 f common/distinct clay loam
f t
1
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol [ ]Concretions
[ ] Histic Epipedon [ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime [ J Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Reducing Conditions [ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
[ x ] Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors [ j Other (Explain in Remarks)
' Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
_Hydr~hytic,~ge etation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetlarxi? YES NO
._~
Hydric Soil Present? YES NO
Conditions were extremely dry upon site visit. Was very difficult to get augur past first 6" of soil because there was no
moisture in the upper horizons of the majority of soils on-site.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ConsrrRin~~ Engineei•a
APPENDIX E

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX F
' RESTORATION SITE NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORM
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consnllin~,= End,=inee~s

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Rear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: /_~.~~~ Project: (f~ 1(p ~i~r-~jjLatitude: 3rj°~r ~f$~n
Evaluator: ~v Site: ~~~~ ill Longitude:'79~ ~r ~~3tf4
Total Points: ~~ ~~ ty / // ~ Other~~ ~ /..
Slmam is al toast intermitlonl Coun G t/~ o.g 0uad Name: ~
H t r 9 or renniat if t 30 5. ~ I rr~
A. Geomorpholo9y__iSubtotal = 2 7 ~ Absent __ m Weak _ Moderate ___ Strong
,__
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 1 . , 2 _ +
2. Sinuosity 0 t ~ ~
3 In-channel structure: nftie-pool sequence ~ 0 1 2 _
- - -- _ _.
4. Soli texture or stream substrate sorting ; 0 1 2
_ ~ __ __.
----~ -- -
5. Active/relic floodpiain 1 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 ~ 2 ,
7. Braided channel 0 ~ _ 2 ~ 3 __,
_T _~._ _~ _. _ __- +---. ,. _., ._ _ __
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 ~ '
9' Natural levees 0 ~ 2 i 3
10, Headcuts 0 1 ~ 3
11. Grade controls 0 _ 0 5 _ 1 1
12 Natural valley or dreinageway ' 0 + 0 5 -~- 1 f
a__ _
13. Second or greater order channel on i in • _-
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 j Yes = 3
evidence. ~ _ ; _
Man-made d+tches are not rated, see discussions m manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 1~•S )
14. Groundwater Ibwldischarge _ ~ _ 0 i t 2
_. _._
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or ~ 1
_~ Water in channel » dry_or growing, season 0 I 1 I 2 ~ j}
16. Leaflitler ~~~~ 1 u
_.. --~._~_._ ._ I 0.5 _ -
17. Sediment on plants or debns 0 0.5 ' ~_-~~1 5
- _ _ i __ _ .- ~ .~ _ _-.._ . w - -
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) i 0 ~ 0.5 t
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? ; No 0 Yes =
-_ ___ _ __. _ ~_ ___J
C. Biolnav SSuhtotal = ~ 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel -
21 . Rooted plants in channel I
J t - 3 - . _
3 . ,
~ _ __t 1 _0 ~,
__ . 1 0
_.._

22. Crayfish
-- _. _ .. - -

0
~ t

OS J _~ _.
_._
1 5

23. Bivalves
~ _ _~
1
~
- 2 -F ~ 3
_.. __.
`"..
-~w -_
24. Fish 0 0.5 ; 5
~

25. Amphibians _.
0 _.
0.5 ____
1 , 1 5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) l ~ 0 5 1 ~ 1 5
2T. Filamentous algae: periphyton 1 ~ 2 1 3
28. Iron oxidizing t>acterialtungus. ~ 0.5 ~ 1 I 1 5 (
29 . Wetland plants in streambed ~_ _ u ~ _ _
FAC 0 5. FA CW = 0.75 OBL = t 5 SAV = 2.0; Other = J
Hems cu ana c ~ rows on me presence or ugano pants, Hem [y rocuses on the presence or aquade or WBUand pWnts.
Sketch.
t~iotes (use back skis of this form for additional notes. )

a KO c4c ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consuitin,~~ En~irrcus
APPENDIX F

Project ID No. 060684901
U-I• to Bear Creek SU-calk Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATInN PLAN
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ~/.3~ -~(~ Project: ~. f~ Latitude: ° (o r
Evaluator: ~S Site: ~p~elos-+ ~ Longitude: 0 r ~'
--- --- ---~ - --- _ _ __ --- - ___-------75__?-~ _ 3g,~1 _ v~
Total Points: / / ~ Other
Srmam is at least intermittent ~ County (mow o s Ouad Namo: ~y~ G`~r~(
Az if or perenrna! it z 30
A. Geomorpholo9Y _(Subtotal = ~ > j Absent 1 ~ Weak T ,~ -Moderate -Strong 4~
- -- --
I 1'. Continuous bed and bank _ 0 1 -
l _ ------. _.___ _ _ _ ? . ? _- _
2 Sinuosity 0 i _ ~ 3
r - -- --- _ r - r ,
3 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 I ~ 3
- - __-
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sortng 0 1 2 m
C 5 Active relic Noodplam ' 0 1 ~ ~-_ 3
(6. Depos~UOnal bars or benches 0 1 T ~ 3
' 7. Braided channel 0 1 1 .__.~_.. 3
8 Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 Q 3
----- ---
9' Natural levees ~ - p
-_~._ _ ,
. _ _Z 3
10 Headcuts -__ 0 1 ~ 3
___ - - _ _ -
11 Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1 j
12 Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
_ -- - _
13. Second or greater order channel on exisbn
USGS or NRCS map or other documented o = 0 Yes = 3
evidence. '
Man-made ditches are not rated, saps discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = /•s )
14. Groundwater gow/discharge i 0 1 2 3
~ 15 Water m channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
_ Water mchannel - d or rowin season , 0 ~ 1 2
16 Leaflitter 1 5 1 j 0 5 _ _
____ _ - _ _
17. Sediment on plants or debris ~ 0 ' 0.5 ~ I 1 5
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Imes) 0 ' 0.5 1 1 5 ~
t 19 Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 } Yes -
C. Biology (Subtoial = s )
- - - - Z- T-- ~ -
20 Fibrous roots in channel ~ ;
-b --- - __
21 . Rooted plants in channel ~ ~ 2 ~ 0 •
--- - ---
i 22. Crayfish _ 0 5 1 1 5
23. Bivalves __ i i 2 ~ - _3
24. Fish ' 0 ? 0.5 __
---- -- - - _ 1 5
-._ A _.._.... _
25. Amphibians J 0 , - _-_ -0.5 ~- - _~ 1 5
_.._
26. Macrobenthos (note diversely and abundance) ~ ~ 0.5 1 1 5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ~ 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus I 0
29 . W It ae~nd plants in streambed ~ FAC = 0.5: FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; they = 0
Items 20 and 21 tows on the presence or upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetlaM plants.
Notes Sketch:
(use bark side of this torrn for additional notes. )
T~•
I
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Cunsrr(dn~,r Engineers
APPENDIX F

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Strewn Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RES'i'ORA'TION PLAN
APPENDIX G
RESTORATION SITE CONCURRENCE LETTERS
1. US Fish and Wildlife Letter
2. NCSHPO Letter
1
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Cunsultin~~ En~~ineers

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
11 June 2007
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Fnvironmcntal. Inc.
' 212E Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Springs, NC 27592
Richard I3. Hamilton, Executive Director
' Subject: Bear Creek Stream Restoration, Chatham County, North Carolina.
' Dear Mr. Lewis:
I3it~l~~gis1~ with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
' document. Qur comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act {4$ Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 1 13-131 et seq.).
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program has identified Bear Creek and an unearned
tributary to Bear Creek in the Cape Fear River basin as stream restoration sites. Approximately 4,$00
linear feet of Bear Creek and two unnamed tributaries will be restored. The site is located in a pasture
heavily grazcxi by livestock. Primary restoration activities include: construct a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel, reconnect the stream with its historic floodplain, remove livestock from the stream corridor,
eliminate invasive plant species, minimize disturbance to mature vegetation, create a natural vegetated
buffer along the streams, and establish a conservation easement.
'Chere are records for the federal and state endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekrst~u~h~>lu.e),
the federal species of concern and state endangered brook floater {Alasmidonta varicosa), the federal
species of concern and state special concern Carolina darter (Etheostoma Collis), the state threatened
creeper {Strophitus undulatr~.s), and the state special concern notched rainbow (villosa constricta) in Bear
Creek.
We offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
species and in particular to Cape Fear shiner.
l . An in-water work moratorium take place during t March to 31 July to minimize impacts to
spawning fish and to the survivability of young fsh.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries77. 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephoee: (919)APPIIIX UFax: X919) 707-0028

I}ii;~e
1 1 lone 2007
Gear Creek Stream Rest~xation
2. Sediment tintl erasion control measures that meet the design standards for sensitive watersheds
should be used. hurther, any excavated materials should not be stockpiled where sediment will
eruiie to surface waters.
3. Avoid impacts to any large mature trees along each stream and establish native, forested buffers
in riparian areas to improve terrestrial wildlife habitat and provide a travel corridor for wildlife
SpeC1eS.
"Thank you f~~r the opportunity to review this project. If you require further assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
~h~.~~e.-~.~
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Ryan lleise, WRC
David Rabon, USFWS
APPENDIX G

Project ID No. 060684901
U"h to E3ear Creek Strea~~~ Kestoration Project, C hatham County, North Carolina
RESTC)RAT10N PLAN
CONCURENCE LETTER FROM NCSHPO HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED AT THIS POINT.

U
ii
1
1

' a KO c~c ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consulling Engineers
' APPENDIX G

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project. Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORA"PION PLAN
APPENDIX H
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consttlling Eni,~ineers

Project ID No. 060684901
LJT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN

~I

1

n
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
SUeam: UT to Bear Creek Reach: Northern UT
Team: RtON, RVS Date: 5/23/2007
Information I ut Ana
17.0 DSa RItAe bed metertal D50 (mm)
7.8 D s, Bar sample D50 (mm)
X0.00 D, Largest particle from bar sample {mm) 0.10 (feet) 304.6 mrrNtoot
0.0082 ~ F~cisting bankfull water surface slope (ft!tt)
1.37 d~ Existing bankfull mean depth (ft}
1.37 R ulic Redus of Kittle Cross Seaion it
1.65 y, Submerged spec weight of sediment

Calcula4ion of Crttlcal DlmensioMSSS Shear Stress
2.18 Dx,lD ~ If value is between 3.7 Equation 1 will be used: T o = 0.0834(D~/D ~)'o an
1.76 D/D.,o If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: r'o = 0.0384(D,/D.,o)° ~'
0.0232 z ~~ Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used: 2

Calculatton of 8ankfull Meaux Depth Required for ErKralnment of largest Particle In Bar Sample

0.61 d, Required bankfull mean depth (flJft) d, ° T oy;D:
S~

1.37 d~ Existing benkfuN mean depth (ft)
2.25 d.ro. Exi~ing Strewn Condition: Degrading

Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slops Required for Entnirrrient of Largest Particle in Bar Sample

0.0027 S, Required bankfull water wriace slope (ft)
~_ ~ oYsD~ do

0.02 5< Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
2.25 S/S, Exisdn Steam Condition: Degrading

Sediment Tran ort V~idatlon
0.53 Benktull Shear Stress 7~ =yRS (Ib/R2) y =Specific Weigh of water = 62.41bs/R'

37.145 ern Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull sheer sfrcss (predcled by the Revised Shields Diegrem ray Rosgen, 2002, and
Shields Die

0.13 - 0.41bs/s1 Predicted sheer stress required to initiate movement of D, (mm) (see Revised Shieds Diagram. Rosgen. 2002. end
Shields Die m
Nde: If available bankfull shear stress exceeds D100 of bed, de datian antial exists.
' a KO 8r ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consullin~~ En~~inecrs
APPENDIX H

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project. Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Stream: UT to Bear Credo Rearh: Northam UT
Desi er: RKW, RVS Date: 5/23/2007
Intormn[fon I Area
17.00 DA Rillle bed materiel D50 (mm)
.7.80 D w Bar sample D50 (mm)
90.00 D, Largest partide from bar sample (mm) 0.70 (ket) .u1t s mmRax
0.0031 Su Proposed bankfull water surface slope (iVa)
1.33 de Proposed bankfuA mean depth (R)
1.18 R sad H raulic Radius of RiMe Cross Sedron A)
1.86 y, Submerged specficweigM otsediment

Cdc Wation of Critical dmarniorisss Shear Stress
2.18 DyplD 5v K value is between 37 Equation 1 will be used: r a = U.0834(D,dD ,o)~ s,z
1.78 D/D~ Ff value is beteeen 1.33.0 Equation 2 will be used: r ~„ = 0.03&1(D/D~)a e17
0.0232 r'~ Critical D'rnelsianless Shear Stress Equation used 2

Cdoulatlan of BankWll Msan Depth Required for Ertrainmera of Lspest Partida in Bar Sample

1.22 4 Required banMul mean depth (11IR) d, =?i sD~
S~

1.33 d, Proposed bardcfutl mean depth (il)
1,09 d1d Exislinp Stream Condition StaDie

CdcWadon of BKF tiVater Surtau Slope Requlrad for Enlroimrant of Largest Partide in Bar Semple

0.0028 S, Required banidull water surface slope (ft) $ = s~Y`D~
dr

0.0031 S, Existing bankfull water surface slope (ti)
1.09 S~/S, Existing Stream Corxtition• Stable

Sediment T Validation
0.221 BaNCfuN Sher Stress r, =yRS (Ib1R2) y = Spedfic VYeight ofwater = 82.41bsrR'
17 - 50 mm Malleable artide size (mm at bankfull shear stress ( etlided b the Revised Shields Dia ram b R en. 2002)
0.13.0.41bsrsf Predidad sheer stress uirod to innate movement of mm see Revised Shields Die m. R en, 2002
Nde: M available beNttWl shear stress exceeds D700 of bed, d radation pdential exists
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Carsrdi'ing Engineers
APPENDIX H

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
EXISTINQ ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Stream: UT to Bear Creek Reach; Southern UT
Team: RKW. RVS Date: 5Q32007
Information I ut Araa
-12.0 DSa Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
5.5 D ~ Bar sample O50 (mm)
30.00 D, Largest particle from bar sample (mm} 0.10 (feet) 304.9 t
0.0145 S~ Existing bankfull water surface slope (ftftt)
1.05 tl~ Exlstlng bankfuil mean depth (ft)
0.85 R H dreulic Radius d Rirtle Cross Section ft
1.65 y, Submerged speeafic weight of sediment

Cadeulatlon of Crttical DlmensioNess Shear Stress
2.18 DmID ,~ If value is between 37 Equation 1 will be used: i ~ = 0.0834(D,aID ~)'9 era
2.50 D/D~ If value is between 1.33.0 Equation 2 will be used: T•o = 0.0384(D,/D~)'u air
0.0170 r ~, Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used: 2

Calculation of Bankfui) Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle In Bar Sample

0.19 d, Required bankfull mean depth (fl/R) ~' T oy D,
S~

1.05 d~ Existing benkfuM mean depth (ft)
5.48 d.14 Existing Stream Condition: Degrading

Cadculffiion of BK F Water Surface Slops Required for EntrBranent d Largest Particle in Bx Sample

0.0026 S, Required benkfull water wrface slope (ft)
$ _ ~ oyzD, do

0.0145 & Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
5.48 S 1S, Existing Slrsam Condition: Oegrading

Sediment Tian ort Validation
0.76 Bankfull Shear Stress T~ =yRS (IbAl2) y = SpecKrc Weight dwater = 62.4 Ibs/Ra
60 - 185 mm Moveable nick size mm) at bankfull shear stress ( ediaed the Revised Shields Die m b Ros en. 2002
0.13 - 0.41t>s/sf Predicted shear stress re fired to initiate movement d D mm see Revised Shields Dia m. Ros n. 2002
tide: If evailaWe bankfull shear stress exceeds D700 d bed, d datian ential exists.
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ConstJtin~,~ En~•ineer ~
APPENDIX H

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Stream: UT to Bear Creek Reach: Soulhem UT
Deli ner RKW, RVS Date: 5232007
Information In ut Area
12.00 Dso Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
5.50 D,a Bar sample D60 (mm}
30.00 D, largest partide from bar sample (mm) 0.10 (feet) JOt.a mmROOt
0.0041 S~ Proposed banldull water surface slope (ftlft)
0.71 d~ Proposed banidull mean depth (tt)
0.64 R Pr osed draulic Radius of RiMe Cross Section ft
1.65 y, Submerged specific weight of sediment

Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
2.18 D D , If value is between 37 E nation 1 will be used: -r' o n»
sat o q ~, = 0.0834(Dsa~ so)~
250 D/DSa If value is between 1.33.0 Equation 2 will be used: r'„ = 0.0384(D/Dsn}'0 en,
0.0170 ,'„ Critical Oimenslonless Shear Stress Equation used: 2

Calculation of Bankfull Mean De th Required for Entrainment of Lar est Particle in Bar Sample

0.68 d, Required barddull mean depth (ftRt) d, _ -{„y,D,
S~

0.71 d~ Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
1.04 dt/d, Exiling Strewn Condition: Stable

Calculation of BKF Water Surface Sb • Re uired for Entrainment of La aet Particle in Bar Sam le

0.0039 S, Required bankfull water surface slope (ft) S, ° .r~•~~
d~

0.0041 S~ E>osting banMufl water surface slope (ft)
1.04 3~l5, Existi Stream Condition: Stable

Sediment Trans ort Validation
0.161 BankNll Shear Stress r~ =yRS (Ib/-t2) y = Spedfie Weight of water = 62.4 Ibslit'
13 - 36 mm Moveable artide size mm at bankfull shear stress redicted b the Revised Shields Dia ram b Ro en, 2002
0.13 - 0.41b Predicted shear stress r uired to Initiate movement of mm see Revised Sttields Dia m. Ro en, 2002
Note: If available bankfull shear stress exceeds D100 of bed, d relation enlist erists.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C. ,
Consultin~~ En~•ineers
APPENDIX H '

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restorati~~n Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX I
REFERENCE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

1
u

a KO cYc ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consnllin~,= End,=ineers

Project ID No. 06068901
UT to Bear CI•eek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
Landrum Creek looking downstream from start of profile.
Landrum Creek looking upstream.
' a KO cYc ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Con.«lrurt L•'«,tineer:~
' APPENDIX I

Project IU No. Ob0684901
UT t~~ Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN

APPENDIX J
REFERENCE SITE NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORM

n

1
' a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consulting Engineers

Project 1D No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project. Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Landrum Creek River Basin: Cape Fear County: Chatham Evaluator: PBC
Keference Keach
DWQ Project Number. NIA Nearest Named Stream: Landrum Creek Latitude: 35°43' Signature:
Date: 9130!02 USGS QUAD: Siler City NE Longitude: 79°21'
I,ocation/Dvection: Pleasant Itill Church Rd.
'`Pl. EASE NO'CE: Ijevaluator and lmrdonvrer agree the the feature is a nran-nwde Witch. then use of this jornr Is not necessary.
Afro, ljtn the best projesslaral JrtQgement ojfhe eralrtator, tke jearare is a than-made ditdt and not a tnodlJled nahrral slreane-rhfs
riling sydern should not be used'
Primary Field Indicators: (CircleOr~NxmberPerlirx)

1
1
I<_Geomorpholoav Abseni Weak Moderate Sirone
1} Is'Ihere A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strcambcd
~Is.Thc Channel Sinuous?_ _ Q 1 _ ~ 3
5} Is There An AActive (C?r Relic)
Is_There A Bankfull Bench Present? _ _0 h _ __ ? ~ _
9} Ts A Continuous Bed & Ban!: Present? 0 1 2 3
(::L~.mile;.-fl~li~{-f~-IlA4~L.~4N36~X.,1s7.lSlUt1Yt11tA.lI'1Tf,~P._t,~:.SIt11.lQFW'-TT.MA1.SMtY°~:,~.......
10) Is A 20° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Man AnaGOr In Field) Present? Yes'-'d No-O
PRIMARY GF.OMORPIf07.0C'=Y INDICATOR POIN7:S:
II,_tlydrolotty Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow(Discharge Present? 0 I 2 3
PRlh1ARY HYDROLOGY lND/CATOR POlN7S:
II.I3iology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
l,) Are. i ous~~ts Presc t Strca~tt~? _ I} ? 1 t~

i

r~

1

Afire $ivalYes Present? _ ~ ) ? 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: '7
Secondary Field Indicators: (CtrrreartNxxebe=Pere~,~1
I. Cieomotpholosty
l~;is_ ere ~1 ~Iead~ut Pres~r t,.Ir~~harrgicl? _.
2)1s There A Grade Control Point in Channel?
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natu_~1..~ina_ec Way? - -
SECONDARY GEO~LIORPIfOLOGY !NL)Ic
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consnllinl,= End=ineers
Absent Weak Moderate Stron
Q 5 ! l:S.
6 S 1 1.5
Q_ _ ,5. 1 1,
~ATOR POINT'S:
APPENDIX J

Project 1 D No. 06068490 1
UT to Sear Creek S1realn Restoration Project, Chatha m C ounty, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
II. Hvdroloet Absent R'cak Moderate; Stron
1) is "rhts Year's (Ur Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Strcambcei? 1.5 I 5 U
2) Is_Sedtmenl (h~ Plants. (C)r l~ehris) Present? 0 ,~ I l .S
3) Are A\(rack Lines Present? U .5 - --~-- - 1.5 -----`

4) Is Water In Channel And '48 Hrs. Since 0
5
I -- ,
1:5
I aSl K»oWn Rainy !`\Y)7'F• tf 1JitrG hwffrnled t,e R9 4bmv Sldp7'!ds Sttp 4nd n3 Relm,'") -

5) Is'fhere Water In ('hannel lhuing I)ry 0 ___
.5 ____
1 ___ ____
L5
Conditioru Ur In Urowt~ 5gaso~'?
G) Are fiydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or !n Ileadcut)~ Yes-15 IVo-U
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: Z
IIL 13iolotrv Absent 1Veak Moderate Stron>z
I) Arc Fish Prescnt? _ 0 5 1 1.5
2) Are Amnhihians Present? 0 5 1 1 5

3) Are Aquaticfurtles Present'? 0 _
5 _
1 ,
1.5
~~ Arc Crayf sh_Prescnt? 0 .5 1 L 5
~) Are Macrohenthos Present? 0 S ~ 15
G) Are lron (hidiztn8, f3actena/Fungus Presents 0 _ .5 ,
1 1.5
7)IS.FilarncntousAlgac_Prescnt?. 0 5 I 1 S
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed'? N!A SAV Atcxtly ORI. Alostly FACW Alostly FAC. Madly FA('[I Mostly IJPi,
`NOTE: tjTwat Absrnce OJAtt Ptmus to Srreambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
.4 s Na,ed A6ore Skin 77ds .L'rn UNIBSS S1 y P,rse~u"1
_
SECONDAR3' p10LOGY IR'DICATOR POINTS: 3
TUT.4I, POINT~S'(Primary t Seconda(r•)= 42 (If Greater ThanOrt_qual70t9!'oinLs%7(eStreamisAtl,east
Inte~rnittent)
a KO & ASSOCIATES
P
C
.
,
. '
Consultin~~ En~;ineet~
APPENDIX J

Project ID Na 060684901
UT to Bear C: reek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
APPENDIX K
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
a ConstJtin . -„ ,', , ,,.,
~~ ~,uc
I~

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS

C
1
t

1

River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)
Upstream End of Project
3908 Bankfull 100 418.89 418.38 -0.51
3908 100 Year 1300 426.12 425.92 -0.20

3808 Bankfull 100 418.54 418.23 -0.31
3808 100 Year 1300 424.99 425.00 0.01

3784 Culvert 0.00

3775.29 Bankfull 100 418.46 418.07 -0.39
3775.29 100 Year 1300 421.70 421.87 0.17

3760.25 Bankfull 100 418.11
3760.25 100 Year 1300 422.13

3745.21 Bankfull 100 418.01
3745.21 100 Year 1300 421.94

3730.18 Bankfull 100 417.99
3730.18 100 Year 1300 422.17

3715.14 Bankfull 100 418.03
3715.14 100 Year 1300 422.29

3700.1 Bankfull 100 417.91
3700.1 100 Year 1300 422.31

3690.07 Bankfull 100 417.85
3690.07 100 Year 1300 422.32

3674.15 Bankfull 100 418.34 417.90 -0.44
3674.15 100 Year 1300 422.26 422.32 0.06

3658.66 Bankfull 100 417.82
3658.66 100 Year 1300 422.04

3643.27 Bankfull 100 417.78
3643.27 100 Year 1300 421.82

3628.34 Bankfull 100 418.24 417.82 -0.42
3628.34 100 Year 1300 422.09 421.89 -0.20

3613.47 Bankfull 100 417.72
3613.47 100 Year 1300 421.80

3598.55 Bankfull 100 417.64
3598.55 100 Year 1300 421.85

NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 1 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)
3580.85 Bankfull 100 417.68
3580.85 100 Year 1300 421.92

3566.36 Bankfull 100 418.08 417.59 -0.49
3566.36 100 Year 1300 421.91 421.89 -0.02

3535.63 Bankfull 100 417.54
3535.63 100 Year 1300 421.92

3520.7 Bankfull 100 417.52
3520.7 100 Year 1300 421.86

3506.68 Bankfull 100 417.43
3506.68 100 Year 1300 421.87

3493.45 Bankfull 100 417.41
3493.45 100 Year 1300 421.87

3480.25 Bankfull 100 417.44
3480.25 100 Year 1300 421.88

3467.32 Bankfull 100 417.33
3467.32 100 Year 1300 421.91

3447.64 Bankfull 100 417.77 417.30 -0.47
3447.64 100 Year 1300 421.70 421.93 0.23

3417.59 Bankfull 100 417.28
3417.59 100 Year 1300 421.93

3386.22 Bankfull 100 417.17
3386.22 100 Year 1300 421.85

3372.06 Bankfull 100 417.14
3372.06 100 Year 1300 421.76

3357.89 Bankfull 100 417.17
3357.89 100 Year 1300 421.64

3343.5 Bankfull 100 417.06
3343.5 100 Year 1300 421.51

3329.81 Bankfull 100 417.02
3329.81 100 Year 1300 421.35

3316.58 Bankfull 100 417.02 416.99 -0.03
3316.58 100 Year 1300 421.20 421.00 -0.20
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 2 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
t

1

River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

3305.51 Bankfull 100 416.87
3305.51 100 Year 1300 420.53

3272.38 Bankfull 100 416.76
3272.38 100 Year 1300 420.60

3252.62 Bankfull 100 416.72 416.75 0.03
3252.62 100 Year 1300 420.83 420.60 -0.23

3231.66 Bankfull 100 416.65
3231.66 100 Year 1300 420.53

3190.27 Bankfull 100 416.62 416.52 -0.10
3190.27 100 Year 1300 420.51 420.21 -0.30

3180.47 Bankfull 100 416.53
3180.47 100 Year 1300 420.25

3171.14 Bankfull 100 416.40
3171.14 100 Year 1300 419.97

3131.86 Bankfull 100 416.31
3131.86 100 Year 1300 419.67

3110.59 Bankfull 100 416.28
3110.59 100 Year 1300 419.93

3085.33 Bankfull 100 416.18
3085.33 100 Year 1300 420.06

3024.44 Bankfull 100 416.40 416.08 -0.32
3024.44 100 Year 1300 420.44 419.99 -0.45

3010.79 Bankfull 100 416.09
3010.79 100 Year 1300 419.97

2998.25 Bankfull 100 415.99
2998.25 100 Year 1300 419.94

2978.22 Bankfull 100 415.97
2978.22 100 Year 1300 419.72

2958.19 Bankfull 100 416.19 416.00 -0.19
2958.19 100 Year 1300 420.19 419.64 -0.55

2938.16 Bankfull 100 415.90
2938.16 100 Year 1300 419.30
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 3 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

2918.13 Bankfull 100 415.92
2918.13 100 Year 1300 419.06

2898.1 Bankfull 100 416.01 415.82 -0.19
2898.1 100 Year 1300 419.71 419.02 -0.69

2863.98 Bankfull 100 415.97 415.74 -0.23
2863.98 100 Year 1300 419.60 418.97 -0.63

2845.01 Bankfull 100 415.73
2845.01 100 Year 1300 419.17

2810.18 Bankfull 100 415.63
2810.18 100 Year 1300 419.16

2798.59 Bankfull 100 415.59
2798.59 100 Year 1300 419.12

2776.98 Bankfull 100 415.83 415.55 -0.28
2776.98 100 Year 1300 419.26 418.99 -0.27

2753.71 Bankfull 100 415.40
2753.71 100 Year 1300 418.70

2728.99 Bankfull 100 415.34
2728.99 100 Year 1300 418.72

2711.96 Bankfull 100 415.34
2711.96 100 Year 1300 418.71

2694.1 Bankfull 100 415.56 415.25 -0.31
2694.1 100 Year 1300 418.93 418.72 -0.21

2664.76 Bankfull 100 415.18
2664.76 100 Year 1300 418.69

2646.47 Bankfull 100 415.17
2646.47 100 Year 1300 418.61

2629.72 Bankfull 100 415.07
2629.72 100 Year 1300 418.57

2597.38 Bankfull 100 414.98
2597.38 100 Year 1300 418.26

2581.94 Bankfull 100 413.87 414.95 1.08
2581.94 100 Year 1300 417.40 418.14 0.74
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 4 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

2566.09 Bankfull 100 414.82
2566.09 100 Year 1300 417.88

2523.4 Bankfull 100 413.87 414.70 0.83
2523.4 100 Year 1300 417.51 417.81 0.30

2504.13 Bankfull 100 413.85 414.70 0.85
2504.13 100 Year 1300 417.45 417.72 0.27

2484.27 Bankfull 100 414.60
2484.27 100 Year 1300 417.63

2447.48 Bankfull 100 414.44
2447.48 100 Year 1300 417.53

2443 Bankfull 100 414.45
2443 100 Year 1300 417.54

2438.34 Bankfull 100 413.67 414.36 0.69
2438.34 100 Year 1300 417.19 417.53 0.34

2395.15 Bankfull 100 414.29
2395.15 100 Year 1300 417.48

2386.61 Bankfull 100 414.26
2386.61 100 Year 1300 417.45

2378.3 Bankfull 100 414.13
2378.3 100 Year 1300 417.38

2334.3 Bankfull 100 412.89 413.93 1.04
2334.3 100 Year 1300 416.51 417.04 0.53

2326.68 Bankfull 100 413.96
2326.68 100 Year 1300 416.98

2319.12 Bankfull 100 413.81
2319.12 100 Year 1300 416.82

2265.43 Bankfull 100 413.59
2265.43 100 Year 1300 416.17

2258.02 Bankfull 100 413.63
2258.02 100 Year 1300 416.25

2250.65 Bankfull 100 412.52 413.45 0.93
2250.65 100 Year 1300 415.80 416.05 0.25
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 5 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

2172.93 Bankfull 100 412.38 413.19 0.81
2172.93 100 Year 1300 415.57 415.36 -0.21

2163.32 Bankfull 100 413.21
2163.32 100 Year 1300 415.36

2153.67 Bankfull 100 413.13
2153.67 100 Year 1300 415.35

2123.48 Bankfull 100 412.93
2123.48 100 Year 1300 415.27

2120.58 Bankfull 100 412.94
2120.58 100 Year 1300 415.27

2117.36 Bankfull 100 412.84
2117.36 100 Year 1300 415.26

2070.67 Bankfull 100 412.10 412.76 0.66
2070.67 100 Year 1300 415.20 415.19 -0.01

2057.74 Bankfull 100 412.73
2057.74 100 Year 1300 415.08

2044.14 Bankfull 100 412.62
2044.14 100 Year 1300 414.90

2000.47 Bankfull 100 411.90 412.49 0.59
2000.47 100 Year 1300 414.89 414.71 -0.18

1993.46 Bankfull 100 412.50
1993.46 100 Year 1300 414.63

1986.21 Bankfull 100 412.38
1986.21 100 Year 1300 414.56

1937.38 Bankfull 100 412.27
1937.38 100 Year 1300 414.54

1919.41 Bankfull 100 412.27
1919.41 100 Year 1300 414.51

1904.23 Bankfull 100 412.18
1904.23 100 Year 1300 414.51

1881.96 Bankfull 100 412.09
1881.96 100 Year 1300 414.47
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 6 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

1866.6 Bankfull 100 412.08
1866.6 100 Year 1300 414.42

1835.03 Bankfull 100 411.04 412.04 1.00
1835.03 100 Year 1300 414.32 414.37 0.05

1811.31 Bankfull 100 411.88
1811.31 100 Year 1300 414.32

1779.59 Bankfull 100 410.83 411.82 0.99
1779.59 100 Year 1300 414.21 414.28 0.07

1761.25 Bankfull 100 411.80
1761.25 100 Year 1300 414.26

1748.7 Bankfull 100 411.78
1748.7 100 Year 1300 414.26

1721.89 Bankfull 100 411.57
1721.89 100 Year 1300 414.24

1719.07 Bankfull 100 411.59
1719.07 100 Year 1300 414.22

1716.28 Bankfull 100 410.59 411.48 0.89
1716.28 100 Year 1300 414.11 414.22 0.11

1691.35 Bankfull 100 411.41
1691.35 100 Year 1300 414.17

1680.95 Bankfull 100 411.39
1680.95 100 Year 1300 414.15

1671.46 Bankfull 100 411.28
1671.46 100 Year 1300 414.14

1635.27 Bankfull 100 410.43 411.20 0.77
1635.27 100 Year 1300 413.96 414.08 0.12

1621.55 Bankfull 100 411.17
1621.55 100 Year 1300 414.01

1608.38 Bankfull 100 411.01
1608.38 100 Year 1300 414.00

1561.73 Bankfull 100 410.84
1561.73 100 Year 1300 413.91
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 7 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

1528.72 Bankfull 100 410.24 410.78 0.54
1528.72 100 Year 1300 413.72 413.87 0.15

1492.58 Bankfull 100 410.57
1492.58 100 Year 1300 413.83

1442.26 Bankfull 100 410.59
1442.26 100 Year 1300 413.75

1436.66 Bankfull 100 410.58
1436.66 100 Year 1300 413.73

1431.56 Bankfull 100 410.26
1431.56 100 Year 1300 413.72

1391.9 Bankfull 100 409.55 409.62 0.07
1391.9 100 Year 1300 413.34 413.67 0.33

1380.12 Bankfull 100 409.71
1380.12 100 Year 1300 413.66

1367.97 Bankfull 100 409.52
1367.97 100 Year 1300 413.65

1333.06 Bankfull 100 408.90
1333.06 100 Year 1300 413.60

1311.49 Bankfull 100 408.91
1311.49 100 Year 1300 413.54

1287.83 Bankfull 100 408.70
1287.83 100 Year 1300 413.51

1258.39 Bankfull 100 408.35 408.27 -0.08
1258.39 100 Year 1300 413.01 413.48 0.47

1230.44 Bankfull 100 408.38
1230.44 100 Year 1300 413.48

1200.7 Bankfull 100 408.04 408.19 0.15
1200.7 100 Year 1300 412.24 412.46 0.22

1165.94 Bankfull 100 407.75
1165.94 100 Year 1300 411.68

1157.98 Bankfull 100 407.89
1157.98 100 Year 1300 412.28
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 8 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
NORTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

1149.4 Bankfull 100 407.67 407.79 0.12
1149.4 100 Year 1300 411.81 412.20 0.39

1099.17 Bankfull 100 406.91 407.03 0.12
1099.17 100 Year 1300 411.37 412.41 1.04

1095.59 Bankfull 100 406.58
1095.59 100 Year 1300 412.39

1091.76 Bankfull 100 406.44
1091.76 100 Year 1300 412.39

1079.12 Bankfull 100 406.77 406.42 -0.35
1079.12 100 Year 1300 411.26 410.59 -0.67
Downstream End of Project
NORTHERN TRIB -PAGE 9 OF 9
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
cfs) Existing
WSEL ft Proposed
WSEL ft) Backwater
ft
Upstream End of Pro'ect
2701 Bankfull 22 428.34 428.34 0.00
2701 100 Year 250 433.42 433.39 -0.03

2601 Bankfull 22 428.33 428.33 0.00
2601 100 Year 250 433.41 433.39 -0.02

2576 Culvert 0.00

2552.08 Bankfull 22 424.75 426.73 1.98
2552.08 100 Year 250 426.96 428.63 1.67

2541.69 Bankfull 22 426.66
2541.69 100 Year 250 427.97

2531.3 Bankfull 22 424.78 426.46 1.68
2531.3 100 Year 250 427.03 428.25 1.22

2505.97 Bankfull 22 426.39
2505.97 100 Year 250 428.18

2502.22 Bankfull 22 424.73 426.38 1.65
2502.22 100 Year 250 426.91 428.17 1.26

2497.89 Bankfull 22 426.33
2497.89 100 Year 250 428.16

2465.54 Bankfull 22 426.24
2465.54 100 Year 250 428.09

2460.95 Bankfull 22 426.22
2460.95 100 Year 250 428.00

2456.15 Bankfull 22 426.16
2456.15 100 Year 250 427.99

2428.42 Bankfull 22 424.39 426.04 1.65
2428.42 100 Year 250 426.55 427.82 1.27

2418.36 Bankfull 22 426.03
2418.36 100 Year 250 427.76

2407.86 Bankfull 22 425.95
2407.86 100 Year 250 427.62

2391.4 Bankfull 22 425.87
2391.4 100 Year 250 427.50

SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 1 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
cfs Existing
WSEL ft Proposed
WSEL ft) Backwater
(ft)
2384.84 Bankfull 22 425.86
2384.84 100 Year 250 427.52

2379.14 Bankfull 22 425.82
2379.14 100 Year 250 427.48

2362.93 Bankfull 22 425.72
2362.93 100 Year 250 427.43

2354.87 Bankfull 22 425.70
2354.87 100 Year 250 427.29

2344.85 Bankfull 22 423.89 425.58 1.69
2344.85 100 Year 250 425.86 427.25 1.39

2320.34 Bankfull 22 425.48
2320.34 100 Year 250 427.10

2306.98 Bankfull 22 425.45
2306.98 100 Year 250 427.02

2293.94 Bankfull 22 425.38
2293.94 100 Year 250 426.98

2270.67 Bankfull 22 423.15 425.30 2.15
2270.67 100 Year 250 425.42 426.89 1.47

2264.54 Bankfull 22 425.27
2264.54 100 Year 250 426.81

2258.75 Bankfull 22 425.18
2258.75 100 Year 250 426.74

2238.81 Bankfull 22 425.09
2238.81 100 Year 250 426.57

2234.57 Bankfull 22 425.08
2234.57 100 Year 250 426.53

2231.43 Bankfull 22 425.01
2231.43 100 Year 250 426.50

2204.52 Bankfull 22 424.71
2204.52 100 Year 250 426.32

2194.94 Bankfull 22 424.73
2194.94 100 Year 250 426.17
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 2 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL ft) Proposed
WSEL ft) Backwater
ft

2186.46 Bankfull 22 424.61
2186.46 100 Year 250 426.10

2157.99 Bankfull 22 421.90 424.14 2.24
2157.99 100 Year 250 424.38 425.86 1.48

2147.25 Bankfull 22 424.22
2147.25 100 Year 250 425.64

2135.88 Bankfull 22 424.14
2135.88 100 Year 250 425.46

2111.61 Bankfull 22 423.65
2111.61 100 Year 250 425.18

2100.79 Bankfull 22 423.53
2100.79 100 Year 250 424.85

2092.02 Bankfull 22 423.36
2092.02 100 Year 250 424.65

2067.78 Bankfull 22 423.09
2067.78 100 Year 250 424.48

2059.08 Bankfull 22 422.90
2059.08 100 Year 250 424.24

2046.52 Bankfull 22 422.74
2046.52 100 Year 250 424.03

2026.71 Bankfull 22 422.34
2026.71 100 Year 250 423.83

2019.31 Bankfull 22 422.18
2019.31 100 Year 250 423.82

2011.69 Bankfull 22 422.12
2011.69 100 Year 250 423.78

1992.6 Bankfull 22 421.68
1992.6 100 Year 250 423.30

1987.43 Bankfull 22 421.78
1987.43 100 Year 250 422.85

1983.43 Bankfull 22 421.69
1983.43 100 Year 250 422.69
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 3 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL ft) Proposed
WSEL ft Backwater
(ft

1969.91 Bankfull 22 421.38
1969.91 100 Year 250 422.90

1960.23 Bankfull 22 421.48
1960.23 100 Year 250 422.93

1953.4 Bankfull 22 420.07 421.42 1.35
1953.4 100 Year 250 421.69 422.95 1.26

1898.25 Bankfull 22 420.64
1898.25 100 Year 250 422.18

1888.51 Bankfull 22 420.73
1888.51 100 Year 250 422.18

1880.15 Bankfull 22 420.65
1880.15 100 Year 250 422.17

1867.48 Bankfull 22 420.41
1867.48 100 Year 250 422.17

1856.93 Bankfull 22 418.37 420.44 2.07
1856.93 100 Year 250 421.01 422.15 1.14

1846.46 Bankfull 22 420.31
1846.46 100 Year 250 422.14

1826.43 Bankfull 22 419.87
1826.43 100 Year 250 421.70

1811 Bankfull 22 419.95
1811 100 Year 250 421.63

1795.59 Bankfull 22 419.86
1795.59 100 Year 250 421.63

1777.36 Bankfull 22 419.52
1777.36 100 Year 250 421.28

1765.25 Bankfull 22 417.30 419.52 2.22
1765.25 100 Year 250 420.39 420.97 0.58

1753.12 Bankfull 22 419.36
1753.12 100 Year 250 420.71

1738.2 Bankfull 22 419.12
1738.2 100 Year 250 420.68
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 4 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
cfs Existing
WSEL (ft Proposed
WSEL (ft) Backwater
(ft)

1727.85 Bankfull 22 419.12
1727.85 100 Year 250 420.58

1718.41 Bankfull 22 419.06
1718.41 100 Year 250 420.51

1689.41 Bankfull 22 416.36 418.63 2.27
1689.41 100 Year 250 419.50 420.20 0.70

1683.99 Bankfull 22 418.69
1683.99 100 Year 250 420.00

1674.69 Bankfull 22 418.60
1674.69 100 Year 250 419.95

1646.58 Bankfull 22 418.51
1646.58 100 Year 250 419.91

1634.1 Bankfull 22 418.46
1634.1 100 Year 250 419.80

1617.4 Bankfull 22 418.29
1617.4 100 Year 250 419.66

1596.68 Bankfull 22 418.19
1596.68 100 Year 250 419.53

1580.47 Bankfull 22 415.72 418.18 2.46
1580.47 100 Year 250 418.88 419.47 0.59

1564.57 Bankfull 22 418.09
1564.57 100 Year 250 419.37

1558.46 Bankfull 22 417.81
1558.46 100 Year 250 419.18

1551.8 Bankfull 22 417.88
1551.8 100 Year 250 419.05

1544.99 Bankfull 22 417.79
1544.99 100 Year 250 419.03

1518.67 Bankfull 22 417.28
1518.67 100 Year 250 418.82

1510.87 Bankfull 22 417.36
1510.87 100 Year 250 418.78
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 5 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs Existing
WSEL ft) Proposed
WSEL ft Backwater
(ft)

1503.66 Bankfull 22 415.34 417.29 1.95
1503.66 100 Year 250 417.77 418.75 0.98

1481.04 Bankfull 22 417.20
1481.04 100 Year 250 418.63

1468.76 Bankfull 22 417.16
1468.76 100 Year 250 418.50

1453.68 Bankfull 22 417.07
1453.68 100 Year 250 418.23

1445.62 Bankfull 22 416.83
1445.62 100 Year 250 418.15

1440.97 Bankfull 22 416.81
1440.97 100 Year 250 418.12

1436.23 Bankfull 22 416.69
1436.23 100 Year 250 418.09

1422.19 Bankfull 22 414.90 416.48 1.58
1422.19 100 Year 250 417.28 417.64 0.36

1418.93 Bankfull 22 416.45
1418.93 100 Year 250 417.70

1415.97 Bankfull 22 416.39
1415.97 100 Year 250 417.57

1385.24 Bankfull 22 415.88
1385.24 100 Year 250 417.22

1382.32 Bankfull 22 415.73
1382.32 100 Year 250 417.25

1377.9 Bankfull 22 415.65
1377.9 100 Year 250 417.27

1364.76 Bankfull 22 414.64 415.27 0.63
1364.76 100 Year 250 416.96 417.05 0.09

1358.17 Bankfull 22 415.14
1358.17 100 Year 250 417.09

1353.19 Bankfull 22 415.06
1353.19 100 Year 250 416.90
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 6 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL (ft) Proposed
WSEL ft) Backwater
ft)

1337.62 Bankfull 22 414.60
1337.62 100 Year 250 416.24

1320.35 Bankfull 22 414.47
1320.35 100 Year 250 415.98

1305.76 Bankfull 22 414.38 414.31 -0.07
1305.76 100 Year 250 416.67 415.64 -1.03

1293.97 Bankfull 22 414.05
1293.97 100 Year 250 415.63

1286.89 Bankfull 22 413.88
1286.89 100 Year 250 415.78

1281.35 Bankfull 22 413.73
1281.35 100 Year 250 415.56

1271.19 Bankfull 22 413.44
1271.19 100 Year 250 415.53

1263.54 Bankfull 22 413.54
1263.54 100 Year 250 415.53

1257.49 Bankfull 22 413.29 413.47 0.18
1257.49 100 Year 250 415.62 415.43 -0.19

1242.47 Bankfull 22 413.08
1242.47 100 Year 250 415.09

1234.45 Bankfull 22 413.18
1234.45 100 Year 250 414.96

1226.44 Bankfull 22 412.06 413.07 1.01
1226.44 100 Year 250 414.17 414.88 0.71

1204.54 Bankfull 22 412.62
1204.54 100 Year 250 414.77

1203.25 Bankfull 22 412.72
1203.25 100 Year 250 414.77

1201.95 Bankfull 22 412.66
1201.95 100 Year 250 414.45

1195.4 Bankfull 22 410.72 412.36 1.64
1195.4 100 Year 250 413.04 414.27 1.23
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 7 OF 8
APPENDIX K

UT BEAR CREEK
SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS

1
i

River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs) Existing
WSEL ft Proposed
WSEL ft) Backwater
(ft)

1188.77 Bankfull 22 412.44
1188.77 100 Year 250 414.32

1177.85 Bankfull 22 412.32
1177.85 100 Year 250 414.32

1165.71 Bankfull 22 409.88 412.04 2.16
1165.71 100 Year 250 413.11 414.23 1.12

1154.74 Bankfull 22 409.82 411.95 2.13
1154.74 100 Year 250 412.88 414.14 1.26

1147.11 Bankfull 22 411.78
1147.11 100 Year 250 414.12

1140.99 Bankfull 22 411.39
1140.99 100 Year 250 413.54

1135.6 Bankfull 22 411.24
1135.6 100 Year 250 413.48

1126.58 Bankfull 22 411.12
1126.58 100 Year 250 413.41

1120.45 Bankfull 22 410.86
1120.45 100 Year 250 413.48

1118.47 Bankfull 22 410.96
1118.47 100 Year 250 413.45

1116.63 Bankfull 22 410.83
1116.63 100 Year 250 413.33

1111.82 Bankfull 22 410.63
1111.82 100 Year 250 413.12

1104.04 Bankfull 22 410.69
1104.04 100 Year 250 413.13

1091.67 Bankfull 22 409.24 410.60 1.36
1091.67 100 Year 250 412.08 412.95 0.87

1057.57 Bankfull 22 410.02
1057.57 100 Year 250 412.50

1054.1 Bankfull 22 410.09
1054.1 100 Year 250 412.60

1051 Bankfull 22 408.96 410.04 1.08
1051 100 Year 250 411.80 412.44 0.64
Downstream End of Pro'ect
SOUTHERN TRIB -PAGE 8 OF 8
APPENDIX K

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Strewn Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
ii

1

1
s

APPENDIX L
REGIONAL CURVE PLOTS
a KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Constrlring Engineers

Rural Regional
Bankfull Discharge Curve
L
V
_~
0
M~
W
~~
~..V~y
~.Vy
l+,
z
d
x
r
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area in SM

Rural Regional
Bankfull Area Curve
10
Drainage Area in SM
NCSU Regional Curve
y = 21.433x0671
Rz = 0.9491

Rural Regional
Bankfull Mean Depth Curve
~b
b
m
d
k
C-"
Q
a
7
Y
C
f4
m
0.1

,,,., ~^" I ~ NCSU Reaches
,~.-
10
Drainage Area in SM
• UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project
Reference Cabin Branch
o Reference Landrum Creek
NCSU Regional Curve
- -NCSU Confidence Limits
- -NCSU Confidence Limits f
100 1000

Rural Regional
Bankfull Width Curve
a
-~
-~
m
z
d
k
C"
ur
m
® -'' ' ® UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project
Reference Cabin Branch
o Reference Landrum Creek
', NCSU Regional Curve
°~ ~NCSU Confidence Limits
~NCSU Confidence Limits
0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area in SM
1000

Project ID No. 060684901
UT to Bear Creek Strear~~ Restoration Project, Chatham County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
' APPENDIX M
CE DOCUMENTATION
0

i
r

1
1
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consullin~ Enl,~ineers
1

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
' environmental document.

n

0

C

r

n
- ~ .
Pro eet ame: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration
Count ame: Chatham County
EEP Number: 060684910
Pro eet S OnSOr: KO & Associates P.C.
ro ect Gontact ame: Kevin Williams
Pro ect Contact Address: 1100 Schaub Drive, Suite 202, Raleigh, NC 27606
Pro ect Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP ro eet ana er: Melonie Allen
• • ~ - • •
The UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Site is encompassed within a 275 acre tract that is cleared for livestock pasture. Three tributaries (Bear Crcck and two
unnamed tributaries) have been impacted by vegetative clearing, hoof shear, incision, and lateral erosion. The primary restoration objectives for the Site include
1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2) reconnect Site streams with the historic floodplain, 3) removal of livestock from the stream corridor,
4) eliminate invasive vegetative species, 5) minimize disturbance to existing mature vegetation, 6) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along Silc streams, and
7) establishment of a conservation easement. The restoration concept is expected to restore approximately 4800 linear feet of stream.
• ~ ~
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
^ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
APPENI~Tx M Version 1.4, 8/18/05

-~ . w . ..
Coastal Zone Mana ement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? ^ Yes
Q No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of ^ Yes
Environmental Concern {AEC)? ^ No
~ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? ^ Yes
^ No
~ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management ^ Yes
Program? ^ No
Q N/A
Com rehensive Environmental Res onse Com ensation and Liabilit Act C ERCLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? ^ Yes
p No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been ^ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? ^ No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ^ No
~ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ^ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ^ No
© N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ^ Yes
waste sites within the project area? ^ No
Q NIA
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? ^ Yes
^ No
Q N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the ro'ect area? ^ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
A concurrence letter has been sent to SHPO (attached) and no reply has been received ^ NO
at this time. ^ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Pro ert Ac uisition Policies Act Uni form Act
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? ^ Yes
^ No
© N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed: ^ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ^ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? Q NIA
APPEND~X M Version 1.4. 8/18/05 '

0

u
i

L

n

i

• • ~ • ~
•• . w • ••
American Indian Reli ious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ^ Yes
Cherokee Indians? Q No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? ^ Yes
^ No
© N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic ^ Yes
Places? ^ No
~ NIA
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? ^ Yes
^ No
© N/A
Anti uities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
©No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects ^ Yes
of antiquity? ^ No
© N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ^ Yes
^ No
~ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
~ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
^ No
~ NIA
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
Q N/A
Endan ered S ecies Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat Q Yes
listed for the count ? ^ No
2. Is Des~nated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? ^ Yes
Designated ritica[ Habitat for Cape Fear Shiner is located in Chatham County in the Deep River, Rocky River, ai2d Bear ~ NO
Creek. The nearest Critical Habitat is 11 miles downstream from the Site; therefore, this project will not effect Critical

H N 'ta is resent w't in t t r r r ^ N/A
3. Are T8~E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical ^ Yes
Habitat? ^ No
~ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or `'likely to adversely modify" Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? ^ No
~ N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination? ^ Yes
^ No
Q N1A
8 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
APPENDIX M

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory° ^ Yes
b the EBCI? /^ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ^ Yes
project? ^ No
/ NIA
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred Yes
sites? ^ No
/ NIA
Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired? ~ Yes
^ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime. unique, statewide or locally ~ Yes
important farmland? ^ No
^ NIA
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? ~ Yes
Foy°m AD-1006 has been sent to NRCS (attached). ^ NO
^ NIA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise controlJmodify any ~ Yes
water bod ? ^ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Q Yes
A concurrence letter has been sent to USFWS and NCWRC (attached) and no reply ^ NO
has been received at t{zis time. ^ NIA
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, Yes
outdoor recreation? / No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
^ No
NIA
Ma nuson-Stevens Fishe Conservation and Mana ement Act Essential Fish Ha bitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ^ Yes
~ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? ^ Yes
^ No
~ NIA
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the ^ Yes
project on EFH? ^ No
Q NIA
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? ^ Yes
^ No
~ NIA
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
^ No
NIA
Mi rato Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? ^ Yes
A concurrence letter has been sent to USFWS, no reply has been received at this time. ^ NO
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ^ Yes
^ No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? ^ Yes
~ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining ^ Yes
federal agency? ^ No
~ NIA
APPENDI~ M Version 1.4, 8118/05 '

' ~` y~ '` .~ Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive Willow Spring Raleigh, North Carolina 27592 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
' May 21, 2007
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
~~
Subject: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County 07-006
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
The purpose of this letter is to request a concurrence letter for historic architectural and archaeological
surveys and resources within the UT Bear Creek Restoration Site, a potential stream restoration project
depicted on the attached Site Location Map.
The UT Bear Creek Restoration Site includes approximately 4,800 linear feet of Bear Creek and two
unnamed tributaries to Bear Creek located in southern Chatham County (see attached figures). The site is
located in pasture land that is heavily grazed by livestock, resulting in erosion and degraded stream function.
' The primary restoration activities at the Site include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
reconnect Site streams with the historic floodplain, 3) removal of livestock from the stream corridor, 4)
eliminate invasive vegetative species, 5) minimize disturbance to existing mature vegetation, 6) creation of a
natural vegetation buffer along Site streams, and 7) establishment of a conservation easement. The
restoration concept is expected to restore approximately 48001inear feet of stream.
Please note that no structures, including buildings, bridges, or monuments are to be affected by the project.
The nearest building to the project is greater than 100 feet from the construction limits and all impacts are to
be contained within 70 feet of the existing stream channel.
We thank you in advance for your timely response concerning historic architectural and archaeological issues
from your office. I would appreciate receiving such letter for this project at your earliest convenience.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
~,
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
' Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Attachments: Figures 1 -4
' cc: Mr. Kevin Williams, Project Manager

' APPENDIX M

~~_
''~` ~~
~~
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
May 22, 2007
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive Willow S~~ring Raleigh, North Carolina 27592 919-215-1693
Alan Walters
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
600 West Innes Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Subject: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County
Dear Mr. Walters,
07-006
The purpose of this letter is to request completion of Form AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Rating Form) for
prime, unique, statewide, or local important farmland. Form AD-1006 is required for our project to ensure
compliance with respect to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) from the proposed UT Bear Creek
stream restoration project (Weaver Property). The project is depicted on the four attached maps.
The UT Bear Creek Restoration Site includes approximately 4,800 linear feet of Bear Creek and two
unnamed tributaries to Bear Creek located in southern Chatham County (see attached figures). The site is
located in pasture land that is heavily grazed by livestock, resulting in erosion and degraded stream function.
The primary restoration activities at the Site include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
reconnect Site streams with the historic floodplain, 3) removal of livestock from the stream corridor, 4)
eliminate invasive vegetative species, 5) minimize disturbance to existing mature vegetation, 6) creation of a
natural vegetation buffer along Site streams, and 7) establishment of a conservation easement. The
restoration concept is expected to restore approximately 4800 linear feet of stream.
We thank you in advance for your timely response concerning a Form AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion
Rating Form). Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns that you may have concerning
the project.
Sincerely,
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Attachments: Figures 1 -4
Form AD-1006
cc: Mr. Kevin Williams, Project Manager
APPENDIX M

/\
Y
~; ~ Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Po~ad Drive Willow Spring Raleigh, North Carolina 27592 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
May 24, 2007
Alan Walters
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
600 West Innes Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Subject: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County 07-006
Dear Mr. Walters,
Please find attached the completed Form AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form. I appreciate
your quick turn around with regards to completing the form. Please feel free to contact us with any questions
or concerns that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Attachments: Completed Form AD-1006
cc: Mr. Kevin Williams, Project Manager

' APPENDIX M

r ,..~~ -
ZI 2c t' ~ ~ i
r
~,..,~ 5r.< ~
,."~
~~
- ,. ~ ,
~.

'`
/~ y
-
~ ~
.
_p = ~,
..®_ _A
~,
-
~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~
__ _ _. _ .. y _ _ .
.
. __.
,. ,y ,.

(_..._...~~-J ~ tt..rv .. ~ ..

!)~.~J
F!F

- ()~~~1~
d ;
.
t
,` '~'' ~C,~.J s

}6'~
~~

_.,.,
_ _
._._.. -._ _.. ~ _ .
,~ ..
c~_
..
_ ___ _ .
-
-- __.a. 4Ls
~
...
~
~
~'d~S2ir4 F.. vg r .i Ar tc~ .~ .;4r. .__~ ,,_.,. _-.. a
.:,z
_ ~ ,
-
t,, ..: ..
_ ~ _ r __.

~

2.
_._. 3

_

~ .

f
_. _~.. _._. _:__ _ ._. _~ ..
~ _ I
_ _: ~ i _
_ :_
I
_
_H. .

1 ~
,. _.
.

,:nf ~ rjr G~ ~..c t; .7 _,j F{u~g ~ a .f E ~ u~ ~f,v71 Ir t. -m 97i r:

r,

~ ;_

~
.~
___ ~_ ~ _
~
-_ --
.r
, ~. ~. .
_
__ . ~

~
_ -
_ ~°
~
Y
~

.. ~.
., .

..
__ __
. - ~ ~

s _

__

.
-
..
_ _
~~~ ,_
~ _

_

-~ ° _

_.
:
~ {
, t
_ __
PA~TV rT~M,r tsSnj:..„od tq.~'/:CS / ~dk ,lu v;an tc r~= .__
._ _ ~ , .
;
~ _ ~t .
'_ _ ~ .
t~tr~dhya 4'&I+-r ! $ha i:~ btl G.u!r HrY u ~J uJ ?
i.t a' `Y ~ 7
_.
_.._
t __
1 _.~
_
__

F ~r,T
., f r~, pi ~ Y .' c1 i~, F'„-tk ,,,.+fa,:,~.y; „~.;.5v c S;tr
~< ,
.
,: f
'Sa7 rnCri( C+ fa v _i 7(rt~. C _r!!,r, J +e c, 1,r iart ~~ 7 i.F R #!7~ ~ C t w'1 ~ 1.. .ni is r . ti ~..~~

r

Jff
~ C~
..._ _ _. 4.. -._~- ~_. _ ~...
;: t ., ,. ~ / L
s
:<

_

~

i
». `
f ,
~, 111

~~
~

~
I
, ,: ~~_ ,. ~,..
_ ~ _

~
,
-
~~
. "1
__
r
i ,~_.: f 5 .1 -
___.
- - --_.
~
j

.~
i
~.

_

r
,.,..,
,F -

~ 5
_ _ -- _ . __ _. T
is ;~ _ _ _
~ _
t f ,~ _ m.

:. Y -

~ _~- ~
{{
...
~.
G

..
q C;f4i 4LKR1^.f -3 tm „',k .+S ,tSa c.F'tii ~~~'.'iT5 1
.~ , ~ ./.._
1 - -...,_ _
h~n:i e ''Ge ~;~'~I~rfC'hr ezd~r 'Aptn,.t' t _~ ~~ ~
w _
I ` `i ~
~
_ I ,f

__. -....a_ _
_.,._.._ ..
___ _
..

_
......_.
..._.., ~ ~
~ ~
.~.... ..
~
_ _ _.....
,
y
T=3. ~l 1 f i}*;~ ~-?[.E~{ { ~'C.r'.' 4. [f5'>.- ~ r C r ~

i,
_~
~ I

~~
,_ ~.~..~. .~.... .......~... ..~... ~,...,
?'zs b comA'ertn,, ~~ F.. ~ ~ aq..n ~ ~hr,. f; ~, u. ~s; ~
.,. _ _Y _ __.e_ d.~ _._. ...._ _. ~. { ...._ ..,,Y. _ ~. ... ~.
- - . _ ..__.
J ~ _ ~ ~,

~{ d
t'..5'c tl dJ? u. t_t,~t2 ir* t`
~ ~
~
r' V C r , ~, ~ ~ ~ <, ~

~ ~ !' l l` ~.. .. . C
_. ! . 1
._. ~ _ ~ I
~.
t~t-it~tr~ :~ , ,,~~d L« '>~~ .>_..kiic r ~ .stn , eta<~n ~tf 1'a~1 ;I I f
~ ~~
APPENDIX M

~~Y ~~`" °~ Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pofad Drive Willow Spring Raleigh, North Carolina 27592 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

L
i

May 21, 2007
Shannon Deaton
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1751 Varsity Drive
NCSU Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Subject: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County 07-006
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) from the proposed UT Bear Creek Restoration project. The
project is depicted on the four attached maps.
The UT Bear Creek Restoration Site includes approximately 4,800 linear feet of Bear Creek and two
unnamed tributaries to Bear Creek located in southern Chatham County (see attached figures). The site is
located in pasture land that is heavily grazed by livestock, resulting in erosion and degraded stream function.
The primary restoration activities at the Site include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
reconnect Site streams with the historic floodplain, 3) removal of livestock from the stream corridor, 4)
eliminate invasive vegetative species, 5) minimize disturbance to existing mature vegetation, 6) creation of a
natural vegetation buffer along Site streams, and 7) establishment of a conservation easement. The
restoration concept is expected to restore approximately 4800 linear feet of stream.
We thank you in advance for your timely response concerning a letter of concurrence from your office for
the FWCA. I would appreciate receiving such letter for this project at your earliest convenience. Please feel
free to contact us with any questions or concerns that you may have concerning the project.

u

0
Sincerely,
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Attachments: Figures 1 -4
cc: Mr. Kevin Williams, Project Manager
APPENDIX M

Y
~u
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~_-
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Uirecior
1 1 June 2007
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental. [nc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Springs, NC 27592
Subject: Bear Creek Stream Restoration, Chatham County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. G61-667d) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 1 13-131 et seq.).
The North Carolina F,cosystem Enhancement Program has identified Bear Creek and an unnamed
tributary to Bear Creek in the Cape Fear Kiver basin as stream restoration sites. Approximately 4.800
linear feet of Bear Creek and two unnamed tributaries will be restored. "i~he site is located in a pasture
heavily grazed by livestock. Primary restoration activities include: construct a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel, reconnect the stream with its historic floodplain, remove livestock from the stream corridor,
eliminate invasive plant species, minimize disturbance to mature vegetation, create a natural vegetated
buffer along the streams, and establish a conservation easement.
'T'here are records for the federal and state endangered Cape I~ear shiner (Notrnhi.c meki.~•t~~chr~la.et.
the federal species of concern and state endangered brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), the federal
species ofconcern and state special concern Carolina darter (Etheostoma Collis), the state threatened
creeper (.Strophitus undulatus), and the state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) in Bear
Creek.
W'e offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
species and in particular to Cape Fear shiner.
An in-water work moratorium take place during 1 March to 31 July to minimize impacts to
spawning fish and to the survivability of young fish.
Mailing Address: Division of [nland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 '
Telephone: [phone] Fax: (919) ?07-0028
APPENDIX M '

h,~,,~. ,
i i June 2007
t3s,:ar Creek Stream Restoration
? Sediment and erosion control measures that meet the design standards far sensitive watersheds
should be used. hr~irther, any excavated materials should not he stockpiled where sediment will
erode to surface waters.
3. Avoid impacts to any large mature trees along each stream and establish native, forested buffers
iii riparian areas to improve terrestrial wildlife habitat and provide a travel corridor for wildlife
species.
T•l~ank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you require further assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
' Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
' 1-labitat Conservation Program
ec: Ryan Heise, WRC
David Rabon, USFWS

APPENDIX M

___~
/!!'
~~
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive Wrllo~l~ Spring Raleigh, North Carrolirza 27592 919-215-1693
May 22, 2007
Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County
Dear Mr. Suiter,
07-006 '
The purpose of this letter is to request comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) from the UT Bear Creek stream restoration project. The project is depicted on the four
attached maps.
Site Description and Proposed Activities
The UT Bear Creek Restoration Site includes approximately 4,800 linear feet of Bear Creek and two
unnamed tributaries to Bear Creek located in southern Chatham County (see attached figures). The site is
located in pasture land that is heavily grazed by livestock, resulting in erosion and degraded stream function.
The primary restoration activities at the Site include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
reconnect Site streams with the historic floodplain, 3) removal of livestock from the stream corridor, 4)
eliminate invasive vegetative species, 5) minimize disturbance to existing mature vegetation, 6) creation of a
natural vegetation buffer along Site streams, and 7) establishment of a conservation easement. The
restoration concept is expected to restore approximately 4800 linear feet of stream.
Federally Protected Species
Based on the May 10, 2007 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list, 4 federally protected
species are listed for Chatham County. The following table lists the federally protected species for Chatam
County, indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site, and gives a biological conclusion for each
species.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on May 21, 2007 and no known
federally protected species are documented within or in the vicinity of the Site. The nearest documentation
of a federally protected species (Cape Fear shiner) is located approximately 6 miles south of the Site in the
Deep River.
The Site is characterized by agricultural fields and is grazed by livestock. Site streams are devoid of
vegetation, or have a narrow riparian fringe of disturbance adapted hardwood species including tulip poplar
(Liroidendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar sryrac~ara), and red maple (Ater rubrum). Streams are
characterized by stagnant flow with substrate characterized by silt and sand, resulting from livestock hoof
shear and bank erosion.
APPENDIX M

Mr. Dale Suiter
UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration
May 22, 2007
Federally Protected Species for Chatham Coun
Common Name Scientific Name
Page 2
Status* Habitat Present Biological
Within Site Conclusion
Vertebrates
...............................................................................................................................................
Threatened
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leueoee halz,~
zs No
No Effect
g p
ro osed for delistin
_(P.......P .............................................................~).............................................................................................................................................................................
Cape.Fear.shiner .............................................._Notropis meldstocholas.........................................._Endangered........................................................No No Effect
Red ~ ockaded Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
Vascular Plants
Harperella I Ptilimnizzm nodosum I Endangered ~ No I No Effect
`Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range".
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Adult bald eagles are identified by their large white head, short white tail, and dark-brown to
chocolate- brown body plumage. Immature eagles lack the white head plumage and have brown to
black body plumage. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar. Adults average
about 3.0 feet from head to tail, weigh approximately 10.0 to 12.0 pounds, and have a wingspan that
can reach up to 7.0 feet. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles although bald eagles also
consume a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily available.
Eagle nests are generally found in close proximity to water (within 0.5 miles) where the eagle has a
clear flight path to the water. They generally nest in the largest living tree with an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance may cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat.
Biological Conclusion:
NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for the bald eagle does not occur within or adjacent to the Site. The nearest open
water which may serve as habitat for the bald eagle is 4.5 miles to the south in the Deep River. The
Site may serve as a fly over corridor for the bald eagle; however, proposed project will have no
effect on the bald eagle.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear Shiner) Endangered
The Cape Fear shiner is a small (to 2 inches), moderately stocky minnow. It is pale silvery yellow
with a black band along the sides and the moderate-sized eyes are located on the sides of the head.
This species is distinguished from all other Notropis by having a coiled alimentary tract that is
visible through the wall of the belly. Plant material forms the primary part of the shiner's diet.
Habitat elements include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools,
' riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with
water of good quality with relatively low silt loads. Little is known about the Cape Fear shiner's life
history.
' Biological Conclusion:
NO EFFECT
Site streams are characterized by stagnant flow over a sand and silt substrate. Disturbance from
vegetation clearing and livestock hoof shear has eliminated Cape Fear Shiner habitat within, and
adjacent to, the Site; therefore, this project will have no effect on the Cape Fear Shiner
APPENDIX M

Mr. Dale Suites
UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration
May 22, 2007
Page 3
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has black and white plumage; male RCWs have small
red streaks on the sides of the nape. The RCW is identifiable by horizontal stripes of black and
white on the back, white with streaked flanks on the breast and underside, and a large white cheek
patch.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pines
palzrstris), for foraging and nesting habitat. RCWs require forested stands that contain at least 50
percent pine, lack a thick understory, and are contiguous with other pine stands. These birds nest
exclusively in trees greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of
age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres and must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
RCWs nest exclusively in living pine trees, generally those trees infected with red-heart disease.
The cavities can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap surrounding the tree. The
incrustation of sap is believed to be a defense mechanism of the RCW against possible predators.
Biological Conclusion:
NO EFFECT
The Site is almost entirely composed of livestock pasture, with a narrow, disturbed, hardwood fringe
adjacent to Site streams and contains no open stands of pine suitable for red-cockaded woodpecker
foraging (30 years or older) or roosting/nesting (60 years or older) habitat. Therefore, no habitat for
red-cockaded woodpecker occurs within the Site and the proposed project will have no effect on
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Ptilimnium nodosum (Harperella) Endangered
Harperella is a slender, annual herb which grows to 6 to 36 inches in height. The leaves are reduced
to hollow, quill-like structures which are green, ribbed, and purplish-tinged near the base. Flowers
occur as umbels consisting of five regular parts and are bisexual or unisexual, each umbel
containing both perfect and male florets. Flowering begins in May in populations occurring in
ponds, while riverine populations may flower much later, beginning in late June or July and
continuing until frost.
Harperella typically occurs in two habitat types: (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear,
swift-flowing stream sections; and (2) edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain.
Harperella is known from 12 extant populations, rangewide. One population occurs in each of two
North Carolina counties: Granville and Chatham. This plant is a relatively prolific annual, and large
numbers may occur within each population, especially along rivers. This plant tolerates and may
actually require a very specific and unusual water regime, which includes moderately intensive
spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing vegetation. Harperella is readily
eliminated from its habitat by alterations of the water regime which result from impoundments,
water withdrawal, and drainage or deepening of ponds. Other factors such as siltation, pollution,
and shoreline development also threaten Harperella populations.
Biological Conclusion:
NO EFFECT
Site streams are characterized by stagnant flow over a sand and silt substrate. Disturbance from
vegetation clearing and livestock hoof shear has eliminated Harperella habitat within, and adjacent
to, the Site; therefore, this project will have no effect on Harperella
APPENDIX M

Mr. Dale Suiter
UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration
May 22, 2007
Page 4
Designated Critical Habitat
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has designated Critical Habitat for this species in Bear Creek in
Chatham County, the Rocky River in Chatham County, the Deep River in Chatham and Lee Counties, Fork
Creek in Randolph County, and the Deep River in Randolph and Moore Counties. Total numbers are
unknown, but all populations appear to be small. No designated critical habitat occurs within the onsite
reach of Bear Creek and the nearest reach of designated critical habitat is greater than 11 miles downstream
from the Site..
We thank you in advance for your timely response concerning letter(s) of concurrence from your office for
the MBTA, FWCA, and ESA. I would appreciate receiving such letter(s) for this project at your earliest
convenience. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns that you may have concerning the
project.
Sincerely,
1 Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Attachments: Figures 1 -4
cc: Mr. Kevin Williams, Project Manager
APPENDIX M

~1
i ~~`~~ Axiom Environmental, Inc.
~~ 2126 Ro>1~land Portd Drive Willow Spring Raleigh, North Carolina 27592 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
May 24, 2007
Alan Walters
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
600 West Innes Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Subject: UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project, Chatham County 07-006
Dear Mr. Walters,
Please find attached the completed Form AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form. I appreciate
your quick turn around with regards to completing the form. Please feel free to contact us with any questions
or concerns that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
Mr. W. Grant Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Attachments: Completed Form AD-1006
cc: Mr. Kevin Williams, Project Manager
APPENDIX M

Chatham County
North Carolina
PROJECT

AREA ~
_:.. _ ._.

r-
2302 1176
902

~. 1139 ~ ~ ~ ~~
'
~'
~ ~
'~`'
902 ;,
1009 , .
~
~` 2301

~,
109
,~ ~ ~_ ' 2300 ~~

PROJECT o iooo 2000
I ~ I I
AREA FEET
'' Vicinity Map
I' ~
~O~
S l~~I ~ ~
.
~ Restoration Ylan
Bear Creek

n n
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. Chatham County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers
10]1 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
llate: ~~7
Figure: 1
[phone]

PROJECT
' ~ ~ . AREA
A
~ l~l. ~
` ..~ • 1 r
{. /r Can
.. - 4~G~ ~ ~~ ~-~
•~ ~!~
~~`! ~ ,~~~, z~~~ ~ !1 •,F~i'I
- ev ~ ,
I ~i - ~~~ l.. 1.
{~ ~irT fY'

O 2~0~ Yooo
I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~
rrrT
T Tom!\TA7T>
1009-~ -/ ~r=/~' F'-. ~:n•
~ :'~ + i 1. _ 23011, \~- -
~ I !11 • - -
~'i
~ r~ ' (~ _ '
10 9 ~ ~ I .j~-~~- ~~ ~~
r-
/ - 1 l.~ ~~ '` 230 ~
~.
MM -,
-' -
J ',}; j.
r. /
Chatham County
North Carolina
Watershed
~-~-~ Project Area
r~
7
~ KO ~' ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
1011 SCIiAU6 DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
(919) 85/-6066 APPFNI»
Watershed Topo
Map
Restoration Plans
Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
Date: ~b3atl7 Figure: 2

LEGEND
Symbol Name ~mbol Name
ChA - Chewacla and Wehadkee GkE - Georgeville-Badin Complex
CkC - Cid Silt Loam GoC - Goldston-Badin Complex
CmB - Cid-Lignum Complex Nab Nanford-Badin Complex
GaB - Georgeville Silt Loam NaC - Nadford-Badin Complex
GaC - Georgeville Sflt Loam RvA - Riverview Silt Loam
Ge62 - Georgeville Silty Clay Loam StB - State Sandy Loam
GkD - Georgeville-Badin Complex - Project Area
~ 1000 2000
FEET
r~
~~,•c~sys~ei»
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., 5919~85~6066RALEIGH~~.~~j¢Q~
Soil Survey Map
Restoration Plans
Bear Creek
Chatham County, North Carolina
llate: 4,3Qro7 I Figure: 3

~E ~ \..~, ,, .
1 ~r ~
. - ~, ~
iti -~.t _ ~ ~~ -

~ i ~. ~
- ~ !
~ 1 ~ ~ „''r ~
~ ,,-~~43 --r-., -
rr,

H' C- -' 902
w' ~.~ ~ ~ ~«t ~ t.yj.c:l
:. - ~ .
,. ~ ~ y _. ~,__ _: Cam ;

~ /~
.
~ .. ~ - ~~ ` ~ ` _ 1,
~' -`
~ r,.
~ ~
h ,
~
.~
)
..` ,' '' r J
r ,, 1,..
~ '
~ .~`
,
' ~
l ~ ' ~ ~ ` V P J.

~' t' ~-~ t% ~ , , -
_ ~
~ ~'~,.,~ 1139 ~~..-~ ~ i ~~ l ti ~. ~~'~'~ -~ `
~ ~ ~ .~.' o ~ ~~ .. t ,
,100b ~ - -
_ ~ ~ \
'a J~ ~ b ~ ' ~ ~ ~^t- ~_ -•LG~S
a .~.
~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 1.,,,/ i ~~ ~~~ t-~ ~ - ~ / ~ _
1~ ~ ~ =t
I PROJECT o iooo 2000
AREA I
FEET
H drolo ical
Y g
Features Map
r
BEAR CREEK
1' d'()~Y~ l x'11 ] Restoration Plan
n Bear Creek
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, 1-.~i, ~-hatham County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALE/GH, h'. C. 27606 L~atC: ~~7 1'1~,Ure: 4
[phone]