20071394 Ver 1_2015 Closeout_20150511

UT BEAR CREEK (Weaver /McLeod) Stream Restoration Site
EEP #92347 - Chatham County - Cape Fear HUC# 03030003 - 070050
DENR Contract # D08042S USACE ACTION ID #200703982
Closeout Report: Stream, Wetland, and Buffer
Project Setting & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates:
LAT = 35.6054, LON = - 79.3985
County
Chatham
General Location
Bear Creek, NC
Basin:
Cape Fear Deep R
Ph sio raphic Region:
Piedmont
Ecore ion:
Central Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03030003 - 070050
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
03 -06 -12
Wetland Classification
Riparian
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
MY -2 Monitoring
Oct 2011
Project Performers
Oct 2012
Source Agency:
EEP
Designer:
Ko & Associates
Monitoring Firm:
Goldstein & Assoc.
Channel Remediation:
none
Plant remediation:
HARP; Carolina Silvics
Transferred Stewardship
Yes, approved for transfer
Stewards:
NC -DENR Stewardship
Protect Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
2006
Easement Recorded
Sep 2007
Project Permitted
Oct 2007
Construction Started
Dec 2008
Construc + Planting Complete
Apr 2009
Final Inspection
Apr 2009
MY -0 As -built Survey
Dec 2009
MY -1 Monitoring
Nov 2010
MY -2 Monitoring
Oct 2011
MY -3 Monitoring
Oct 2012
MY -4 Monitoring
Nov 2013
Supplemental Planting
Nov 2013
MY -5 Monitoring
Oct 2014
Closeout Submittal
Mar 2015
Privet Treatment
Jun 2015

Project Setting and Background Summary
The UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) stream restoration is one of several EEP projects intended to
improve stream habitat and water quality in the Deep River and Rocky River watershed, which includes
Randleman Reservoir at its headwaters and supports federal- and state - listed endangered fish and mussel
species in its lower reaches and tributaries. Two incised and eroding tributaries flowing through cattle
pasture were restored in 2009 with meandering channels (total = 4,561 ft) and reconnected to active
floodplains where practicable. Grazed and trampled riparian buffers (16.9 acres) and a 0.39 acre riparian
wetland were replanted, and cattle - exclusion fencing was installed along both sides the restored tributaries
and adjacent north bank of Bear Creek main channel. During the first year after construction, storms
caused minor erosion along five segments of the northern (larger) tributary, including collapse of one rock
vane near station 37 +00. Three eroded areas have stabilized and revegetated naturally, while two
segments (150 ft or 5% of northern tributary) remain poorly vegetated with steep banks. These two
segments do not appear to have eroded further in recent years, and will likely stabilize on their own
without active remediation. The southern (smaller) tributary has not showed any erosion or instability
problems.
Planted tree growth in riparian zones has been weak in some areas due to poor soil conditions and low
rainfall during the first year. Areas with low woody density along the two tributaries were replanted in
Nov 2013, and virtually all of the restored areas now have adequate sapling and shrub density. EEP
contracted with HARP to treat the invasive Chinese privet patches mapped along both tributaries during
early 2015; the final treatment will be done in late spring or early summer 2015. Chinese privet is also
common in the forested preservation area (9.3 acres) along Bear Creek, but is not a threat to forest
establishment in that area and is not being treated. EEP removed three beaver dams built during the past
year along the north tributary and set traps to remove the beavers in early 2015. No further beaver
management is planned prior to transfer to the NC -DENR Stewardship section. Easement fence damage
has occurred due to fallen trees in several areas along the tributaries and along Bear Creek, but there are
currently no livestock to exclude, and the owner has indicated to RJG &A that he has no plans to graze
livestock on -site.
Goals and Objectives
The project goals as stated in the Restoration Plan (Ko & Associates, 2007) are to improve water quality,
reduce excess sedimentation input from channel banks, attenuate floodwater flows, and restore aquatic
and riparian habitat. To achieve these goals, the project has the following objectives:
• Reduce nutrient loading from the on -site cattle operation by fencing out cattle and revegetating
the riparian buffer;
• Restore stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile so that on -site streams will
transport watershed flows and sediment loads without aggradation or erosion;
• Improve aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability, providing shaded areas
within the channel, and introducing woody debris in the form of rootwads, log vanes, and
log sills;
• Enhance wildlife habitat by re- vegetating the riparian buffers with native plants, helping
to create a wildlife corridor through existing agricultural lands.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report -- Mar 2015 Page 2

Success Criteria
Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Stream: Cross - section measurements
9 Cross Sections:
Yes — Cross section data indicates
should show little change from as-
4 riffle + 2 pool on North UT
minor adjustments when
built plans. If changes do occur, they
2 riffle + 1 pool on South UT
compared to as -built cross section
will be evaluated to determine
data
whether they are minor adjustments
associated with settling and
increased stability or whether they
indicate movement toward an
unstable condition.
Wetland Hydrology: No mitigation
2 RDS groundwater gauges
Both gages met the original
success criteria are required for
installed in enhanced wetland
12.5% (27 days) hydro - period
wetland enhancement. GW gages
along North UT
during 4 of 5 years, and both
installed for wetland confirmation
met the current 8.5% hydro -
use only [12.5% of growing season
period during all 5 years.
= 27 days; 8.5% = 18 days ].
Vegetation (Stream & Wetland
6 CVS plots, North UT buffer
5 CVS plots, South UT buffer
Yes — 10 of the 12 plots applied
toward stream credit exceeded
Credit): minimum 260 native
planted trees + shrub stems per acre
1 CVS plot, Riparian wetland
the stream credit criteria. One
in year 5.
plot on the N trib and one on the
S trib did not. The one plot ( #5)
applied toward wetland credit
also met criteria.
Vegetation (Buffer Credit):
6 CVS plots, North UT buffer
Yes — All 11 CVS plots applied
minimum 260 planted + native
5 CVS plots, South UT buffer
toward buffer credit exceeded the
volunteer trees + shrub stems per
stem density criteria for buffer
acre in year 5.
credit.
Bankfull Flows: Bankfull flow
1 Crest gage on North UT
Yes — The crest gage, matted
indicators evident in 50% of
vegetation, and wrack deposits
monitoring years.
indicated over -bank flow events
every year on both tributaries.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report -- Mar 2015 Page 3

Final Assets Table: UT Bear Creek (Weaver McLeod)
#92347 — Closeout Mar 2015
Nan- riparian
Restoration
Pre —
Linn Units
Mitigation
Units
Wetland Units
Closeout
Mitigation Plan
Segment/
Construction
Mitigation
Watershed
As -Built
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach
(acre / If.)
Approach
Acreage
(If /ac.)
Ratio
Units
Units
(SMU /WMU)
(SMU /WMU)
STREAM
Northern UT
2832
R
2.36
2918
1:1
2,918*
3,132
(R- 131,1311)
Southern UT
1605
R
0.34
1643
1:1
1,633*
1,745
(R- PI,PII)
WETLAND
wetland
0.49 ac
E
0.39
2:1
0.20
(E�
*50 -foot ford crossing excised from each tributary asset; 50% credit for 20 -foot wide utility crossing on Southern
UT.
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Unit
Component Summation
Buffer Restoration (6 -206 feet)
Mitigation
Buffer
Buffer Mitigation Units
*This is a grandfathered buffer project.
Ratio
(square feet)
(square feet)
Buffer Restoration on North Tributary (30' -200')
1:1
422,619
422,619
Buffer Restoration on South Tributary (30' -200')
1:1
176,374
176,374
Buffer Restoration along Bear Creek (30' -200')
1:1
137,574
137,574
Buffer Preservation (0 -100 feet)
Rural Subject Streams with 0 -100 foot Buffer from TOB
10:1
407,939
40,794
Totals
NOTES: 1) Conservation easement along Bear Creek is only on left bank.
1,144,506
777,361
2) No buffer credit calculated on segments where buffer is less than 30` wide.
square feet
buffer mitigation units
ItiIITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Strea
Strewm
Riparian
Nan- riparian
Total Wetland
Riparian
Nutrient
Linn Units
Mitigation
Units
Wetland Units
(�►!4 mtL
Buffer
Offset
0.20
4,551
0
0.20
777,361
0

T
yor11
f,
{ ��
3"'- W
xP
RAF
1
� 14 fff
d
t _
,
9F
llq
Fi
u
Ilk
� Figure 1 .1 Prate -ztArseft Map: LlT L3nar Creak
'i (Weaver - McLeod) #92347. Northern UT, Upper
Section to 10 +00 to 25+50,
,i
a� Ptlotopoirits
Crass - Sections
i Vegetation monitoring plot
I� Thalwreg MY3 {1112 -4112}
i
As -Built Thalweg (Flay 20x9 °)
i
In-Stream Structures
i Conservation Easement
i
Top of 13arik
p
p so 1 Cis] 200 311 D
Feet
r11 f
P
1�
y
� Figure 1 .1 Prate -ztArseft Map: LlT L3nar Creak
'i (Weaver - McLeod) #92347. Northern UT, Upper
Section to 10 +00 to 25+50,
,i
a� Ptlotopoirits
Crass - Sections
i Vegetation monitoring plot
I� Thalwreg MY3 {1112 -4112}
i
As -Built Thalweg (Flay 20x9 °)
i
In-Stream Structures
i Conservation Easement
i
Top of 13arik
p
p so 1 Cis] 200 311 D
Feet
r11 f

CD
m
CD t.`
cn
CD
CD
CD
CO u7
a,)
4
r
r
r
' w r
_ �___.� -� � PC @seffV►a�i�Fl
w q, ( `
.t 0
Figure 1.2. Project Assets Map; UT Bear Creek
{Weaver - McLeod) #92347. Northern UT, Louver
Section, Sta 26 +50 to 39 +75
Photopo nts 0 Ground:vater Gauge
„'y► - �'
Crass - Sections
Vegetation monitoring plot
,✓ Thalweg MY2 (11/24112)
lilt, As -Built Thalweg (May 2009)
N
AM In- Stream Structures
Conservation Easement
Enhanced
Top of Bank wetland
dear e
creek suffr
rase
atIon 0 50 100 200 300
I inch 100 feet
'Aft. sap
Ttem_ —f-
rwacKAm �”

fir'
Z
V�
IL` yu—
0
� x
I
�t
ryry�
'Y
r
,4
r,k
~ - , 4� L
1
9
i
Figure 1.3. Project Assets Map: UT Bear Creek
(Weaver- McLeod) #92347. Southern UT, Sta
10 +00 to 27 +45.
Aft
i Phoy�topoin/t�s L+
Cross - Sections
Vegetation monitoring plot
Thalweg MY3 (1112 -4112)
As -Built Thatweg (May 2009)
In-Strearni Structures
Conservation Easement
Top of Sank
0 50 100 200 'C,-,
2600
E
loft
27©0
�^r
L i
%row
Ce
t
,j
T
I
�t
ryry�
'Y
r
,4
r,k
~ - , 4� L
1
9
i
Figure 1.3. Project Assets Map: UT Bear Creek
(Weaver- McLeod) #92347. Southern UT, Sta
10 +00 to 27 +45.
Aft
i Phoy�topoin/t�s L+
Cross - Sections
Vegetation monitoring plot
Thalweg MY3 (1112 -4112)
As -Built Thatweg (May 2009)
In-Strearni Structures
Conservation Easement
Top of Sank
0 50 100 200 'C,-,
2600
E
loft
27©0
�^r
L i

f
AP
" 4 Bear Creep buffer Preservation
Berg Creek 8uifer Rebtora,'Jun
������ {�� • � �� _ mot'
' k e00 feel
Figure 1.4. Project Assts Map: UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) # 92347. Bear Cr Main Stem Restoration and Preservation Areas, southwestern reach.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 9
i< `i

4. i
Bear Creek Buffer Preservation
0 Bear Creek Buffer Pwttorataon
Iu �,f4. IZC6
Figure 1.5. Project Assts Map: UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) # 92347. Bear Cr Main Stem Restoration and Preservation Areas, middle reach.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 10

% J10
Vrw'--Z'
Bear creek Buffer Preservation
Bear Creek Buffer Restoration
i0a feet
4,e
Figure 1.6. Project Assts Map: UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) # 92347. Bear Cr Main Stem Restoration and Preservation Areas, northeast reach.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 RJG&A Environmental Consultants
Final Close-Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 11
Map
% J10
Vrw'--Z'
Bear creek Buffer Preservation
Bear Creek Buffer Restoration
i0a feet
4,e
Figure 1.6. Project Assts Map: UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) # 92347. Bear Cr Main Stem Restoration and Preservation Areas, northeast reach.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 RJG&A Environmental Consultants
Final Close-Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 11

. I� ,F � �i' e.: w � +raF.. r • 5 .rte �§R � �f 17a i ' �,.,,� �� 'I '+ .�.
r"�r _� ,, °F ,%'M11�'4a - W r _,�, ° rt, s• r
rAh
v
iE--E'a
Northern UT Drainage
Area 2.36 sq.mi
0 511
r W
City USGS Q ad
4
. r
Bear Creek UGB Quad _ r All -
-;'
- 1y
-
r.y
Bear _
I
7. Creek r
4 F!
r9oluthern UT Drainage - .'.r__. aL Ik
M Area — 0.34 sq.mi _ I �I. `• a
PrOact Sue
2000 4000
FEET
•r
4'
• .s I
Figure 2. UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347: Project Vicinity and Watershed Map, Bear
Creek and Siler City USGS Topographic Quadrangles, Chatham County NC.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 12

Svmbol Soil Series Name
ChA - Chewaela and Wehadkee
CkC - Cid Silt Loam.
CmB -
Cid- Lignum Complex
GaB _
Georgaville Silt Loam
GaC -
Georgeville Silt Loam
GeB2 -
Georgevllle Silty Clay Loam
GkD -
Geargeville- Badinn Complex
Svmbol Soil Series Name
GkE
- Georgevllle -Bailin Complex
GOC
- Goldston -Bailin Complex
NaB
- Nanford -Bailin Complex
NaC - Nadford -Bailin Complex
RvA - Riverview Silt Loam
StB - State Sandy Loam
0 - Project Area
Figure 3. UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347: USDA Soil Survey Map, Chatham Co. NC.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015
RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 13

Southern UT Supplemental Planting
Areas (Nov 2013) and Treatment for
Invasive Privet ( interispring 2015).
Area 4 = 1.4 acres, 200 trees ,added
Area 3 =1.9 acres. 250 trees added
All Privet patches treated in these areas
0 20D 400 8GO
Feet
Northern UT Supplemental Planting
Areas (Nov 2013) and Treatment for
____— "_ er.__!__ —t irr r!__i —__ • Armen ri
Figure 4. UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347: Project Remediation Areas: Supplemental tree planting in riparian buffer
restoration areas along tributaries in Novemeber 2013, treatment for invasive Privet (winter /spring 2015) in these same areas, and
beaver control. No remediation work on instream structures or stream channel banks was conducted or deemed necessary.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015
RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 14

Figure 5A. Cross - Sectional Profiles 1 to 3 with Annual Overlays
UT To Bear Creek #92347 -- Oct 2014 -- MY5 /Closeout
NorthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 1: Riffle
101
100.6
100
The apparent widening in MY5 is due to a GPS survey
error. There is no field evidence of noticeable erosion, and
the right end pin had not moved.
99.5
99
- -
`=
_-
98.5
a
0
98
97.5
W
97
96.5
96
0 Station (ft) 10 20 30 40 50 60
MY5 Bankfull --w-MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC -1 MY4 (11/2013) MY3 (9/2012)
MY2 (8/2011) MYl (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
101.00 Northern UT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 2: Riffle
100.$0
100.00
99.50
99.00
98.$0 _
98.00
ARIF
97.50
97.00
96.50 -
96.00
w
0
w
d
W
0.00 Station (ft) 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
101.00
100.00
99.00
98.00
97.00
96.00
95.00
MY5 Bankfu0 MY5 (10/2014) -- XSEC -2 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012) - - MY5 Water Surface _MV2 (8/2011)
MYl (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
Northern UT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 3: Pool
w
A
a
w
R
>
d
W
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
MYSBankfull -4-- MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC-3 MY4 (11/2013) MY3 (9/2012)
MY5 Water Surface -MY2 (8/2011) MYl (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 15
7�' - - - - --
The apparent widening in MY5 is due to a GPS survey
error. There is no field evidence of noticeable erosion, and
the right end pin had not moved.
w
A
a
w
R
>
d
W
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
MYSBankfull -4-- MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC-3 MY4 (11/2013) MY3 (9/2012)
MY5 Water Surface -MY2 (8/2011) MYl (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 15

Figure 5B. Cross - Sectional Profiles 4 to 6 with Annual Overlays
UT To Bear Creek #92347 -- Oct 2014 -- MY5 /Closeout
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 16
NorthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 4: Riffle
101
100.5
1001'
-
99.5
- -- - - - - -
_
�
99
w
Aff
98.5
0
98
>
a�
97.5
W
97
96.5
96
0
Station (ft) 10
20 30 40 50
60 70
MY5 Bankfull
-0-- MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC-4 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012)
MY2 (8/2011)
_MY1 (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
NorthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 5: Pool
101.00
100.00
99.00
98.00
b
O
97.00
w
96.00
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
-
95.00
0.00
Station (ft) 10.00
20.00 30.00 40.00
50.00
60.00
MY5 Bankfull
-0-- MY5 (10/2014) -- XSEC -5 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012)
MY5 Water Surface
MY2 (8/2011) _MY1 (11/2010)
MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
NorthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 6: Riffle
101.00
100.50
100.00
- - - - - 2
99.50
w
C
°
99.00
°
°
W
98.50
98.00
97.50
97.00
0.00
Station (ft) 10.00
20.00 30.00 40.00
50.00 60.00
�MYSBankfull
3 -MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC-6 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012)
•
�MY2 (8/2011)
MY1 (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt(4 /2010)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 16

Figure 5C. Cross - Sectional Profiles 7 to 9 with Annual Overlays
UT To Bear Creek #92347 -- Oct 2014 -- MY5 /Closeout
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 17
SouthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 7: Riffle
SouthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 8: Riffle
101.00
101.00
100.50
100.00
100.00
w
99.50
99.50
a
0
99.00
99.00
W
98.50
98.00
98.00
>
0.00
5.00 10.00
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
40.00 45.00 -50.00
Station (ft)
w
MYSBankfull
MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC -7 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012)
MY2 (8/2011)
MYl (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 17
SouthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 8: Riffle
101.00
100.50
100.00
99.50
99.00
98.50
98.00
>
97.50
�
w
97.00
96.50
96.00
0.00
5.00
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
35.00 40.00 45.00
Station (ft)
MY5 Bankfull
MY5 (10/2014) - XSEC -8 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012)
MY2 (8/2011)
_MY1 (11/2010) MYO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
SouthernUT to Bear Cr - Cross Section 9: Pool
101.00
100.00
99.00
98.00
a
0
97.00
d
W
96.00
95.00
94.00
0.00
Station (ft) 10.00
20.00 30.00 40.00
50.00 60.00
MY5 Bankfu0
--*-- MY5 (10/2014) -- XSEC -9 MY4 (11/2013)
MY3 (9/2012)
MY2 (8/2011)
MYl (11/2010) WO- AsBuilt (4/2010)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 17

Appendix D
Figure 6.1 Longitudinal Profile & Annual Overlays
UT Bear Creek #92347 -- Northern UT, Sta 1000 to 2000
October 2014 -- Monitoring Year 5 of 5
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 18
UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Northern UT (Sta. 1000 -2000)
THW MYO: (5/2009)
THW MY5: (10/2014)
420
THW MY4: (11/2013)
THW MY3: (9/2012)
419
THW MY2: (8/2011)
N
THW MYI: (12/2010)
418 •
• Bankfull MY5: (2014)
417
•
.1 Grade Control Structures
• •
• •
+ Rootwads
C
U
416
0
Cattle / Road Crossing
Q?
vii
•
W
O
L
•
i
415
+
a
• O
!-
414
1 1
413
1 1
412
I I
411
410
1000.00
1100.00 1200.00 1300.00 1400.00 1500.00 1600.00 1700.00
1800.00 1900.00 2000.00
Station (ft)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 18

Appendix D
Figure 6.2 Longitudinal Profile & Annual Overlays
UT Bear Creek #92347 -- Northern UT, Sta 2000 to 3000
October 2014 -- Monitoring Year 5 of 5
415
•
414
413
w
O
'w
412
W
s,
411
it
410
409
N
rd
N
N
L
0
4-1
U
a,
N
UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Northern UT (Sta. 2000 -3000)
•
C
•
M
N N
f6
On �
c 0
O
4 U
U U
aJ 41
N
N N
N
0 0
c� U
THW MYO: (5/2009)
--*—THW MY5: (10/2014)
THW MY4: (11/2013)
THW MY3: (9/2012)
THW MY2: (8/2011)
THW MY 1: (12/2010)
• Bankfull MY5: (2014)
O -1 Grade Control Structures
+ Rootwads
•
0
408
2000.00 2100.00 2200.00 2300.00 2400.00 2500.00 2600.00 2700.00 2800.00 2900.00 3000.00
Station (ft)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 19

Appendix D
Figure 6.3 Longitudinal Profile & Annual Overlays
UT Bear Creek #92347 -- Northern UT, Sta 3000 to 4000
October 2014 -- Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Station (ft)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 20
UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Northern UT (Sta. 3000 -4000)
THW MYO: (5/2009)
412
THW MY5: (10/2014)
THW MY4: (11/2013)
•
411
THW MY3: (9/2012)
•
O • to
• • m rn
THW MY2: (8/2011)
+� N
THW MY 1: (12/2010)
410
c
c
• Bankfull MY5: (2014)
w_
•2
0
"
"
A Grade Control Structures
0
cv
409
N
V)
W
v
U
s,
408
a
E*
407
VV
406
405
404
3000.00
3100.00 3200.00 3300.00 3400.00 3500.00 3600.00 3700.00 3800.00 3900.00 4000.00
Station (ft)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 20

Appendix D
Figure 6.4 Longitudinal Profile & Annual Overlays
UT Bear Creek #92347 -- Southern UT, Sta 1000 to 1900
October 2014 -- Monitoring Year 5 of 5
UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Southern UT (Sta. 1000 -1900)
•• •
•
•
1100.00 1200.00 1300.00 1400.00 1500.00
Station (ft)
n
Un
Ln
Ln
r-
CZ
0
U
Q)
—Ln
•0
0
L
U
TRW MYO: (5/2009)
—IIt —THW MY5: (10/2014)
THW MY4: (11/2013)
THW MY3: (9/2012)
THW MY2: (8/2011)
THW MY 1: (12/2010)
• Bankfull MY5: 2014
A Grade Control Structures
+ Rootwads
— Cattle Crossing
0
1600.00 1700.00 1800.00
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 21
427 —
426 —
425 —
424
w
c
423
W
422
s,
c�
F
421 —
420 —
419 —
418
417
1000.00
UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Southern UT (Sta. 1000 -1900)
•• •
•
•
1100.00 1200.00 1300.00 1400.00 1500.00
Station (ft)
n
Un
Ln
Ln
r-
CZ
0
U
Q)
—Ln
•0
0
L
U
TRW MYO: (5/2009)
—IIt —THW MY5: (10/2014)
THW MY4: (11/2013)
THW MY3: (9/2012)
THW MY2: (8/2011)
THW MY 1: (12/2010)
• Bankfull MY5: 2014
A Grade Control Structures
+ Rootwads
— Cattle Crossing
0
1600.00 1700.00 1800.00
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 21

Appendix D
Figure 6.5 Longitudinal Profile & Annual Overlays
UT Bear Creek #92347 -- Southern UT, Sta 1900 to 2800
October 2014 -- Monitoring Year 5 of 5
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 22
UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Southern UT (Sta. 1900 -2800)
THW MYO: (5/2009)
E—THW MY5: (10/2014)
'THW MY4: (11/2013)
419
•
THW MY3: (9/2012)
•
•
THW MY2: (8/2011)
417
Ln
THW MYl: (12/2010)
Ln
• • •
N
• Bankfull MY5: 2014
L
0
.1 Grade Control Structures
415
0
U °
+ Rootwads
• N v
N
W
V
• V)
o 0
413
U
F�
,1
411
409
407
1900.00
2000.00 2100.00 2200.00 2300.00 2400.00 2500.00 2600.00
2700.00 2800.00
Station (ft)
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 22

Table 2.1 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Northern UT 2,975 feet
Cross Section 1 (N: Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (N: Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (N: Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.5
18.4
18.5
20.1
212
19.68
18.3
18.6
17.9
20.7
20.8
19.01
20.0
21.0
19.0
20.1
20.3
32.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.21
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.01
2.1
1.8
2.01
2.1
3.9
3.8
3.91
4.0
3.71
3.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
26.3
25.8
25.5
23.3
23.4
28.41
24.0
23.9
23.3
21.7
22.5
27.30
44.2
44.8
42.0
45.9
43.9
69.3
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
13.0
13.2
13.4
17.4
17.3
16.4
13.9
14.4
13.8
19.8
17.3
17.3
9.1
9.9
8.6
8.8
9.0
15.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.5
5.4
5.6
4.8
4.8
5.3
5.0
4.8
5.3
5.0
5.1
3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01
1.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
75.3
76.9
75.7
71.1
72.8
71.1
96.9
96.5
91.4
76.9
78.3
76.9
119.5
115.9
105.0
84.2
86.2
84.2
d50 (mm)
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.06
1.0
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.9
0.06
3.51
0.051
0.131
1.11
8
Cross Section 4 (N: Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (N: Pool)
Cross Section 6 (N: Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.3
19.1
20.9
19.6
20.8
19.1
22.9
22.2
24.7
25.3
25.4
22.8
18.9
19.1
22.8
20.6
21.3
20.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.31
2.3
2.21
2.41
2.6
3.8
3.81
3.71
3.7
3.61
3.1
1.91
1.9
2.11
1.9
2.0
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
29.5
28.0
29.6
26.9
27.9
31.6
33.3
34.9
35.6
34.0
34.6
28.2
23.0
21.4
26.2
22.9
24.0
23.9
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
14.0
13.1
14.8
14.3
13.9
13.6
15.7
14.1
17.1
18.8
18.9
14.4
15.6
17.0
19.9
18.6
17.8
18.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
5.2
4.8
5.1
4.9
5.2
9.6
9.9
8.9
8.7
8.7
9.7
11.6
11.6
9.6
10.7
10.3
10.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2
115.9
105.0
84.2
50.4
55.8
50.4
66.5
59.5
66.6
61.9
63.0
61.9
55.9
56.5
51.8
33.2
38.7
33.2
d50 (mm)
0.37
0.37
0.05
4.2
0.5
7.42
6.27
30.83
3.95
22.3
0.22
0.06
0.05
0.08
5.7
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum
established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that
states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a
future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 23

Table 2.2 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Southern UT 1,700 feet
Cross Section 7 (S: Riffle)
Cross Section 8 (S: Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (S: Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Record elevation (datum) used
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.7
12.2
11.1
10.4
17.4
8.8
13.5
17.0
16.3
8.5
16.0
9.8
18.5
21.0
23.6
22.7
22.5
20.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
115.9
105.0
84.2
100.0
100.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.41
0.5
0.61
0.61
0.7
0.61
0.6
0.51
0.51
0.8
0.91
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1..6
1.5
2.71
2.91
2.9
3.01
3.01
2.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.9
8.9
7.8
8.2
8.9
7.0
9.4
9.8
20.7
22.9
23.2
23.8
23.0
14.7
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
31.1
24.9
19.9
17.7
24.8
14.6
23.3
35.5
30.2
10.3
17.8
12.2
16.6
19.3
24.0
21.8
20.5
18.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.3
8.2
9.0
9.6
9.6
11.4
3.7
2.9
3.1
5.9
3.1
5.1
6.1
5.0
3.6
4.2
4.3
2.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fe)
23.7
24.2
23.1
13.5
21.5
13.5
42.6
44.2
46.4
26.2
43.8
26.2
95.8
93.9
97.2
59.3
59.3
59.3
d50 (mm)
2.8
1.2
3.1
0.1
11.3
4.9
16.7
12.2
5.2
16
0.051
0.041
0.041
3.21
8
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline
datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be
included that states: "it is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be
recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 24

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 25
Table 3.1 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Morphology Data Summary 2010 -2014
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Northern UT 2,975 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.3
19.0
18.7
20.3
0.9
4
18.4
18.8
18.8
19.1
0.3
4
17.9
20.0
19.7
22.8
2.3
4
19.6
20.3
20.4
20.7
0.5
4
19.6
20.3
20.4
20.7
0.5
4
19.0
19.6
19.4
20.6
0.7
4.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
130
100
220
60
4
100
130
100
220
60
4
100
130
100
220
60
4
100
130
100
220
60
4
100
130
100
220
60
4
100.0
130.0
100.0
220.0
60.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.1
4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.1
4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.1
4
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.4
0.1
4
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.1
4
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.1
4.0
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.9
2.1
1 2.2
2.4
1 0.2
4
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.3
0.2
4
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
0.1
4
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
0.2
4
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
0.2
4
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.6
0.3
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
23.0
25.7
25.2
29.5
2.9
4
21.4
24.8
24.9
28.0
2.8
4
23.3
26.1
25.9
29.6
2.6
4
21.7
23.7
23.1
26.9
2.2
4
1 21.7
1 23.7
23.1
26.9
2.2
4
23.9
1 27.8
1 27.9
31.6
1 3.2
4.0
Width /Depth Ratio
13.0
14.1
13.9
15.6
1.1
4
13.1
14.4
13.8
17.0
1.8
4
13.4
15.5
14.3
19.9
3.0
4
14.3
17.5
18.0
19.8
2.4
4
14.3
17.5
18.0
19.8
2.4
4
13.6
16.4
16.8
18.5
2.0
4.0
Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
6.9
5.4
11.6
3.2
4
5.2
6.9
5.4
11.6
3.1
4
4.8
6.4
5.5
9.6
2.2
4
4.8
6.4
5.0
10.7
2.9
4
4.8
6.4
5.1
10.7
2.9
4
5.1
6.6
5.2
10.7
2.8
4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
13.9
33.8
35.7
67.0
12.0
21
10
30.3
30.0
54.5
12.1
21
9
31.14
28.5
81.5
14.0
25
20
39.6
34.5
73
18.0
22
14.01
45.5
42.8
117.2
20.5
31
24.56
51.85
148.34
108.2
19.72
24
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.008
0.006
0.024
0.006
21
0.006
0.013
0.009
0.040
0.006
21
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
25
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
22
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.025
0.006
31
0.004
0.284
0.191
1.459
0.361
24
Pool Length (ft)
28.7
58.2
58.7
112.8
18.9
23
22
35.1
32.5
80
15.5
31
22
36.37
34.5
80
16.3
31
26
45.1
38
83
22.5
31
22.9
45.3
41.8
94.6
15.0
32
15.21
34.96
33.13
73.97
12.28
24
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
2.6
2.6
3.7
0.5
23
2.3
3.3
3.3
4.1
0.5
31
1.9
3.1
3.1
3.9
0.5
31
2.15
3.2
3.29
4.05
0.51
29
0.41
1.19
1.29
1.92
0.4
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
Pool Spacing (ft)l
42.6
1 131
1 103
1 309
1 75.8
22
52
92.3
85.5
172
41.7
30
52
91.4
82.8
174
40.7
31
4
99.0
87.5
179
1 47.3
1 28
47.5
91.1
83.8
162.7
30.6
31
10.14
50.71
38.63
177.5
39.72
24
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 28.86 62.54 61.35 112.3 19.41 20
Radius of Curvature (ft) 31.6 57.53 53.58 98.16 17.48 22
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.6 2.9 2.7 4.96 0.88 22
Meander Wavelength (ft) 166 227.1 225.8 310.3 34.59 21
Meander Width Ratiol 1.46 13.16 1 3.1 1 5.67 10.98 1 20
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C5
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2975
3041
3036
3064
2960
2926
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
BF slope ( ft/ft)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
29
14
56
1
0
21
16
37
1 9
0
31
16
9
0
29.7
11
47.7
11.5
0
30
11
48
12
0
30
11
43
12
0
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
56
W1383
6
1
62.22
9.667
17.3
10.65
0.167
0
62
10
17
11
0
0
28
17
45
9
1
0
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0.022
]0]0]42]
36.62
196.181
0.025
2.537
5.188
42.24
196.041
0
3
5
42
96
1
3.1
6.3
97.2
153.7
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
3
2
2
1
1
1
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
--
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
-
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 25

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
meters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
chibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
.ep; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 26
Table 3.2 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Morphology Data Summary 2010 -2014
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Southern UT 1,700 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.5
13.6
13.6
13.7
-
2
12.2
14.6
14.6
17.0
-
2
11.1
13.7
13.7
16.3
-
2
4.0
7.2
7.2
10.4
-
2
8.5
9.5
9.5
10.4
1.3
2
8.8
9.3
9.3
9.8
0.7
2.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
-
2
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
-
2
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
-
2
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
-
2
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
35.4
2
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
35.4
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-
2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
-
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
2.0
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.3
1.3
1 1.3
1.4
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
-
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
-
2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
-
2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.1
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
6.1
6.9
6.9
7.8
2
6.0
7.1
7.1
8.2
-
2
6.2
7.5
7.5
8.9
-
2
6.2
6.6
6.6
7.0
-
2
6.2
1 6.6
6.6
7.0
0.6
2
8.9
9.3
1 9.3
9.8
1 0.7
2.0
Width /Depth Ratio
23.3
27.2
27.2
31.1
2
24.9
30.2
30.2
35.5
-
2
19.9
25.0
25.0
30.2
-
2
10.3
14.0
14.0
17.7
-
2
10.3
14.0
14.0
17.7
5.2
2
12.2
13.4
13.4
14.6
1.7
2.0
Entrenchment Ratio
3.7
5.5
5.5
7.3
2
2.9
5.6
5.6
8.2
-
2
3.1
6.0
6.0
9.0
-
2
5.9
7.7
7.7
9.6
2
5.9
7.8
7.8
9.6
2.6
2
5.1
8.3
8.3
11.4
4.5
2.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
-
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
-
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9.0
20.9
17.6
40.2
8.9
13
3.5
10.67
10
24
4.4
27
3.5
11.45
9.75
29
4.85
28
5
15.87
16
31
6.8771
23
12.71
48.7
30.9
222.3
51.4
19
11.9
119.86
120.29
130.05
6.398
9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.021
0.019
0.046
0.011
13
0.010
0.033
0.037
0.078
0.014
27
0.002
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.018
28
0.004
0.077
0.022
1.006
0.091
23
0.00
0.08
0.02
1.01
0.09
19
0.071
0.456
0.477
0.88
0.267
9
Pool Length (ft)
7.7
30.9
29.5
53.0
12.8
30
7.0
14.7
14.5
25.0
6.9
48
4
14.73
13
34.5
7.398
49
7
19.54
19
40
10.29
39
3.84
20.7
20.0
44.9
9.1
34
0.022 11.46 7.75 30.88 11.06
NA NA NA NA NA
9
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.5
1.7
1.7
3.0
0.5
30
1.4
1.9
1.9
2.9
0.4
47
1.32
2.1
2.07
3.18
0.396
48
0.911
2.191
2.117
4.037
0.536
39
0.1
0.671
0.581
3.21
0.41
33
9
Pool Spacing (ft)
15.9
49.1
41.8
169.3
34.3
29
9.5
33.71
32
112
18.12
47
6.5
33.04
29.25
113.5
17.83
48
4
42.95
33
183
27.78
38
2.5
50.6
41.9
227.6
43.8
33
3.132
106.5
49.06
415.5
127.3
9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 16.1 31.1 28.4 96.7 16.0 26
Radius of Curvature (ft) 15.4 24.7 23.8 35.6 5.5 28
rPatternta will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.4 2.3 2.2 3.3 0.5 28
Meander Wavelength (ft) 58.2 99.5 98.9 176.5 22.2 27
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 1 2.9 1 2.6 9.0 1 1.5 1 26
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1700
1741
1737
1724
1694
1701
Sinuosity (ft)
1.10
1.13
1.13
1.12
1.12
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.01
0.01
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
16
12
55
0
0
17
16
42
6
0
22
17
50
11
0
23
21
49
7
0
23
21
49
7
0
23
21
49
7
0
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
40
23
28
8
1
0
48
3
1 38
11
1
0
45
12
33
9
1
0
1
13
77
8
1
0
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
0.163
0.3
6.0
30.96
78
0.027
1.8
1 5.1
46.9
78.96
0.027
1.8071
6.3
46.91
78.96
3.2
8.3
111.8
47
100
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1
0
0
0
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
--
Biological or Other
-
--
-
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
meters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
chibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
.ep; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 26

Table 4. Verification of Bankfull Flow Events
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) - EEP# 92347 - 2010 (MY -1) to 2014 (MY -5)
Date of Data
Collection
Probable Dates of Occurrence
Evaluation Methods
25- Mar -10
Nov 11, 2009 (2.34 "), Dec 2, 2009 (1.73 ") and
Feb 5, 2010 (1.94 ").
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
24- Nov -10
May 17 (1.52 "), May 23, 2010 (1.6 "), and Sep
30, 2010 (2.87 ")
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
11- Mar -11
Unknown. No substantial rainfall events
recorded at SILR precipitation gage
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
26- Sep -11
Crest gauge does not indicate any bankfull
event during Apr - Sep 2011; no recent
wrack/drift lines observed.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
10- May -12
May 14 +15, 2012 (1.80 "). Ants in crest gage
moved cork; record is unclear.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
26- Oct -12
Jul 9 -11, (2.2 "), Sep 28 -30 (1.4 "). Crest gage
does not indicate any recent bankfull event.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
30- Apr -13
Feb 22 -23, 2013: 1.0" precip at SILR rain gage
and 3.25' stage at Tick Creek gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
30- Apr -13
Apr 28 -29, 2013: 1.5" precip at SILR rain gage
and 3.33' stage at Tick Creek gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
17- Oct -13
May 20, 2013: 0.9" precip at SILR rain gage
and 3.37' stage at Tick Creek gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
17- Oct -13
Jun 7, 2013: 1.8" precip at SILR rain gage and
3.72' stage at Tick Creek gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
17- Oct -13
Jun 28 -July 1, 2013: 2.2" precip (4 days) at
SILR gage & 4.23' stage at Tick Cr gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
17- Oct -13
July 2 -3, 2013: 1.7" precip at SILR gage &
4.05' stage at Tick Cr gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, SILR precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
8- Apr -14
Jan 11 -12, 2014: 2.1" precip at CH -04 gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, CH -04 precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
8- Apr -14
Mar 7 -8, 2014: 2.8" precip at CH -04 gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, CH -04 precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
28- Oct -14
May 16, 2014: 3.8" precip at CH -04 gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, CH -04 precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
28- Oct -14
July 21 -22, 2014: 3.5" precip at CH -04 gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, CH -04 precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
28- Oct -14
Aug 9 -12, 2014: 4.7" precip at CH -04 gage.
Crest gage evaluation, wrack line & matted vegetation
observation, CH -04 precip data, and Tick Cr stage data.
8 Apr 2014: Crest gage cork granules = 2.5 ft above gage bottom = 1.1 ft above bankfull
28 Oct 2014: Crest gage cork granules = 2.8 ft above gage bottom = 1.4 ft above bankfull
SILR Rain Gage = 10 mi NW of UT Bear Project Site
NC -CH -04 Rain Gage = 4 mi NE of UT Bear Project Site
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 27

Table 5. Monthly Precipitation Totals in Siler City, Chatham County: 2010 -2014,
with 30 -yr monthly
averages and 30% and 70% exceedance
statistics.
Chatham County Growing Season = Apr 1 to Nov 3 = 217 days
12.5% of 217 = 27 days; 8%of217 =17 days
Monthly Climate Normals, 1981 -2010
2010 -2014 Monthly
Precip Totals
SILR station
30 -yr ave precip, inches
SILR
SILR
SILR
SILR
CH -04
1981 -2010
average 30% exc 70% exc
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
JAN
4.61 3.23 5.47
3.05
0.88
1.60
2.97
3.50
FEB
3.72 2.55 4.43
3.39
1.43
2.18
3.10
3.66
MAR
4.55 3.17 5.40
2.17
2.19
3.10
2.77
5.59
APR
3.35 2.14 4.03
0.59
1.44
1.97
3.75
3.98
MAY
4.64 3.27 5.50
4.36
2.58
4.08
2.59
3.94
JUN
3.97 2.23 4.83
4.24
1.37
1.47
7.28
1.63
JUL
4.67 2.98 5.63
2.88
1.60
4.50
4.84
5.21
AUG
4.05 2.79 4.82
1.21
2.93
2.17
3.86
6.06
SEP
4.26 1.72 5.18
5.31
5.85
3.75
1.88
3.03
OCT
3.82 1.83 4.67
2.22
3.42
0.54
1.66
1.27
NOV
3.33 2.13 4.01
0.91
4.27
0.29
2.11
3.82
DEC
3.24 2.15 3.89
1.22
1.84
1.68
4.18
4.53
Total Annual
48.21
31.55
29.80
27.33
40.99
46.22
2010 -2013: NC- CRONOS Rain Gage: SILR ( Siler City Airport).
Lat: 35.704 Lon: - 79.504 (10 mi NW of UT Bear Cr site)
2014: NOAA Rain Gage: US1- NCCH -04 (Goldston 3.8 N)
Lat: 35.649 Lon: - 79.336 (4 mi NE of UT Bear Cr site)
UT to Bear Creek Percentile Graph for Rainfall 2014
7
6 -,
5 -
iu
r
`c 4
e
a
'c 3 -
`v
a
2
1
-�
Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14 Dec -14
Date
Rainfall 2014 -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 28

Table 6. Wetland Groundwater Gauge Attainment Data
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) EEP# 92347 - 2014 (MY -5)
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days during Growing Season
Groundwater
(Percent of 216 -day Growing Season in Chatham Co (Apr 1 - Nov 3)
Gauge ID
Year 1 (2010)
Year 2 (2011)
Year 3 (2012)
Year 4 (2013)
Year 5 (2014)
09BEA457
No: 21 days
Yes: 37 days
Yes: 28 days
Yes: 82 days
Yes: 41 days
(9.7 %)
(17.1 %)
(13.0 %)
(38.0 %)
(19.0 %)
138BDBD7
No: 20 days
Yes: 43 days
Yes: 30 days
Yes: 80 days
Yes: 63 days
(9.2 %)
(19.9 %)
(13.8 %)
(37.0 %)
(29.2 %)
a *f
t
North Trib - Matted vegetation and wrack deposit, Sta 19 +50, 08 Apr 2014
1 7F !
South Trib - Matted vegetation and wrack deposit, Sta 21 +00, 08 Apr 2014
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 29

Bear Creek 92347 Vegetation Data: Planted Stem Density By Plot Year 0 - 5
Bear Creek
Yr0
Yr0
Yr 1
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr2
Yr 3
Yr3
Yr 4
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr5
Plot
# stems
Planted stem Density
(per ACRE)
# stems
Planted stem Density
(per ACRE)
# stems
Planted stem Density
(per ACRE)
# stems
Planted stem Density
(per ACRE)
# stems
Planted stem Density
(per ACRE)
# stems
Planted stem Density
(per ACRE)
plot E92347 -01 -0001 3
plot E92347 -01 -0002 1 7
121
283
4 162
8 324
1 7 283 6
5 202 4
243
162
445
7 283 7 283
4 162 7 283
8 324 12 486
6 243 9 364
32 1295 31 1255
plot E92347-01-0003
13
r 526
10
405
12 486
r 11
plot E92347 -01 -0004
7
283
6 J
243
6
243
6
243
plot E92347 -01 -0005
37
1497
37
1497
32
1295
32
1295
plot E92347 -01 -0006
11
445
9
364
11
445
10
405
10
405
10
405
plot E92347 -01 -0007
5
202
7
I 283
8
324
8
324
7
283
8
324
plot E92347 -01 -0008
5
202
4
162
5
202
9
364
9
364
9
364
plot E92347 -01 -0009
5
202
4
162
4
162
4
162
4
162
4
162
plot E92347 -01 -0010
10
405
10
405
10
405
9
364
9
364
9
364
plot E92347-01-0011 10 405
plot E92347-01-0012 8 324
11
445
12 486
15 607
12 486
15 607
12 486
15 607
13 526
15 607
13 526
EEP Project Code 91347. Project Name: LIT Sear Creek (Weaver /McLeod)
Current Plot data (MY5 2014]
Scientific Name
Common Name
Spec:iesType
E92347 -01 -0001
E92347 -01 -0002
E92347 -01- 0003
E92347 -01 -0004
E92347 -01 -0005
E92347 -01 -0005
E92347 -014W7
E92347 -01 0008
E92347 -01 -0009
E92347- 01-010
E92347 -01 -0011
E92347 -01 -0012
PnoLS
P -a[[
T
noLS
Pall
T
ftoLS
P -all
T
PnotS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P' -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pno'LS
P -all
T
noLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
noLS
P -ell
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
cer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
esculussylvatica
painted buckeye
Shrub
1
1
1
Inussertulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
3a--charis halimifol[a
eastern baccharis
Shrub
21
6
3
2
3etula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
eltis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ephaJanthus occidentalis
common buttunbush
Shrub
0
10
rnus amomum
sift dogwood
Shrub
iospyrosvirginiana
common; persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
raxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
25
2
2
29
3
3
36
1
1
3
_8
.0
35
2
2
2
1
1
-
23
1
1
32
3
3
3
15
8
8
48
ledisia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
2
uglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
3
gustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
3
6
ijidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
43
3
1
8
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
7,inustaeda
IoblolIVpine
Tree
�:atanusoccidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
E
E
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
u e rcus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
uercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
uercus Wata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
uercus michauxii
swamp chestnutraJr
Tree
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
uercusnigra
water oak
Tree
uercusphellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
uercusvelutina
black oak
Tree
1
1
1
ubus argutus
sawtooth blackberry
Shrub
alix
willow
Shrub or Tree
alix nigra
black willow
T•ee
1
2
7
ymphoricarposorbiculatus
coralherry
:I-. -ub
3
r
3
3
8
17
Jlmus
elm
T,ee
Jim, is alata
winged elm
Tree
4
3
1
Jlmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
1
d36M4.211983
18
5
4
3
4
Stem count
size fares)
size {ACRES)
SpeciesCouirt
Stems per ACRE
6
7
7
7
51
12
12
58
9
31
31
125
10
10
=
8
5
25
9
9
z4
4
4
53
9
9
5
13
13
43
15
15
76
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
B.02
0.02
0 -02
0.02
0 -02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
1:,
5
5
9
8
8
12
8
4
4
10
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
2
2
6
5
5
6
6
10
7
7
9
242-5
283.3
2590
283.3
283-3
2054
485.6
485.6
2347
364.2
1255
12551
5059
404 -7
40471
14971
323.71
325.71
10121
364.2
364.2
1376
161.91
2145
364-21
3641
526A
526-11
17401
6071
6071
3076

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
The UT Bear Cr (Weaver- McLeod) #92347 project has met its assigned performance
standards for woody stem density (stream, wetland, and buffer criteria) and bankfull
hydrology events. Ten of the 12 CVS vegetation plots exceeded the MY -5 criterion for
stream restoration (260 planted native stems per acre) and all 12 exceeded the MY -5
criterion for buffer restoration (260 planted plus volunteer native stems per acre). Over -
bank flow events occurred on the two tributaries during all or most years based on
observation of recently matted vegetation and wrack lines, including those years when the
crest gage data were ambiguous. High stage events at the USGS gage on Tick Creek a few
miles north of the site further corroborate the likelihood of overbank events on the project
site.
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS, formerly NCEEP) recommends closing
out this project with the mitigation units specified in the table on page 4, specifically:
4,551 stream mitigation units, 777,361 riparian buffer mitigation units, and 0.20 riparian
wetland mitigation units.
Attachments:
Pre - Construction & Post - Construction Photos
Appendix A: Watershed Planning Context
Appendix B: Property Ownership & Protection
Appendix C: Permits & Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix D: Debit Ledger
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 33

Pre - Restoration Photos of NORTH -UT, Nov 2006 to Mar 2007. UT Bear Cr (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 Close -Out Report
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 34

Pre - Restoration Photos of NORTH -UT, Nov 2006 to Mar 2007. UT Bear Cr (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 Close -Out Report
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 35

IA- I-k
Y .
Southern UT. *Muss wEzsting of 6.arikswhere than
{ h widtk is increasing due to (loss of deep- ro-ot t
i4•!:¢
n �: ,;Southern UT chamrietl incisi tan, lateral
t pasture -" n bank m ass wast ing. due td
�.
Pre - Restoration Photos of SOUTH -UT, Nov 2006 to Mar 2007. UT Bear Cr (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 Close -Out Report
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015
RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 36

Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) & Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: NORTH -UT Sta 10 +00 facing downstream from NC -902.
Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: NORTH -UT Sta 15 +30 facing upstream.
View of recovering forest vegetation in former pasture, now in conservation easement. Chatham Central High Sch in background.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 37

Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: NORTH -UT Sta 17 +55 facing across channel.
Stabilization of gullied lateral channel draining from pasture with rock and woody plantings.
Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: NORTH -UT Sta 22 +90 facing upstream.
Bank stabilization with log vane, willow live stakes, and other planted and volunteer vegetation.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 38

Offil
;Poo
14I'!
5
Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: NORTH -UT Sta 38 +50 facing upstream.
f -.
r
=?PLW Yt
Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: SOUTH -UT Sta 12 +10 facing downstream.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 39

Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: SOUTH -UT Sta 16 +90, cattle crossing, downstream.
Post - Restoration (3/2010 -MYO) and Current Condition (10/2014 -MY5) Comparison: SOUTH -UT Sta 27 +00, facing upstream.
LIT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Final Close -Out Report, Mar 2015 Page 40

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
92347 -UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod Property)
Watershed Characteristics Overview
The UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod Property) project is located in Chatham County, within the
Bear Creek Watershed (03030003070050). The project includes more than 4,500 ft of
restoration along Bear Creek and two Unnamed Tributaries to Bear Creek, as well as
approximately 30 ac of wetland enhancement. Bear Creek flows downstream to the Rocky River,
a major drainage of the Cape Fear River. This Bear Creek watershed is identified as a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 Cape Fear River RBRP and is located in the Upper and
Middle Rocky River Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The LWP area is —177 square miles and
includes the hydrologic units (03030003070010, 03030003070020 and 03030003070050).
According to 2012 land cover data, the Bear Creek watershed is approximately 60% forested and
30 % agriculture. In addition, the NC Natural Heritage Program has noted occurrences of several
rare, threatened, and endangered species in the lower Bear Creek watershed, including the
federally endangered Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and a number of mussel species
(Creeper (Strophitus undulates), Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa), and Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta)). Field monitoring and watershed
assessments conducted as part of the LWP identified major causes of degradation for watershed
streams, which include stream bank erosion, livestock access to streams, nutrient inputs and poor
development practices.
Links to Watershed Goals and Objectives
Table 1 below summarizes the major LWP - identified watershed stressors, recommended
management strategies and strategies addressed by the UT Bear Creek Project. As noted, the
stream restoration, wetland enhancement and riparian buffer establishment associated with the
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod Property) project address multiple stressors identified in the
LWP. Reduction in bank erosion and nutrient inputs contribute to downstream water quality and
habitat improvements for aquatic species in the lower Bear Creek watershed and Rocky River.
Table 1. Summary of LWP - identified stressors addressed by the UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod
ProUerty) Project
Stressors and
Management Strategies
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod)
Issues
Stream bank
Stream restoration, riparian buffers, livestock
Restored more than 4,500 ft of stream;
erosion
exclusion
established riparian buffer; excluded cattle
Lack of adequate
Streamside buffer ordinances, improved stream
Established more than 15 ac native riparian
forested buffer
maps, stream restoration, livestock exclusion,
buffer; enhanced 0.39 ac riparian wetland
wetland restoration
Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater retrofit, Enhanced Stormwater Utilities,
BMPs, Low Impact Development (LID), Non-
structural stormwater controls
Livestock access to
Livestock exclusion
Installed cattle exclusion fencing along more
streams
than 4,500 ft of stream within active cattle
pasture
Floodplain
Floodplain development ordinance to limit
Established approximately 30 ac conservation
development
floodplain development
easement along riparian corridor
Herbicides and
Stormwater BMPs, reduced herbicide and
pesticides
insecticide usage
Nutrients
Ag BMPs, riparian buffers, stormwater BMPs,
Installed cattle exclusion fencing; enhanced
improved wastewater treatment
0.39 ac riparian wetland
Fecal coliform
Agricultural BMPs, stormwater BMPS
Installed cattle exclusion fencing along
bacteria
stream; established riparian buffer
Poor development
Limit areas of disturbance, improved erosion and
practices
sediment control education, steep sloe protection

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
Watershed Summary
In addition to the UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod Property) project, DMS has six additional
projects in the Upper and Middle Rocky River LWP, two of which are located in the Bear Creek
TLW (03030003070050). There are also 24 agricultural BMPs associated with stream or riparian
restoration and enhancement, 11 of which are located in the Bear Creek TLW. The LWP also
contains two CWMTF projects and two 319 projects.
FA 00
Od
Tick Creek
(Condoret Tract)
Creek
it
dl
Legend
DMS Projects - Catalog unit
2015 Closeouts
DIMS Tie, I Local Watersheds
UT Bear Creek
Projects DIMS Local
(March'15) County
Majcr
Hydrography

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available
at the specified County Register of Deeds office, and linked to the property portfolio below:
Project County Grantor Property Deed/ Page Plat/ Page Area (ac)
Name Riehts
UT Bear Chatham James R. Conservation 1358/775 2007/325 32.0
Creek Weaver Easement
Weaver
McLeod
Long -term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DENR Stewardship Program.

APPENDIX C - Jurisdictional Determination & Permits
U.S, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID 211117103982 County: c atbaml USOS Quad- Fkar Creek
GE+NEF.r1LL PERMIT (RE, IsIONAL AND NAT ONWIDE,) VERIFICATIO
,Property €)caner / Autltori d Agent: NOTth Coroli:ita . tlos3? ll'i m Enharrcemeitt Proptt Fn RECEIVED
Addres€: Attu: Salam Murtada -aF C 1 0 70fl7
11652 Mail Service Center
NC 27699 -16119
NC ECOSYSTIEM
Telephone No.: 919 -i1 15-1972
ize and location ofproporty (water body, MRd name, nikmher, town. etc.): The yroiect site is locatcd an the swilllamst
jfde of NC 902 between Bear Creels and ,Jo ftmsans. f risL!k >terogs tram Central Chath.nm idlgh School and is
Identliled as the "Bear Creek Sir€arnl ResJ(w rtion Project".
I)es- riptkon ofprajccls area and activity, This )erinit vek —ifies Ink pacts to4467linear feet of stream ch -Annej drain It . El
trearm req,oration ro`ect. In aidditiun 0.39 tr f'urlsdlrtiortal werlstrtd3 611 be enbarrcaed. Two perennial
streams wjlI be restored aard oa a wetlawi ett h nicrrd as Idemtitled within the Qermit application.
Applicable Latin: S$amn 409 (glean Mater Ace, 33- l_JSC 1-1-44)
�] Section E (RIvers and Hwburs Act, 33 USC 41}3)
AuthorEmil a-n- Regional General Permit Numb=
Nattonwide Permit Nunrl}er: 27
Your work is awhori i by the shove refemnced perm it provoded it is accomapt;islrad in strict accor4an= with the aaaohcd
coladizialrs and your submitted plans_ Any violatl orr Lir the attached condifians or rlcvia ion frv-m your mbmi4ted plaits may subject the
prrmitlee to ae slop wood[ order, a restoradoji order atWor apps xrWc lopt action_
lrbis verilica6on will remal-n valid until rat expirWion date identified below unless Ihv nationwide auth riralicm is rnudifibd,
suspended or revolved. If, prior to thi tiuxpiraiion date identiried blow, ft netinnwidle permil auLborization is reissued andlnr
modified, this vcaif raLitrrr will renwin valid unlit lire cxpirmlion darte identirwd below, provided it complies wild all requ "sremenrs of
IhC rodified iiatio�awid+ permli, If the nationwide permit aul.horizatiorr expires or is suspondcd, rcvokoc, or is modified, such tEv,t the
activity would no Wn$tr comply with Lhe Lrrms and conditions of tlao nationwi& 1K Tin 1, ace vitigs vrJhirti have rwnrntnoed (i,c., are
under conisiruclion) or are udder curitracet to canr7l CKC in r-0iancc upon the nativnwidc permiL, will. rer"e ) Autltwi d Providcd the
.activity is oaurpleted Wilbin tweLrro months of date of the raricmwide penwit's expira.ti"i, rt o itica'ion tw revocation, unless
rl gcmdorary aut€ ority has bem cxerci d on a camby -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorixati-on_
Activities %uE j t to cotinn -464 (as indicated above) inay also fequke an individtmt Section 401 Water utility CcriifLeation. You
should ccwlact the W Division rrf water- Quality (telephcnc (fit gi) to deicxrritrw Section 40 l roquiret nts.
For arLivifies owarring witllio the Iwcnty coastal counties wbjUl ra rogulatiim LIO&W Ilte Goasmi Area Manegi:mcnt Act COAMA),
prior to beginning work you mu;t oontae i the N-C Division of Coastal MvnagcmcLtt ,
This I3epattmemt of the Army verification dm-s rt+]I relieve the p=illcc of the rciponsibillty 10 obtain any other required pcdcral.
State or local apPrcrwalsfpe:rnit&
Ifthe;c arG and qurstiois regarding this uetification, any of the conditions of the Fvpmit, of d v Corps of Engineers regulAtcry
F sis,, please tMntad Mtarite Malilhews,
CDrps Regulattcrry Ofd -Chat' Monte Matthews �•� f3rate: r5ertrrlt Issued vj�
staiutory rec ulrernents on
October 1. 2007
Expiralk)[i DaLeofVerif"ication. October 1, 2
ThV. Wilminglan DistricL is conholincd to priawi d ing the h ^ghost level of support to Lhu pub[ki . To help us ensuro we conlinue I4 dv rw,
please eomplelc 1..W attached ciistanmrS.alisfactiorr Survey or visit hiloili aww.sw.raw.agarc.arirly.n;ilIlk ETI-ANLW n&x.htmI to
eottrpictc the survey on Line.
Pflge II of 2 Record Document

APPENDIX C - Jurisdictional Determination & Permits
Determination orJurisdiction:
[�,wd ran prelim ury it UMI,i0n, then, appear to he eaters of lbe US Including wellands within the aibovr, descri hcd pr-kraect. area.
'This RTgliminaFy detomir ib- on is not an appealable act on tuader t1ke RegWa,twy i"rcgram Adminiskrative Appeal Process
( Reference -13 CFR Part 33 [ ).
:11wre, w Navi�a bL-14'atrrrs of Ilse Uniled States wivtltin the ab vc cf ib d project area :uubied to the pmnil ngLtu remenis -of
Sc%lion 10 -of the Rivers and Harbors Acl And -Scr i-L 4(9 a the ("1ean Water Act_ Planless there is a change in obc law or crur
publidx)d r- ogulati-ons, this drtermirmtion may be relied upoci Cur u period not to exceed Fivo years fron) the dale *f this
no-ti rieation_
77= arc, waters of the US Andlcer wetlands within the above &escribed prniccl;,%-a subject t0 the "if tx*Erermetats of S han
404 of the Clean Water Acl (CWA)(33 USC § 1 M4), Dn[rm 1heTe is a (.hwige un the law or our pubiished wguhali -ow. this
detenninalion may tic rolled upon fW K period nr}L tip exueed Eve years from Iho date of th is nvlif`icatiore-
The jurisdictiona[ weals within the above da5q�hv3 project area ika,re beeti ideitti Eed under a previous action, Please re(&0ntic
juri ictional dc!tcrminalion issucd AcLian 1D
F3asi&ofJwisdietioiial Dverminak'Lon: evidence of nn rerdinsry hIp_t vvatermv1— lc,Ano WetiariIJ&race the 1"7 V 01.1nd Drlilkg1 uet
Appeals information (ThIN Information appites only to approyecl j u r4jictic3lal cic1tJ!rmin$tia0ns.)
Attached to dus verifitmli€ a is ail approved jurisdictional delermination_ L f you are nit in agrewlent With That approvsd j>wrisdictiiuml
de erm[nalion, you 4�an make An adminbrrative aPPeal under 33 Cf-R 331. Enclosed you will firad a Nolifr tim ofAPPM1 Proa%s
(NAP) fact Otmc and request fbr appeal (Rf A) firma, if you request to +appca I dH5 fermi nation you must submit a ompletcd RFA
form to the r'olk ving address;
District lrrgkwmr, Wilmingtori Regulatory Division
Attn: Jean ?M enue .h!, Project Mailag-.r,
Ral,eigfi Re:guli ogy Fietd Office,
6508 falls of Meuse KazA Suit, 120
kiy,4, NQyth Carolina 27615
In order for ate RFA 0 W accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complctrc,1h&L i t rnCCIS the eritcriai for appe rl
vndcr 33 CF K pzit ?t31.3, and th.&L it hers baron received by the Disaia Off" wi thin -60 flays of the diao of the NAP. Shouid you
deride to submit an RFA form, it mast be rc"ivcd at the abuyc address by February A. MR.
—it is not ummary to submit are RFA form to the District Offica if you da runt ob ecE to the deierminalim in this correspcmdcn,cc. **
C:rcp -9 Regulatory Official., _Monte NtagChcw.s
Date Degemher 4, 200'11
F-xpiratian Dole Derrmber 4, 2012
SURVEY PLATS, FTFLD .9KETCH, WETLAND DSLINE„r -17100 PO", l'I OJEC°I' 1'1,A NS, ETC, MUST BF,
ATTACHED TO THE FILE C PY OF'i">i3IS FORM, REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Ftirn shed'
Page 2 oft Recefd Docunient

APPENDIX C - Jurisdictional Determination & Permits
Wd Quality Swim
R tLeigh F-cGiomJ, Office
DcP mcni Of BF1Vifor[2 -.�nj u -td Natural ReSQU=s
1 628 Mol l Smice Crnur
69h, ,North Carolina 27694 -1628
NCDENR
tffmPtmwmmkr i4-mi Pti�wfl u. Rmcuwus
PLAN REV:IEW COMMENTS
Ptojee.t N' e:, t _96 -� Nte ke iv ad- i
county ' __� ttam' .,�. I)= tlro"ssiog 1'nithatad- 3 9
Watershed: can &u* 1 in
New :Submittal (x } _ ] v;s�d Appro wd ( x } Dhapprov ( �
Rtm;ona for Disapproval( Nlodifiealion8f x Perfarmarce Reserva6ans(
The propmed accoss roads tmst be provided with a saitabic gfOWtd covor, and addit and salt
f6dM Or diver ion svwAles as -necessary t-o prevent sediment loss. It i.s'not Cleor whothtr the
access road9 alr dy exin, and it appears that the pmstruetion ucces s pads `ill not exti�nd to the
Public readway as irLdl'caWl by the CODSTfuctiOn detail. Plea. &-, provide opdated deeds for the
ccesa ro $ prior t.0 1AWgtiq �► MOtjonw e 1 , please, provido a copy of the dosig�e g.._
l pamll dat'a & th �'T e l cone[ d floodPlain dt:si crosse ti n alt appous 4hat thn
proposed sxahili tion praeti�cvs vwiji he su cie -nt for anticipLied shaar stresse9, hit the data F'br
tho rderonce rcach. etr, would bo helpful).
Record Document

Mitigation Project UT Bear Creek (Weaver / McLeod Property)
DMS IMS ID 92347
River Basin CAPE FEAR
Cataloging Unit 03030003
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 04/28/2015
y m Em 6
z
E
Em L u c
m
N im
C
a °
U
m
K
W
O c
° E N
O N
ZK
.� o c
- C U
°
z
C N o . C d y u c
C
O
Z
•ma- C ry C 0 Z
m N
O d
Z
m ~N 1/i m o d C O N
�
m p y
f m N N A L e A E C d u
W
i
2 O
7777,3611.00
m
� A d n L W E y uc A
iE
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
4,551.00
0.39
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
4,551.00
0.1951
777,361.00
NCDOT Pre -DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DMS Debits feet and acres):
DWR Permits
USACE Action IN
Impact Project Name
2006 -0331
2004 -00340
NCDOT TIP R- 06091A / IB /
R -2606 - US 311 Bypass
(Future 1 -73 / 74), Guilford &
Randolph Co
2,454.00
2013 -0477
1999 -21179
NCDOT TIP U -3615B - SR
1820 Improvements, Guilford
Co
0.39
Riparian Buffer Restoration ILF Credit Purchase
777,361.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
2,097.00
0.00
0.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
12,097.001
0.00
1 0.00
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 04/28/2015

Mitigation Project LIT Bear Creek (Weaver / McLeod Property)
DMS IMS ID 92347
River Basin CAPE FEAR
Cataloging Unit 03030003
Comment: This ledger shows the debits for the amount of mitigation that the Riparian Buffer ILF Program purchased from the NCDOT ILF Program.
The beginning balance represents the amount purchased and not the total mitigation credits available on the site.
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 04/28/2015
`o_
c
c
p
c
c
o
c
E
c
o
o
c
o
c
0
w
o
.�
p
E
w
m
v
E
o
m
E
E
E
E
L
N
L
d
U
L
C
W
O.
L
N
w
K
C
O
w
UI
d
W
c
a
W
0.
.
C
'°
Lur
L
w
C
2
O
m
m
E
LU
E
m
m
m
`m
g
C
'`m
a
_
is
i
c
—
z
O
W
m
m
N
a
.�a
a
O
a
Y
CO
m
Z
z
N
in
�
z°
z
o
Z
°
Z
o
U
v
m
U
o
U
m
N
E
A
N
v
m
Beginning Balance (square feet)
777,361.00
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
777,361.00
NCDOT Pre -DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DMS ILF ID
DWR Permit No
Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP R -0609 / R -2606 -
High Point East Beltway /
ILF - 2008 -6337
2006 -0331
Future 1 -73/74
777,361.00
Remaining Balance (riparian buffer credits)
0.00
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 04/28/2015