20071392 Ver 1_Mitigation Closeout Report_20150902

Cat Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCDMS Project Number: 71
USACE ACTION ID # 2009-00361
DWQ Project # 07-1392

2015 CLOSEOUT REPORT

Page 2 of 50

Project Setting & Classifications
35.198030, -83.341260 (Preservation Drive)
County Macon
General Location Franklin
Basin Little Tennessee
Physiographic Region Blue Ridge
Ecoregion Southern Mountains
USGS Hydro Unit 06010202-040010
NCDWQ Sub-Basin 04-04-01
Thermal Regime Cold
Wetland Classification Riparian
Trout Water No; Class C
Project Performers
Source Agency NCDMS
Provider Design Bid Build
Designer AECOM
Monitoring Firm Equinox
Channel Remediation Fluvial Systems.
Plant Remediation Bruton Natural Systems
Property Interest Holder NCDOT
LOI N/A
Approved for Transfer to
Stewardship Yes
Stewards NCDOT Stewardship

Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Completion or
Delivery
Project Instituted 2005
Interagency Transfer 2005
Permitted 2007 (401) 2009 (404)
Construction Completed * June - 2010
Planting Completed January 2010
As-Built survey and data
collection Complete June - 2010
As-Built Baseline Monitoring
Report Complete March 2011
Year 1 Monitoring** March - 2011
Year 2 Monitoring December - 2011
Year 3 Monitoring December – 2012
Invasive Plant Control Oct/Dec-- 2013
Year 4 Monitoring January - 2014
Invasive Plant Control June 2014
Beaver Removal September - 2014
Invasive Plant Control October-2014
Beaver Removal December - 2014
Year 5 Monitoring January - 2015
Invasive Plant Control February-2015
Closeout Submission July-2015
* Construction on the project was not considered complete
until invasive species control was performed in June, 2010;
however, all channel construction and planting was complete
by January 2010.
**MY 1 data collected in December 2010.

Page 3 of 50

Project Setting and Background Summary
The Cat Creek stream and wetland restoration site in Macon County, North Carolina was identified by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
as a potential stream, riparian buffer, and wetland restoration site. The site consists of reaches on four separate tracts of land referred to as: Swartwout, Waldroop,
Parker, and Preserve. The Swartwout, Parker, and Preserve tracts were purchased by the NCDOT, while the Waldroop tract is in private ownership. Following
initial studies of the site by NCDOT beginning in 2002, the site was turned over to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (now Division of Mitigation Services) in
2005 for final design, construction, and monitoring. A permanent Conservation Easement was obtained for the Waldroop tract. The Waldroop Conservation
Easement was recorded in 2008.
The restoration area entails 7,105 linear feet of Cat Creek, and 948 linear feet of four small tributaries in a rural area of Macon County. Cat Creek and the
tributaries have been impacted by past land use including use as pastureland and a golf course. Both stream restoration and enhancement was proposed for the
various reaches of Cat Creek dependent upon the existing stream conditions and other constraints. The type of restoration by tract is presented in table 1 below.
Wetland restoration and enhancement also occurred on the Swartwout, Parker, and Preserve tracts. Restoration activities were performed to restore pre-disturbance
hydrology to the site by removing fill and drain tiles. Following fill removal these areas were planted with native hardwoods. Areas proposed for enhancement are
areas that still retained hydrology to qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. These areas, at a minimum, were planted with hardwoods. In some of the enhancement
areas, hydrologic enhancement also occurred with the removal of drain tiles. Livestock were removed from the Swartwout Tract.
In December 2013 (Monitoring Year 4), wetland boundary delineations were performed to confirm the boundary of wetland features on the project site. A Level-II
Routine Determination method, as outlined in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), was used to identify wetland boundaries. A total of 8.97acres of
wetlands were delineated within the project site, including 7.55 acres of restoration and 1.42 acres of enhancement. The MY4 wetland boundary delineation
indicates a 1 acre expansion in total wetland area compared to the original baseline delineation of 7.97 acres. The shift in acreage is a result of a 0.13 acre and 0.02
acre loss on the Swartwout and Cat Creek Preserve tracts, respectively, and a 1.15 acre expansion on the Parker tract. The 0.13 acre loss on the Swartwout tract
failed to meet the hydric soil field indicator. The 0.02 acre loss on the Cat Creek Preserve tract failed to meet hydrology success criteria 3 of the 4 monitoring
years. Most of the expansion on the Parker tract was along the right and left descending banks on the upstream end of the tract, as well as several areas along the
periphery of previously delineated areas. Assets in the maps depicted as “not meeting” have been removed from the mitigation assets.

In general, the easement is well vegetated with both herbaceous and woody stems well established throughout the project. The stream components have exhibited
stability since MY1 after an initial settling, post-construction. Minor areas of deposition and scour were noted throughout all reaches, but did not exceed a level
expected in natural stream systems. Remediation activities associated with the project were related to beaver activity on the lower end of the Parker and Preserve
Tracts and invasive plant control throughout the project (Figure 4). Beaver dams were promptly removed with only temporary impacts to the channel bed and
bank documented. Likewise, herbaceous vegetation was temporarily impacted within impounded areas, however has since re-established. A total of four invasive
plant control treatments were applied, with one additional treatment planned for 2015.

Page 4 of 50

Goals and Objectives
As stated in the March 2011 Cat Creek Mitigation Report, the specific objectives and goals of the project are as follows:
Project Goals:
 Provide a stable stream channel for the main channel and the unnamed tributaries to Cat Creek that neither aggrades nor degrades while
maintaining their dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport their watershed’s water and sediment load.
 Improve water quality to the receiving watershed through stream bank stabilization measures, the installation of a riparian buffer, and the
exclusion of livestock.
 Improve aquatic habitat of the main channel and tributaries with the use of natural material stabilization structures such as root wads, rock
vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer.
 Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through the creation or enhancement of a riparian zone.
 Create contiguous wildlife corridor and provide diverse amphibian habitat with added topographic and wetland features.
 Provide shading and biomass input to the stream and mast for wildlife when vegetation is mature.
 Enhance wetland biochemical and geo-chemical processes over an extended area.

Project Objectives:
 Restore or enhance over 8,881 feet of Cat Creek and its tributaries.
 Restore a natural riparian buffer .Plant native trees and shrubs throughout site.
 Restore or enhance 7.97 acres of swamp forest bog complex wetlands.

Page 5 of 50

Success Criteria:

Success Criteria Measured Parameter Criteria Met
Stream Dimension, Pattern, and Profile- Minor changes
such as settling of the channel and banks, increase in
vegetative density, decrease in width/depth ratio, and
decrease in cross sectional area may occur and can be
interpreted as a shift towards stability. Longitudinal profiles
should show that bedform remains stable. Short term
aggradation and degredation may occur depending on peak
annual discharge. Planform geometry should not change
over the monitoring period.

13 cross-sections (7 riffle and 6 pools); 2,885
feet of longitudinal profile.
Yes- Dimension, pattern, and profile
have remained stable throughout the
monitoring period. Cross-section data
shows relatively little change between
years. Longitudinal profiles indicate that
bedform has remained stable with some
short-term scour and deposition.
Bed Material- D50 and D84 should increase (become
coarser) in riffles and decrease (become finer) in pools. 13 pebble counts at permanent cross-sections
Yes- Substrate is coarser in riffles and
finer in pools. D50 has remained
relatively stable at each cross-section
over the monitoring period.
Stream Hydrology- Two bankfull events occurring in
separate years
Two crest gauges; one on lower Swartwout and
one on lower parker
Yes- A total of five bankfull events were
documented over the monitoring period,
with three occurring in separate years. A
variety of flows were documented in the
watershed.
Wetland Hydrology- 8% success criteria for all wetland
assets 18 groundwater monitoring wells
Yes- With the exception of CC-7 and
CC-18 all wells met hydrology a
majority of the monitoring period.
Assets were adjusted accordingly based
on data from failing wells.
Vegetation- Minimum of 260 stems per acre after year five. 12 permanent vegetation plots
Yes- With the exception of plot 2, 7, and
10, all plots are meeting the vegetation
criterion. When natural stems are
included, all plots exceed the vegetation
criterion.

Page 6 of 50

Table 1. Cat Creek Project Components

Project
Component or
Reach ID
Existing
Feet/Acres
Restoration
Level Approach
Restored
Footage or
Acreage
Stationing 1 Creditable Footage
or Acreage3
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
(SMUs/WMUs)4 BMP Elements Comment
Cat Creek - Upper
Swartwout 900 lf E2 900 00+00 - 09+00 638 2.5 255 Livestock exclusion, buffer
plantings, bank stabilization
Cat Creek - Lower
Swartwout 770 lf R P1 818 09+00 - 17+18 818 1 807
Cat Creek - Upper
Waldroup 1,438 lf E2 1,439 17+49 - 32+13 2 1,439 2.5 576 Equipment crossing and
watering stations
Livestock exclusion, buffer
plantings
Cat Creek - Lower
Waldroup 482 lf E1 482 34+37 - 39+19 482 1.5 304 Cattle crossing and
watering stations
Livestock exclusion, buffer
plantings, and structure to
provide enhanced profile
Cat Creek - Parker 1,750 lf R P1 1,871 39+19 - 57+90 1,871 1 1861
Cat Creek Preserve 1,765 lf E1 1,879 59+24 - 78+03 1,879 1.5 1253
Grade control, turbulent
riffles to add habitat, buffer
plantings, and invasive
species management
UT1 100 lf E2 115 100+00 - 101+15 115 2.5 46 Livestock exclusion, buffer
plantings
UT1 363 lf R P1 458 101+15 - 105+73 458 1 437
UT2 210 lf R P1 381 200+00 - 203+81 381 1 381
UT3 165 lf R P1 291 300+00 - 302+91 291 1 280
UT4 110 lf R P1 241 400+00 - 402+41 241 1 230
Swartwout Wetlands R 1.11 0.98 1 0.93
E 0.51 0.51 2 0.25
Livestock exclusion,
removal of drain pipe,
plantings
Parker Wetlands R 4.73 5.88 1 5.80
E 0.25 0.25 2 0.13
Preserve Wetlands R 0.71 0.69 1 0.69
E 0.66 0.66 2 0.33
=Non-Applicable
1Stationing was Realigned in MY2 to Accurately Depict the Stream Reaches
2Stationing Includes a 25 Foot Crossing
3Footage adjusted to exclude one-sided buffer on Upper Swartwout; Acreage updated based on MY4 wetland boundary delineation
4Credits adjusted for 50% reduction in powerline ROWs
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 71

Page 7 of 50

Table 2. Cat Creek Component Summations

Table 3. Cat Creek Overall Asset Summary – Requested at Closeout

Asset Category Total Credits
Stream 6,429
RP Wetland 8.13

Page 8 of 50

Figure 1. Cat Creek Assets and Reaches Map – Overview

Page 9 of 50

Figure 1. Cat Creek Assets and Reaches Map – Sheet 1

Page 10 of 50

Figure 1 cont’d. Cat Creek Assets and Reaches – Sheet 2

Page 11 of 50

Figure 2. Cat Creek Monitoring Features Map—Sheet 1

Page 12 of 50

Figure 2 cont’d. Cat Creek Monitoring Features Map—Sheet 2

Page 13 of 50

Figure 3. Cat Creek Hydrologic and Topographic Features

Page 14 of 50

Figure 4. Soil Series in the vicinity of Cat Creek

Page 15 of 50

Figure 5. Cat Creek Project Remediation Map—Sheet 1

Page 16 of 50

Figure 5 cont’d. Cat Creek Project Remediation Map – Sheet 2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Easement
Cat EII 30 Buffer
CAT EI 30 Buffer
Cat R TOB 30 Buffer
Cat Creek Buffer Map
.
.800 0 800400 Feet

Page 17 of 50

Figure 6. Cat Creek Swartwout Reach Cross-Section Overlay

2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cat Creek -Swartwout
Cross-Section 1 -Riffle
Station 11 + 16
As-built 2010 MY1 12/2010 MY2 5/25/2011 MY3 4/11/2012 MY4 4/1/2013 MY5 4/2/2014 Bkf
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cat Creek -Swartwout
Cross-Section 2 -Pool
Station 12 + 86
As-built 2010 MY1 12/2010 MY2 5/25/2011 MY3 4/11/2012 MY4 4/1/2013 MY5 4/2/2014 Bkf
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cat Creek -Swartwout
Cross-Section 3 -Riffle
Station 13 + 50
As-built 2010 MY1 12/2010 MY2 5/25/2011 MY3 4/11/2012 MY4 4/1/2013 MY5 4/2/2014 Bkf

Page 18 of 50

Figure 6 con’d. Cat Creek Parker Reach Cross-Section Overlays

Page 19 of 50

Figure 6 cont’d. Cat Creek Parker Reach Cross-Section Overlays Continued

Page 20 of 50

Figure 6 cont’d. Cat Creek UT-1 Cross-Section Overlays

2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
UT 1
Cross-Section 1 -Riffle
Station 102 + 68
As-built 2010 MY1 12/2010 MY2 5/25/2011 MY3 4/11/2012 MY4 4/1/2013 MY5 4/2/2014 Bkf
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
UT 1
Cross-Section 2 -Pool
Station 104 + 09
As-built 2010 MY1 12/2010 MY2 5/25/2011 MY3 4/11/2012 MY4 4/1/2013 MY5 4/2/2014 Bkf

Page 21 of 50

Figure 7. Cat Creek Restoration Site Longitudinal Profiles; MY0-MY5

2097
2099
2101
2103
2105
2107
2109
2111
2113
2115
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cat Creek -Swartwout
Longitudinal Profile
Stationing 09+04 -17+23
As-Built 2010 Thalweg MY1 12/2010 Thalweg MY2 5/26/2011 Thalweg MY3 4/11/2012 Thalweg MY4 4/1/2013 Thalweg MY5 4/3/2014 Bkf WS Structures MY2 Linear (Bkf)
XS1 -R
XS3 -RXS2-P
Average Bankfull SlopeAverage Bankfull Slope

Page 22 of 50

Figure 7 cont’d. Cat Creek Restoration Site Longitudinal Profiles; MY0-MY5

2060
2062
2064
2066
2068
2070
2072
2074
2076
2078
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cat Creek -Parker
Longitudinal Profile
Stationing 40+35 -57+07
As-Built 2010 Thalweg MY1 12/2010 Thalweg MY2 5/26/2011 Thalweg MY3 4/12/2012 Thalweg MY4 4/2/2013 Thalweg MY5 4/2/2014 Bkf WS Structures MY2 Linear (Bkf)
XS4 -P
XS6 -P
XS5 -R
Average Bankfull Slope
XS7 -R
XS9 -P
XS8 -R
XS11 -P
XS10 -R

Page 23 of 50

Figure 7 cont’d. Cat Creek Restoration Site Longitudinal Profiles; MY0-MY5

2097
2099
2101
2103
2105
2107
2109
2111
2113
2115
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
UT1
Longitudinal Profile
Stationing 101+59 -105+53
As-Built 2010 Thalweg MY1 12/2010 Thalweg MY2 5/26/2011 Thalweg MY3 4/11/2012 Thalweg MY4 4/1/2013 Thalweg MY5 4/3/2014 Bkf WS Structures MY2 Linear (Bkf)
XS1 -R
XS2 -P
Average Bankfull Slope

Page 24 of 50

Table 4. Cross-Section Dimensional Morphology Summary

Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Record Elevation (datum) Used 2109.5 2109.5 2109.8 2109.8 2109.8 2109.8 2106.8 2106.8 2107.0 2107.0 2107.0 2107.0 2107.6 2107.6 2106.5 2106.5 2106.5 2106.5
Bankfull Width (ft)10.8 12.0 12.7 12.9 9.8 8.9 18.3 22.0 18.6 18.4 8.6 7.4 12.6 13.3 12.7 14.9 11.2 10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)45.0 45.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 60.0 60.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 45.0 45.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.2 2.7 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)7.9 7.6 7.0 5.9 4.9 6.4 17.0 16.9 14.2 12.8 9.7 9.2 11.8 12.0 10.4 9.1 7.9 8.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.7 18.7 23.1 28.3 19.8 12.3 19.7 28.6 24.3 26.6 7.6 5.9 13.4 14.8 15.6 24.3 15.8 14.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.2 3.8 >7.9 >7.7 >10.2 >11.2 3.3 2.7 >5.4 >5.4 >11.6 >13.6 3.6 3.4 >7.8 >6.7 >8.9 >9.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio --1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 --1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Sectional Area between End Pins (ft 2)--7.2 6.0 4.9 10.5 --14.2 12.8 9.7 17.5 --10.4 9.2 7.9 20.5
d50 (mm)0.50 19.30 1.50 6.50 11.00 16.00 0.21 0.06 0.47 2.00 0.06 0.28 0.30 0.19 4.00 7.40 8.70 7.60
- Information unavailable.
*Elevation data was offset to match MY2 data
Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Sections)
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 71 - Cat Creek Swartwout (810 feet)
*Cross-Section 1
Riffle
*Cross-Section 2
Pool
*Cross-Section 3
Riffle
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Record Elevation (datum) Used 2075.0 2075.0 2075.5 2075.5 2075.5 2075.5 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2073.1 2071.1 2071.2 2071.2 2071.2 2071.2 2071.2
Bankfull Width (ft)24.9 26.0 31.3 32.2 31.4 30.6 24.4 24.1 26.0 25.5 24.1 25.4 28.4 28.6 27.9 28.2 28.5 28.5 22.5 24.0 23.0 23.1 23.1 23.7
Floodprone Width (ft)80.0 80.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 180.0 180.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 160.0 160.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 240.0 270.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.2 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.8 3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)28.9 28.2 38.2 37.6 32.6 35.6 28.2 26.6 27.8 25.8 22.7 22.5 47.9 48.0 45.5 44.5 43.9 43.0 33.0 34.8 33.3 33.5 33.5 33.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 21.5 23.8 25.6 27.6 30.3 26.3 21.3 21.7 24.3 25.3 25.6 28.7 16.8 17.0 17.1 17.9 18.6 18.8 15.3 16.5 16.0 16.0 15.9 16.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 3.1 >6.4 >6.2 >6.4 >6.5 7.4 7.5 >7.7 >7.8 >8.3 >7.9 5.6 5.6 >7.2 >7.1 >7.0 >7.0 10.7 11.3 >8.7 >8.7 >8.7 >8.4
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
Cross Sectional Area between End Pins (ft 2)--38.2 37.6 32.6 49.9 --27.8 25.8 22.7 40.0 --45.5 44.5 43.9 55.6 --36.4 36.5 33.5 36.9
d50 (mm)0.36 0.14 0.44 1.70 16.00 0.63 0.46 0.24 8.90 9.20 23.00 20.00 0.29 0.14 0.56 1.90 8.00 0.25 1.80 0.11 0.06 6.60 9.50 12.00
- Information unavailable.
N/A - Item does not apply.
Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Sections)
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 71 - Cat Creek Parker (1,672 feet)
Cross-Section 4
Pool
Cross-Section 5
Riffle
Cross-Section 6
Pool
Cross-Section 7
Riffle

Page 25 of 50

Table 4 cont’d. Cross-Section Dimensional Morphology Summary
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Record Elevation (datum) Used 2068.4 2068.7 2069.2 2069.2 2069.2 2069.2 2066.5 2066.5 2067.2 2067.2 2067.2 2067.2 2066.1 2066.2 2066.4 2066.4 2066.4 2066.4 2065.2 2065.2 2065.7 2065.7 2065.7 2065.7
Bankfull Width (ft)18.0 20.7 32.6 32.4 32.5 32.2 15.7 18.5 30.6 29.7 28.5 28.8 20.6 23.6 25.9 26.7 25.7 26.1 23.6 23.7 37.3 35.9 34.7 35.6
Floodprone Width (ft)170.0 170.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 260.0 260.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 140.0 140.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 140.0 140.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0 >200.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.0 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.5 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.5 4.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)22.3 23.8 35.5 34.7 33.9 33.2 25.7 29.7 40.8 36.9 34.0 30.7 30.4 28.8 33.2 31.5 30.1 31.7 33.0 32.4 45.0 42.7 44.7 52.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.5 18.0 29.9 30.3 31.2 31.3 9.7 11.5 23.0 23.9 23.9 27.0 13.9 19.4 20.3 22.6 21.8 21.5 16.9 17.3 31.0 30.2 27.0 24.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 9.4 8.2 >6.1 >6.2 >6.2 >6.2 16.6 14.1 >6.5 >6.7 >7.0 >6.9 6.8 5.9 >7.7 >7.5 >7.8 >7.7 5.9 5.9 >5.4 >5.6 >5.8 >5.6
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
Cross Sectional Area between End Pins (ft 2)--35.5 34.7 33.9 52.9 --40.8 36.9 34.0 37.6 --35.4 33.1 30.1 40.9 --45.0 42.7 44.7 67.7
d50 (mm)1.33 2.00 2.00 6.00 9.40 14.00 0.34 0.26 0.41 0.63 1.30 0.23 0.45 32.45 7.30 22.00 15.00 32.00 0.18 0.05 0.36 1.30 0.74 0.21
- Information unavailable.
*Elevation data was offset to match MY2 data
Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Sections)
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 71 - Cat Creek Parker (1,672 feet)
Cross-Section 8
Riffle
Cross-Section 9
Pool
Cross-Section 10
Riffle
*Cross-Section 11
Pool
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Record Elevation (datum) Used 2107.9 2107.9 2108.6 2108.6 2108.6 2108.6 2105.8 2105.8 2106.2 2106.2 2106.2 2106.2
Bankfull Width (ft)16.6 20.9 19.5 18.9 19.7 19.9 16.6 17.9 16.3 16.8 7.3 7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)85.0 85.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 200.0 200.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)13.1 15.8 16.3 15.4 14.3 15.1 12.1 11.1 12.0 11.5 9.8 11.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 21.0 27.5 23.3 23.2 27.1 26.2 21.8 28.9 22.2 24.4 5.5 4.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 5.1 4.1 >5.1 >5.3 >5.1 >5.0 12.1 11.2 >6.1 >6.0 >13.6 >14.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio --1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Sectional Area between End Pins (ft 2)--16.3 15.4 14.3 37.9 --14.5 12.7 9.8 21
d50 (mm)0.19 24.95 4.90 15.00 15.00 18.00 0.11 0.06 0.33 0.44 0.06 0.06
- Information unavailable.
*Elevation data was offset to match MY2 data
Dimensional Morphology Summary UT Crab Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 857 - UT1 - Upper (500 Feet)
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Sections)
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 71 - Cat Creek UT1 (396 feet)
*Cross-Section 1
Riffle
*Cross-Section 2
Pool

Page 26 of 50

Figure 8. Gage Data for the nearby Cartoogechaye Creek; 2010-2015

Table 5. Bankfull Event Documentation for the Cat Creek Restoration Site
.

Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence Method
No Events in 2010
No Events in 2011
3/29/2012 11/28/2011 Crest gauge & wrack lines
1/23/2013 1/17/2013 Crest gauge & wrack lines
4/2/2013 1/30/2013 Crest gauge & wrack lines
8/20/2013 Unknown Crest gauge & wrack lines
7/9/2014 Unknown Crest gauge
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No.71

Page 27 of 50

Table 6. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Cat Creek Stream & Wetland / Project No. 71
Gauge ID Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2010)
Year 2
(2011)
Year 3
(2012)
Year 4
(2013)
Year 5
(2014)
CC-1 Yes/ 35 Percent Yes/31
16.8 Percent
Yes/42
22.6 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/135
73.0 Percent
CC-2 Yes/ 16 Percent Yes/37
20.0 Percent
Yes/26
14.0 Percent
Yes/65
35.1 Percent
Yes/39
21.1 Percent
CC-3 Yes/ 8 Percent Yes/24
13.0 Percent
No/13
7.0 Percent
Yes/42
22.7 Percent
Yes/23
12.4 Percent
CC-4 Yes/ 35 Percent Yes/88
47.6 Percent
Yes/64
34.4 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-5 Yes/ 32 Percent Yes/50
27.0 Percent
Yes/52
28.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/83
44.9 Percent
CC-6 No/ 2 Percent Yes/25
13.5 Percent
Yes/18
9.7 Percent
Yes/61
33.0 Percent
Yes/38
20.5 Percent
CC-7 No/ 0 Percent No/12
6.5 Percent
No/12
6.5 Percent
Yes/41
22.2 Percent
Yes/24
13.0 Percent
CC-8 Yes/ 33 Percent Yes/39
21.1 Percent
Yes/65
34.9 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-9 Yes/ 22 Percent Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-10 Yes/ 9 Percent Yes/97
52.4 Percent
Yes/72
38.7 Percent
Yes/94
50.8 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-11 Yes/ 11 Percent Yes/27
14.6 Percent
Yes/40
21.5 Percent
Yes/61
33.0 Percent
Yes/40
21.6 Percent
CC-12 Yes/ 41 Percent Yes/50
27.0 Percent
Yes/46
24.7 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-13 N/A Yes/118
63.8 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-14 Yes/ 30 Percent Yes/26
14.1 Percent
Yes/65
34.9 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/82
44.3 Percent
CC-15 Yes/ 33 Percent Yes/88
47.6 Percent
Yes/73
39.2 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-16 Yes/ 100 Percent Yes/139
75.1 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-17 N/A Yes/117
63.2 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
Yes/186
100.0 Percent
CC-18 No/ 3 Percent Yes/23
12.4 Percent
No/4
2.2 Percent
Yes/22
11.9 Percent
No/11
5.9 Percent
Hydrology Success Criteria = 8%

Page 28 of 50

Table 7. Planted at the Cat Creek Restoration Site

Carya glabra Pignut Hickory 12.5%1000
Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory 12.5%1000
Quercus Rubra Northern Red Oak 12.5%1000
Ulmus americana American Elm 12.5%1000
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 12.5%1000
Juglans nigra Black Walnut 12.5%1000
Plantanus occidentalis Sycamore 12.5%1000
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 12.5%1000
Linera benzois Spicebush 33.3%5
Viburnum nudum Possum-haw 33.3%5
Hamamelis virginiana Witch Hazel 33.3%5
Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory 25%1400
Fraxinus pennsylvanicum Green Ash 25%1400
Betula nigra River Birch 25%1400
Ulmus americana American Elm 25%1400
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 33.3%10
Leucothoe fontanesiana Dog-hobble 33.3%10
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 33.3%10
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 25%1625
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood 25%1625
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 25%1625
Salix sericea Sily Willow 25%1625
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 33.3%50
Leucothoe fontanesiana Dog-hobble 33.3%50
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 33.3%50
Juncus acuminatus Tapertip Rush 88.6%15600
Juncus effusis Soft Rush 11.4%2000
Salix nigra Black Willow N/A -
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 25%-
Panicum clandestinum Deer Tongue 15%-
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 10%-
Tridens flavus Purple Top 10%-
Verbisina atlemifolia Wingstem 10%-
Juncus effusis Soft Rush 10%-
Chasmasnthium laxum Slender Spikegrass 5%-
Polygonum persicaria Lady's Thumb 5%-
Polygonum pennsylvanicum Knotweed 5%-
Eragrostis curcula Weeping Lovegrass 5%-
- information unavailable
* numbers based on Cat Creek construction plans
Permanent Seed Mix
Wetland and Floodplain (Trees)
Wetland and Floodplain (Shrubs)
Streambank Vegetation (Shrubs)
Streambank Vegetation (Trees)
Streambank vegetation (Plugs)
Streambank vegetation (Brush Mattress)
Scientific Name Common Name Percent Planted by Species*Total Number of Stems*
Upland Community (Trees)
Upland Community (Shrubs)

Page 29 of 50

Cat Creek Stem Density (planted stems/ac) Years 1-5

Cat Creek 71 - Plot Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Year 1 364 243 486 405 445 728 243 688 445 121 445 283 364 526
Year 2 364 202 486 364 445 728 202 687 445 121 445 283 364 526
Year 3 364 202 486 405 445 728 202 647 364 121 445 283 364 486
Year 4 364 202 486 405 445 728 202 647 324 121 445 283 364 486
Year 5 283 202 486 364 445 728 202 647 283 121 445 324 364 486

Page 30 of 50

Table 8. MY5 Planted and Total Stem Counts for the Cat Creek Restoration Site

P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T
Acer rubrum var. rubrumRed maple Tree 9 1 3 7
Alnus serrulata Tag alder Shrub 2 9 5 6 3 1 3 5 5 1 6 3 3 2 3
Aronia arbutifolia Red chokeberry Shrub 2 2
Betula nigra River birch Tree 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 3 3 4 4 1 1 5 5 1 1
Celtis occidentalis Common hackberry Tree 2 2
Cephalanthus occidentalisCommon buttonbush Shrub 1 1
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Shrub 13 6 4
Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon Tree
Fagus grandifolia var. grandifoliaAmerican beech Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 2
Ilex verticillata Common winterberry Shrub
Juglans nigra Black walnut Tree 1
Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipiferaTulip-tree Tree 1 3 3 2 2 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Tree 1 1
Pinus strobus Eastern white pine Tree
Pinus virginiana Virginia pine Tree
Platanus occidentalis var. occidentalisSycamore Tree 5 7 1 2 1
Prunus serotina Black cherry Tree
Quercus montana Chestnut oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow oak Tree 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 2 2
Quercus rubra var. rubraNorthern red oak Tree 1
Rosa palustris Swamp rose Shrub
Salix nigra Black willow Tree 4 1
Sambucus canadensis Common elderberry Shrub
Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Tree 1 1
Unknown Shrub or Tree
7 22 5 13 12 13 9 16 11 28 17 24 5 17 16 24 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 8 3 4 4 4 4 6 7 9 7 8 2 4 5 7 5 5
283.28 890.31 202.34 526.09 485.62 526.09 364.22 647.5 445.15 1133.1 687.97 971.25 202.34 687.97 647.5 971.25 283.28 323.75
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
Plot 09
Current Plot Data MY5 2014
Cat Creek / Project No. 71
Plot 01 Plot 02 Plot 03 Plot 04 Plot 05 Plot 06 Plot 07 Plot 08
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Color for Density

Page 31 of 50

Table 8 cont’d. MY5 and Annual Average Planted and Total Stem Counts for the Cat Creek Restoration Site

MY3 (2012)MY2 (2011)
P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T P-all T
Acer rubrum var. rubrumRed maple Tree 7 3 30 106 30 14
Alnus serrulata Tag alder Shrub 2 3 4 4 2 4 2 2 29 51 28 80 28 53 27 29
Aronia arbutifolia Red chokeberry Shrub 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5
Betula nigra River birch Tree 3 3 1 1 2 3 19 21 19 21 19 20 19 19
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 3 3 1 1 20 20 21 21 20 23 20 21
Celtis occidentalis Common hackberry Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cephalanthus occidentalisCommon buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1 1 2 2
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Shrub 6 7 1 1 1 1 38 1 101 1 95 1 42
Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon Tree 2 2 1
Fagus grandifolia var. grandifoliaAmerican beech Tree 2 2 3 3 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Tree 3 3 4 4 1 1 16 16 16 19 16 17 16 16
Ilex verticillata Common winterberry Shrub 1
Juglans nigra Black walnut Tree 1 10 7 11
Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipiferaTulip-tree Tree 6 7 6 12 6 7 6 6
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Tree 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 5
Pinus strobus Eastern white pine Tree 3 3
Pinus virginiana Virginia pine Tree 2
Platanus occidentalis var. occidentalisSycamore Tree 4 1 15 7 29 7 58 7 42 7 20
Prunus serotina Black cherry Tree 1 1
Quercus montana Chestnut oak Tree 1
Quercus phellos Willow oak Tree 1 1 2 2 18 18 19 19 21 23 24 24
Quercus rubra var. rubraNorthern red oak Tree 1
Rosa palustris Swamp rose Shrub 9 18 1
Salix nigra Black willow Tree 4 1 10 11 17 7
Sambucus canadensis Common elderberry Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Unknown Shrub or Tree 3 3
3 10 11 11 8 24 9 21 12 31 133 263 136 493 138 375 140 233
1 1 1 1 1 14 14 14 14
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
2 3 4 4 4 6 4 7 7 10 15 20 15 24 15 20 13 19
121.41 404.69 445.15 445.15 323.75 971.25 364.22 849.84 485.62 1254.5 384.45 760.23 393.12 1425.1 398.9 1084 404.69 673.51
Annual Means
Plot 10 Plot 11 Plot 12 Plot 13 Plot 14 MY5 (2014)MY4 (2013)
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Table X. Current Plot Data (MY5 2014)
Cat Creek / Project No. 71
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Color for Density

Page 32 of 50

Property Issues:
A permanent Conservation Easement
was obtained for the Waldroop tract.
The Conservation Easement was
recorded in 2008. Prior to the 2008
cattle and horses had access to the
streams on the property. The
Waldroop tract was included in the
project to connect the existing NCDOT
tracts which are owned fee simple by
NCDOT.

Due to the existing agricultural land
use, the property owners were
unwilling to place a full 30 foot stream
buffer on their section of the project
site. DMS obtained the maximum
amount of conservation easement that
the landowners would approve in 2008.
In addition, DMS acquired an
additional 20 feet from the restricted
conservation easement.
The additional conservation easement
area stipulates that agricultural
practices are currently allowed in this
additional 20 foot buffer area;
however, if the parent tract is ever
taken out of agricultural use, all
conservation easement restrictions will
apply to the full easement area in perpetuity. In December 2013, the landowners placed the entire parent tract in a farm conservation easement. Based on this
unique easement and the additional buffer on the three tracts owned fee simple by NCDOT, DMS is requesting that the Enhancement I and II project credits on the
Waldroop tract not be reduced.

Page 33 of 50

“Easement Area B - All reserved uses and restricted activities for Easement Area A set forth above apply to Easement Area B with the exception of E (Agricultural
Use). No waste lagoons or permanent structures may be placed in Easement Area B at any time, however, cropland and pastureland uses are allowed in
accordance with agricultural best management practices. Such practices are allowed in Easement Area B, as long as the parent tract is being used by the Grantor
as cropland, pasture land, or other agricultural uses, as defined by the North Carolina General Statute Related to Present Use Values: G.S. 105-277.2, and in
accordance with water quality protection goals. If the parent tract is ever taken out of such agricultural uses, Grantor shall notify Grantee of this change, and
then all restrictions above that are specified for Easement Area A will then apply to Easement Area B, including restrictions specified in II. E.”

Page 34 of 50

An approximately 400 foot section of fencing was identified inside of the easement during closeout preparation. The
landowners will move this fence to the conservation easement line in July 2015.

Page 35 of 50

Project assets beneath power lines have been reduced by 50%. Additionally, a property transfer illustration has been prepared for NCDOT.

Page 36 of 50

A dilapidated NCDOT cross pipe and stormwater runoff adjacent to DOT bridge # 198 have caused scour on the corner of Cat Creek
Road and Jack Cabe Road (downstream end of the Swartwout tract). NCDOT will be repairing the cross pipe and the area adjacent
to bridge # 198 in August 2015.

Page 37 of 50

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
Overall the project has met its goals of providing a stable stream channel, improving water
quality, aquatic habitat, and providing improved wildlife habitat and connectivity in the stream
and riparian corridors.
Both herbaceous and woody vegetation has become well established throughout the project
easement. The annual mean stem density in Year 5 was 384 stems per acre, well above the
success criterion of 260 stems per acre for Year 5 (Table 7). Plots 2, 7, and 10 failed to meet the
planted stem density criterion, however, when natural recruits are included all plots are well
above the criterion. Herbaceous vegetation is well established throughout the easement,
particularly in wetland restoration areas where a dense, diverse herb layer has developed.
Stream restoration and enhancement areas show stable dimension, pattern, and profile (Figures
6-7 and Table 4) according to both morphological survey data as well as visual assessment of the
site. Cross-section and longitudinal profile data demonstrate stable channels throughout the
project.
A total of five bankfull events have been documented at the project site with three occurring in
separate years (Table 5). More events likely occurred during the monitoring period. The USGS
Cartoogechaye Creek gauging near Franklin, NC—located in a neighboring watershed—
indicates that the area and Little Tennessee watershed have experienced a variety of flows during
the monitoring period (Figure 7).
Groundwater monitoring results indicate that with the exception of CC-18, all wells are meeting
the 8% hydrology criteria (Table 6). Assets in the vicinity of the failing well was adjusted
accordingly during an MY4 wetland delineation (Figure 1).
In summary, the Cat Creek Restoration Site is meeting success criteria for channel stability,
wetland hydrology, and vegetative survival as outlined in the original restoration plan. NCDMS
recommends submitting the project for regulatory closure and requests a total of 6,429 SMUs
and 8.13 WMUs.

Contingencies

NONE

Page 38 of 50

Pre-Construction Photos

Upper Swartwout- LDS eroding bank
Lower Swartwout- LDS mainstem thru
pasture

Parker- Straight riffle sequence thru pasture

Parker- Looking east over proposed parker
tract wetland
Preserve- LDS of Ferguson Road

Preserve Tract: LUS from lower mainstem
.

Page 39 of 50

MY0 (Baseline) Photos

Lower Swartwout- LDS mainstem at XS-1.

Lower Swartwout- Photo Point 2. Sta.
21+75 facing upstream

Parker- LDS mainstem at XS-5-R

Parker- Photo Point 7. Sta. 45+20.

Parker- LUS mainstem at XS-8

Preserve- Photo Point 9. Sta. 62+10 facing
downstream.

Page 40 of 50

MY5 Photos

Lower Swartwout- LDS mainstem at XS-1.

Lower Swartwout- Photo Point 2. Sta.
21+75 facing downstream

Parker- LDS mainstem at XS-5-R

Parker- Looking east over Parker tract
wetland.

Parker- LUS mainstem at XS-8

Preserve- Photo Point 9. Sta. 62+10 facing
downstream.
APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary

Page 41 of 50

71 - Cat Creek

Watershed Characteristics Overview
The Cat Creek project is located in eastern Macon County, approximately 3 miles east of the
Town of Franklin in the Little Tennessee River Basin (CU 06010202). It is located within HUC
06010202040010 (Watauga-Rabbit-Cat Creeks), which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in the 2008 Little Tennessee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan and is
located within the Franklin to Fontana Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area. The TLW is 25
square miles in area, comprising a predominantly rural landscape of private forest lands, rural
homes and cattle farms, except for the Lake Emory subwatershed, which drains urban/suburban
portions of Franklin. Based on information in the 2010 Franklin to Fontana Watershed
Assessment Report, the 3.7-square mile Cat Creek subwatershed (within the TLW) is
characterized by 21% agriculture, 67% forest cover, and 12% developed area. The Cat Creek
subwatershed includes 34% degraded (non-woody) riparian buffers (as a percentage of total
stream channel length) and significant pasture areas (321 acres) where livestock have direct
access to stream channels. Also, a total of 22 miles of unpaved roads exist within the Cat Creek
subwatersheds. The Cat and Rabbit Creek drainages within the TLW are identified as two of the
most highly impacted subwatersheds within the Franklin to Fontana LWP area and are priority
subwatersheds for stream and wetland restoration.

Links to Watershed Goals and Objectives
The table below summarizes major watershed stressors identified by the Franklin to Fontana
LWP effort, recommended management strategies to address the stressors, and how the Cat
Creek project contributes to meeting these goals/strategies.

Stressors and Issues Management Strategies Cat Creek Project
Channel modification, stream bank
instability and associated aquatic
habitat degradation
Implement stream restoration
projects
Restored/ enhanced/ stabilized stream and
established riparian buffer along 8,880 linear
ft. (Cat Creek and tributaries)
Degraded riparian buffers (lack of
woody vegetation)
Plant native woody vegetation in
riparian areas; implement buffer
restoration projects and
agricultural BMPs
Restored/enhanced riparian buffer on over
8,800 l.f. of stream
Nutrient, sediment and fecal coliform
inputs (and associated habitat and
water quality impacts)
Implement stream and buffer
restoration projects and
agricultural BMPs, including
fencing livestock out of streams
Restored dimension, pattern, and profile to
over 8,000 linear ft of stream, including
livestock exclusion fencing and alternate
watering for cattle; restored/enhanced over 9
acres of riparian wetland area
Stormwater runoff; impervious areas
(and associated aquatic habitat and
water quality impacts)
Implement stormwater BMP
retrofits; encourage Low Impact
Development (LID)
Not applicable.

Watershed Context Summary
There are no other NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) mitigation projects, CWMTF, or
SWCD projects (as of March 2015) within the Watauga-Rabbit-Cat Creeks TLW.
APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary

Page 42 of 50

APPENDIX B – Land Ownership and Protection

Page 43 of 50

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
Name
County Grantor Property
Rights
Deed/ Page Plat/ Page Total
Project
Area (ac)
Cat Creek Macon James W.
Waldroop et
al

Cat Creek
Properties,
LLC

Cat Creek
Reality, LLC

Rollie J.
Swartwout
and wife,
Donna
Swartwout

Conservation
Easement
(SPO)

Fee Simple
(DOT)

Fee Simple
(DOT)

Fee Simple
(DOT)

BK CRP Q-32
PG 2297

BK K-27 PG
911

BK K-25 PG
2180

BK N-26 PG
984
BK 4 PG
5928

Plat Card
3360

Plat and
Survey
dated 3 Feb,
2001 by
Thomas H.
Cabe, RLS

Plat Card
3759

38.93

Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DOT Stewardship Program.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
NC_SPO_DBO_Infrastructure
NC_SPO_DBO_IMS_ID_Conservation_Easements
Transfer Illustration: Cat Creek IMS # 71
.
500 0 500 1,000250Feet
20 ft Power line ROW
20 ft Power line ROW
20 ft Power line ROW
20 ft Power line ROW
State Road
Utility box
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
NC_SPO_DBO_Infrastructure
NC_SPO_DBO_IMS_ID_Conservation_Easements
Transfer Illustration: Cat Creek IMS # 71
.
160 0 16080Feet
20 ft Power line ROW
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
NC_SPO_DBO_Infrastructure
NC_SPO_DBO_IMS_ID_Conservation_Easements
Transfer Illustration: Cat Creek IMS # 71
.
160 0 16080Feet
20 ft Power line ROW
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
NC_SPO_DBO_Infrastructure
NC_SPO_DBO_IMS_ID_Conservation_Easements
Transfer Illustration: Cat Creek IMS # 71
.
160 0 16080Feet
State Road
20 ft Power line ROW
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
NC_SPO_DBO_Infrastructure
NC_SPO_DBO_IMS_ID_Conservation_Easements
Transfer Illustration: Cat Creek IMS # 71
.
160 0 16080Feet
Utility box
20 ft Power line ROW
Fence misalignment
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
NC_SPO_DBO_Infrastructure
NC_SPO_DBO_IMS_ID_Conservation_Easements
Transfer Illustration: Cat Creek IMS # 71
.
160 0 16080Feet
20 ft Power line ROW
APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits

Page 44 of 50

APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits

Page 45 of 50

APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits

Page 46 of 50

APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits

Page 47 of 50

APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits

Page 48 of 50

APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits

Page 49 of 50

Mitigation Project Cat Creek
DMS IMS ID 71
River Basin LITTLE TENNESSEE
Cataloging Unit 06010202
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
St
r
e
a
m

Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
St
r
e
a
m

En
h
a
n
c
m
e
n
t

I
St
r
e
a
m

En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

I
I
St
r
e
a
m

Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)3,996.00 2,334.00 2,192.50 7.42 1.42
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)3,996.00 1,556.00 877.00 7.42 0.71
NCDOT Pre-DMS Debits (feet and acres):Not Applicable
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DWR Permit No USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name
2007-3101-356
NCDOT TIP R-2408A - SR 1323
Improvements, Macon Co 167.00
2008-01765-356 SR 1522 - Division 14 40.00
2009-01864-356 SR 1347 - Division 14 113.00
2013-01706 SR 1308-Bridge 278-Division 14 80.00
2013-01868 SR 1001-Bridge 302-Division 14 96.00
2015-0216 2015-00451
SR 1449 Upgrade (R-5206) -
Division 14*510.00
2012-00470
SR 1311 Improvements - Division
14 250.00
Statewide ILF Credit Purchase 528.00 0.410
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)2,972.00 2,334.00 1,432.50 7.010 1.42
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)2,972.00 1,556.00 573.00 7.010 0.71
*NOTE: This debit is associated with a Small Impact Policy approval to provide stream mitigation credits for a stream requirement in Little Tennessee 06010203.
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 07/14/2015
Mitigation Project Cat Creek (Purchase)
DMS IMS ID 71
River Basin LITTLE TENNESSEE
Cataloging Unit 06010202
The beginning balance represents the amount purchased and not the total mitigation credits available on the site.
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
St
r
e
a
m

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
St
r
e
a
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
m
e
n
t

I
St
r
e
a
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

I
I
St
r
e
a
m

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
No
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
Co
a
s
t
a
l

M
a
r
s
h

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Beginning Balance (square feet)528.00 0.41
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)528.00 0.41
NCDOT Pre-DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DWR Permits USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name
2006-0500 2006-30010 Jim Brown Chrysler Dealership 268.00 0.41
2006-0809 2007-00897-356 Haskins Pond 50.00
2008-1012 Highlands School Soccer Field 210.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)0.00 0.000
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)0.00 0.000
Comment: This ledger shows the debits for the amount of mitigation that the Statewide ILF Program purchased from the NCDOT ILF Program.
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 07/14/2015