Peachtree-Martins Creek Local Watershed Plan Phase 3 Project Atlas
Peachtree-Martins Creek Local Watershed Plan Phase 3 Hiwassee River Basin Cherokee and Clay Counties, N.C.
Project Atlas October 2007
A Project Of The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
With Assistance From Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. Asheville, NC
Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Overview of Screening Approach 1.3 Organization of the Atlas
1 1 2 2
2 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Channel Restoration and Riparian Enhancement Sites 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Initial Reach Identification 2.2.1 Screening Based on Stream Features 2.2.2 Screening Based on Parcel Data 2.2.3 Differentiation Between Restoration and Enhancement 2.3 Field Reconnaissance 2.4 Reach Prioritization
3 3 3 3 4 4 5 6
3 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Preservation Projects 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Initial Reach Identification 3.3 Field Reconnaissance 3.4 Reach Prioritization
11 11 11 13 13
4 Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Project Profiles
17
5 References Cited
66
Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose As part of Phase 3 of the Peachtree-Martins Creek Local Watershed Plan, initiated by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. (Equinox) undertook a site search to identify potential stream projects meeting NCEEP criteria. This included a search for potential stream channel restoration, riparian enhancement and stream preservation opportunities that are intended to meet compensatory mitigation needs for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and other development. This document reports on the results of this site search, describing the identification and prioritization of sites and presenting detailed maps of project opportunities. It is intended as a companion document to the Watershed Management Plan developed for the Peachtree Martins Creek area (Equinox, 2007a). This site screening was originally undertaken as part of a Catalog Unit (CU) site search, completed by Equinox for NCEEP in January 2007 for a broader area of the Hiwassee River basin (Equinox, 2007b). The approach described below is largely taken from that analysis, although some changes in methodologies were made. For purposes of consistency, the same site numbers used in the CU site search are used here, though this creates gaps in the numbering scheme as some sites have been eliminated. The Watershed Management Plan (Equinox, 2007a) outlines several focus areas within which management areas should be concentrated. These focus areas are referenced in the site descriptions included in the present document. The recommended focus areas for addressing existing degradation include: • The Middle Martins Creek, Lower Slow Creek and Messer Branch sub-watersheds, which are considered primary focus areas for implementation of a broad range of remedial practices; • Sub-watersheds upstream from these primary focus areas are considered secondary focus areas (Upper Martins Creek, Slow Creek Headwaters and Middle Slow Creek sub0watersheds); • Several sub-watersheds were identified as having unique concerns in the planning area, including Mission Quarry (experiencing severe impacts from the quarry operation) and McComb Branch, which are subject to a variety of water quality and stormwater impacts. Recommended priority areas for preservation include: • The upper Peachtree drainage including the following sub-watersheds – Upper Peachtree, Moore Branch, Pipes Branch and the portion of Middle Peachtree upstream of Mission Road; and • The Upper Martins Creek sub-watershed.
1
1.2 Overview of Screening Approach The primary source utilized in the screening of potential restoration, enhancement and preservation reaches was the IPSI (Integrated Pollutant Source Inventory) conducted for NCEEP by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The data were based on TVA’s interpretation of color infrared aerial photography flown during the late winter of 2005 (TVA, 2006). Data acquired through the IPSI analysis provided detailed information on existing land use characteristics and conditions. Specific IPSI data components and additional databases used are listed in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b). Limited ground-truthing of potential channel restoration and riparian enhancement reaches was conducted to determine the accuracy of selected IPSI interpretations. Ground-truthing was limited to a windshield survey.
1.3 Organization of the Atlas The selection of channel restoration and riparian enhancement sites is presented in Section 2, followed by preservation site selection in Section 3. Profiles and site maps of individual restoration/enhancement sites and preservation opportunities are included in Section 4.
2
Section 2 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Channel Restoration and Riparian Enhancement Sites 2.1 Introduction A multi-step screening approach was implemented to identify and prioritize potential channel restoration and riparian enhancement reaches. 1. Initial reach identification. This involved a GIS screening using the IPSI database to identify reaches that appeared to meet specific NCEEP project requirements. 2. Field reconnaissance. This involved a windshield survey evaluation to assess the reliability of the GIS data and to identify other important features of each site that could not be determined from available GIS data. 3. Scoring and prioritization. Reaches were scored based on several factors pertaining to potential mitigation value and project feasibility. Sites were then prioritized based on this scoring.
2.2 Initial Reach Identification The screening approach was based on a two-stage elimination design which assessed both stream feature data and parcel data. The initial step identified potential restoration and enhancement reaches based on four primary stream features (stream type, riparian zone, stream length, and drainage area). The second step analyzed land parcel data and eliminated reaches for which the number of landowners would limit project feasibility.
2.2.1 Screening Based on Stream Features Initial screening involved the selection of reaches that met the following stream reach criteria developed in consultation with NCEEP: • Stream reach is classified as intermittent or perennial (IPSI); • Stream reach is classified as having inadequate riparian zone on both banks (IPSI); • Stream reach is 1,900 linear feet; and • Stream reach drainage area is < 10 square miles. Stream Type Reach assessment was directed at both intermittent and perennial reaches as classified by the IPSI GIS analysis. Intermittent streams were included within the reach search because of concerns that the IPSI stream classification under estimated the extent of perennial stream reaches. Riparian Zone Perennial and intermittent stream reaches were further assessed based on the IPSI GIS riparian zone classification. The IPSI classified riparian vegetation as adequate, inadequate and marginal based upon the width and type of vegetation and the extent of vegetative cover (extent of canopy coverage for forest, quality of vegetation for grass). All riparian areas with a forested
3
vegetation zone of less than 30 feet in width are considered inadequate, regardless of other factors. See TVA (2006) for additional details. Reach Length Stream reaches with inadequate riparian zones on both banks were evaluated to identify reaches of at least 1,900 linear feet. The 1,900 foot criterion was implemented based on the assumption that those streams slightly less than the NCEEP 2,000 linear foot minimum would likely ground-truth at or above the NCEEP minimum. Drainage Area Because restoration of large streams is often difficult and expensive, reaches that met the above criteria but that had a drainage area of > 10-square miles were eliminated from the analysis. This filtering process is based on NCEEP stream size restrictions. One site (Reach 7) with a drainage area exceeding 10 square miles was retained because it appeared that few complications were associated with this reach, despite the size of the stream.
2.2.2 Screening Based on Parcel Data For each of the reaches identified above, the number of landowners was assessed and compared with the total reach length. Due to anticipated project implementation constraints associated with reaches containing large numbers of landowners, those reaches with a large number of landowners relative to reach length were eliminated as potential projects. The landowner constraint criterion used was developed in consultation with NCEEP. Per this criterion only reaches with the following characteristics were retained as potential enhancement/restoration projects: • < 3000 linear foot reach with 4 landowners; • 3000 to 5999 linear foot reach with 6 landowners; • 6000 to 8999 linear foot reach with 8 landowners; or • 9000 linear foot reach with 10 landowners. The reaches eliminated by this step were then evaluated to determine if any smaller yet viable projects were embedded within them. Areas that contained at least 1,900 linear feet of stream associated with 3 landowners or less were considered to be viable projects.
2.2.3 Differentiation Between Restoration and Enhancement The above analysis identified reaches where riparian revegetation is needed (enhancement reaches) but did not identify which of these are also candidates for channel restoration due to altered channel morphology or stream instability. An effort was made to discriminate between restoration and enhancement reaches based upon the IPSI GIS stream channelization analysis criteria. However, field reconnaissance indicated that project types in the LWP area could not be readily or reliably differentiated based upon this source. The effort to differentiate between project types was abandoned and projects are referred to hereafter only as stream projects. A total of twenty reaches were identified as stream projects (Table 2.1). Riparian enhancement is appropriate for all of these reaches. Most also merit channel restoration for all or part of the reach length, though precise measurements can not be made with the data available.
4
Table 2.1 Potential NCEEP Stream Project Sites Reach SubStream Name Watershed* ID MMC LMC 1 Martins Ck 2 George Ck MMC 3 Martins Ck MMC 4 Martins Ck MMC 5 Hampton Ck HCK 6 UT Hiwassee FBR 7 Peachtree Ck PBT LSL MPT PBT 8 Slow Ck 9 Fate Puett Cove Ck MOB 10 Snead Br LSL 11 Graham Br LSL 12 Graham Br LSL LSL MBR SMD 13 Slow Ck 14 Slow Ck SMD 15 Ut Slow Ck SHW 16 Slow Ck SHW 17 UT McComb Br. MCB 18 Ut Hiwassee SUT 19 Mission Br CMB 22 Calhoun Br CMB
2.3 Field Reconnaissance Limited field reconnaissance was conducted in December 2006 and March 2007 to determine the accuracy of selected IPSI determinations and identify site features not evident from the GIS data. Field work focused on several issues: verification that stream channels included in the GIS data existed on the ground; evaluation of the IPSI classification assessment of perennial versus intermittent streams; and the identification of other project features, including potential constraints, upstream activities that may impact the project, wetland site indicators and potential opportunities for extending the project upstream or downstream. Reconnaissance was conducted using a windshield survey approach in which determinations were made from public right-of-ways. No attempts were made to access private property. An effort was made to assess all identified reaches, though three reaches (numbers 5, 8 and 13) were not evaluated because they were not visible from the public right of way. As documented in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b), delineation of perennial and intermittent streams was based on the presence or absence of flowing water within a clearly defined stream channel. The method used may thus under-identify intermittent streams to some degree, but a more detailed assessment was not possible given time and property access constraints. The estimated stream length from the GIS database was updated to the extent feasible based upon the field reconnaissance. Information on other reach features (e.g. whether livestock had
5
stream access, discussed below) was also updated. Data from field reconnaissance are included in the site profiles (Section 4). The field reconnaissance indicated that four of the twenty reaches were not viable projects and should be eliminated from consideration: • Reach 6 (Unnamed tributary to Hiwassee River in Falls Branch sub-watershed). A portion of this reach was eliminated due to multiple constraints, including structures that made a project infeasible. The remaining reach did not meet the NCEEP minimum length criteria. • Reach 11 (Graham Branch in the Lower Slow Creek sub-watershed). This reach is too short, given the length of existing channel on the ground. • Reach 16 (Slow Creek in the Slow Creek Headwaters sub-watershed). This reach is subject to multiple constraints, including a narrow valley which does not leave sufficient room for channel restoration. • Reach 17 (Unnamed tributary to McComb Branch in the McComb Branch subwatershed). Stream channels depicted in the GIS data did not exist on the ground. The locations of the final 16 sites are shown in Figure 2.1. Note that there are gaps in the numbering as some of the original sites are not included in the final set.
2.4 Reach Prioritization Site scoring Potential stream protect reaches were prioritized to distinguish between projects of varying feasibility and mitigation value. Each project was screened on five criteria: • Number of landowners per project reach (Cherokee County parcel data, 2006); • Total length of the identified project reach (Equinox analysis); • Livestock access to the identified project reach (IPSI); • Percent of stream bank erosion within the project reach (IPSI); and • Reach location adjacent to areas identified as potential wetland restoration reaches (Equinox analysis). Scoring on individual criteria was based upon the importance attached to the criteria and confidence levels associated with the data sources, as summarized below. Additional information on scoring is available in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b). Individual criteria scores for each were summed to obtain a total score ranging from 0 to 9. The process described above is identical to that used for the CU analysis, except that the extent of channelization is not used as a criterion. The field verification found that sites where no channelization was indicated by the IPSI did appear to be channelized to some extent. Eliminating the IPSI channelization criterion allowed all sites to be assessed using the same scoring system. Scoring for individual attributes and their application to the prioritization system are discussed below.
6
Figure 2.1 Map of Potential NCEEP Stream Project Sites
7
Number of Landowners. The feasibility of successful project implementation declines as the number of landowners associated with a reach increases. Since this is a critical factor in NCEEP project selection, and is the only criterion that bears on project feasibility, this factor was assigned a maximum score of 3, the highest of any criterion. The categories and scores assigned are as follows: • 6 to 10 landowners = 0; • 4 to 5 landowners = 1; • 2 to 3 landowners = 2; and • 1 landowner = 3. Reach Length. Due to project feasibility and mitigation potential, sites comprised of longer reaches were considered higher priority, as listed below. The reach length indicated in the GIS database was adjusted based on field reconnaissance. • Reach length (2,000 – 4,000 linear feet) = 0; • Reach length (4,000 – 9,000 linear feet) = 1; and • Reach length (> 9,000 linear feet) = 2. Livestock Access. Where streams are subject to livestock activity, additional impacts are likely to exist, increasing the benefits that may be derived from restoration projects. To capture this issue, stream reaches were categorized based on indicators of livestock access from the IPSI. The categorization was adjusted based upon the field reconnaissance. • Livestock access not associated with the project reach = 0; and • Livestock access associated with the project reach = 2. Stream Bank Erosion. The length of stream bank classified as eroding by the IPSI was calculated for each reach. This can be considered a minimum estimate of the amount of erosion present, since experience has shown that the IPSI underestimates the extent of erosion areas. Because of the uncertainty associated with the IPSI estimates, a maximum score of 1 was assigned to this factor. The categories and the scores assigned are as follows: • < 100 feet of stream bank erosion = 0; and • 100 feet of stream bank erosion = 1. Identified Wetland Areas. As documented in the CU analysis report (Equinox, 2007b), a limited analysis was conducted to identify areas in which potential wetland restoration sites may be located. Areas identified through GIS analysis as having slopes less than 2.15% were classified as potential wetland sites. Identified reaches that were located within these potential wetland areas were considered higher priority reaches based on the potential opportunity for greater ecological benefits associated with the total project reach. GIS based information on each reach was updated based upon the field evaluation. Scores are as follows: • Wetland restoration component not associated with reach = 0; and • Wetland restoration component associated with reach = 1. Site prioritization Scoring for each of the 16 sites is shown in Table 2.2, along with field reconnaissance information in Table 2.3. Scores ranged from 1 to 6 out of a maximum of 9. Based on the total site score, reaches were classified as High, Medium or Low Priority as follows: • Project score of 6 = High Priority (6 reaches); • Project score of 4-5 = Medium Priority (7 reaches); and • Project score of 1-3 = Low Priority (3 reaches);
8
Table 2.2 Scoring and Prioritization for Potential Stream Project Sites Site Identification Reach ID
Stream Name
5 3 1 15 13 8 4 2 9 14 7 12 19 10 22 18
Hampton Ck Martins Ck Martins Ck Ut Slow Ck Slow Ck Slow Ck Martins Ck George Ck Fate Puett Cove Ck Slow Ck Peachtree Ck Graham Br Mission Br Snead Br Calhoun Br Ut Hiwassee
Notes:
Site Scoring Criteria and Rankings Sub-WS
Landowners (#)
Reach Length (ft)
Animal Access
Bank Erosion
Wetland Component
Total Score
Site Priority
HCK MMC MMC LMC SHW LSL MBR SMD LSL MPT PBT MMC MMC MOB SMD PBT LSL CMB LSL CMB SUT
1 (3) 9 (0) 4 (1) 2 (2) 4 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 3 (2) 5 (1) 5 (1) 2 (2) 4 (1) 2 (2) 3 (2) 6 (0) 5 (1)
7,450 (1) 9,434 (2) 4,558 (1) 3,465 (0) 4,170 (1) 7,287 (1) 3,286 (0) 3,133 (0) 3,074 (0) 3,982 (0) 2,865 (0) 2,930 (0) 5,883 (1) 2,623 (0) 5,617 (1) 2,309 (0)
No (0) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) No (0) Yes (2) No (0) No (0) No (0) No (0)
Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) No (0) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) No (0) No (0) No (0) No (0) No (0)
Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) No (0)
6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 1
High High High High High High Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Low Low Low
-Numeric criteria scores are stated in parenthesis. GIS scores were updated based on field reconnaissance to the extent possible. See text for further discussion of criteria. -If site falls into more than one sub-watershed, the sub-watershed containing the major portion of the site is shown in bold. -Focus Area column denotes whether site lies in a Primary Focus Area for restoration, a Secondary Focus Area for restoration (located upstream of a Primary Focus Area) or a Preservation Focus Area. See text for further discussion.
9
Focus Area
Primary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Primary Preservation Secondary Primary Primary
Table 2.3 Field Reconnaissance Summary for Potential Stream Project Sites Site Identification Reach ID 5 3 1 15 13 8 4 2 9 14 7 12 19 10 22 18
Stream Name
Field Verific. Type
Hampton Ck Martins Ck Martins Ck Ut Slow Ck Slow Ck Slow Ck Martins Ck George Ck Fate Puett Cove Ck Slow Ck Peachtree Ck Graham Br Mission Br Snead Br Calhoun Br Ut Hiwassee
None Partial Yes Partial None None Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes
Upstream Impacts
Project Expansion Opportunities
P, SC, DRD, PL P, SC, PL P, SC, ST, RC, PL
LDR, RC, PL, LSI LDR, PL, LSI None
Yes Yes Yes
PL P, ST, SC, PL, PD P, ST, PL, GD, PD P, ST, SC, PL PL P, ST, SRD, PD, NUR ST, SRD, RC SC, PL P, ST, SC, PL, GD P, ST, PL, GD
LDR, PL LG, CON, LDR LDR, PL LG, LDR PL LDR, PL, PD LDR, RC, PL LDR LDR, PL None
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Site Features
Table Notes Field Verification Type refers to the extent of the field reconnaissance conducted at a site. Site Features denotes on-site constraints and other on-site features relevant to project feasibility. Upstream Impacts denotes observable features in the catchment upstream of the site that may affect project viability or uplift. Project Expansion Opportunity refers to possibility of adding additional stream length to project from areas immediately above or below reach.
Field Verification Type
Notes Located in golf course Wide floodplain Beaver dam impacts lower reach Narrow valley Wide valley Wide floodplain Off-line pond Wide valley Wide floodplain Flows through high value crop land In-line pond located just DS Wide valley Many landowners for a short reach
Abbreviations Site Features
Upstream Impacts
Yes
Entire reach could be seen
P
Power Lines
LDR
Low Density Residential
Partial
Part of reach could be seen
SC
Stream Crossing
PL
Pasture Land
None
Not visible from public right of way
PL
Pasture Land
LSI
Livestock Impacts
ST
Structure
LG
Logging
PD
Pond
CON
Residential Construction
DRD
Dirt Road
RC
Row Crops
GD
Garden
PD
Pond
SRD
State Road
NUR
Nursery Operation
RC
Row Crop
10
Section 3 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Preservation Projects 3.1 Introduction Forested reaches were identified as potential NCCEP preservation reaches, using a three-stage process similar to the one used to select restoration and enhancement sites. 1. Initial reach identification using the IPSI database: 2. Limited field reconnaissance; 3. Scoring and prioritization. Reaches were scored based on several factors and sites were then prioritized based on this scoring.
3.2 Initial Reach Identification Reaches were initially identified based upon parcel size, stream reach length, and riparian area condition, as discussed below. The 2006 Cherokee County parcel database and IPSI stream data layers were analyzed to identify parcels meeting NCEEP preservation standards of >100 acres and containing a minimum of 5,000 linear feet of perennial stream. Immediately adjacent parcels owned by one landowner which total at least 100 acres in area were considered to be a single property for the purpose of this analysis. Parcels of 100 acres or more that did not contain 5,000 linear feet of stream were further assessed based on immediately adjacent large parcels (> 100 acres). If these neighboring parcels, when combined, contained > 5,000 linear feet of stream, they were included as potential preservation candidates. The pool of potential preservation reaches was assessed further based on the IPSI GIS riparian buffer classification data. For a stream reach to be retained as a potential preservation project, riparian buffers on both sides of the bank had to be classified as adequate. The final pool of potential preservation opportunities consisted of reaches meeting one of the following criteria: • Single parcels that were >100 acres and had >5,000 linear feet of stream with riparian areas classified by the IPSI as adequate on both banks (a zone of woody vegetation at least 30 feet wide on each bank); • Multiple parcels owned by one landowner, which combined were >100 acres and had 5,000 linear feet of stream with adequate riparian vegetation; and • Adjacent parcels of >100 acres owned by more than one person that together had >5,000 linear feet of stream with adequate riparian vegetation. This criterion is met if the parcels jointly have more than 5000 feet of stream channels with adequate riparian areas, even if channel length is insufficient for the individual parcels. The locations of the seven sites identified are shown in Figure 3.1.
11
Figure 3.1 Potential NCEEP Preservation Sites
12
3.3 Field Reconnaissance A windshield assessment was conducted in March 2007, primarily to determine if current forested site conditions appeared to have changed since the March 2005 IPSI aerial analysis.
3.4 Reach Prioritization The seven reaches identified were prioritized based upon their ecological significance. The following primary attributes were assessed to determine ecological significance of each reach. • Total linear feet of stream having adequate riparian vegetation on both banks; • Extent of forested riparian area within the 300 foot stream buffer zone; • Location immediately adjacent to protected tracts; and • Prioritized restoration component within the reach. A number of secondary attributes were also considered in the prioritization and included the following: • Natural heritage fauna or flora occurrences on or adjacent to the tract (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program); • Natural heritage natural communities or significant natural heritage areas on or adjacent to the tract. Location of the site in an Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW) area was considered as an additional criterion, but there are no ORW or HQW within the planning area. Consultation with the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition (HRWC) confirmed that priority preservation areas have not been identified within the analysis area by either the HRWC or the Land Trust for the Little Tennessee. With no identified priority properties, this attribute was not included in the scoring system. Scoring on individual criteria was based upon the importance attached to the criteria and confidence levels associated with the data sources, as summarized below. Procedures followed were identical to those described in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b), which should be consulted for additional details. Individual criteria scores for each were summed to obtain a total score ranging from 0 to 14. Primary attributes Scoring for primary attributes is discussed below. Linear Feet of Stream Reach. The total linear feet of stream within each parcel classified as having adequate forested riparian zones on both banks was scored as follows: • 5,000 – 7,000 linear feet = 1; • 7,000 – 9,000 linear feet = 2; and • > 9,000 linear feet = 3. Extent of Forested Riparian Area. Through GIS, 300 foot buffers were delineated adjacent to stream reaches with adequate riparian areas. The percent of the buffer area classified as forested was then recalculated. Scores are as follows: • < 80% forested = 0; • 80 – 90% forested = 1; and • > 90% forested = 2.
13
Location Adjacent to Protected Lands. Existing protected tracts within the planning area were identified. The only identified protected lands within the planning area are in the Nantahala National Forest. The scores assigned are as follows: • Tract not adjacent to protected lands = 0; and • Tract adjacent to protected lands = 2. Restoration/Enhancement Component within the Reach. A preservation tract received a higher score if a prioritized enhancement or restoration reach was identified within the tract. • Prioritized restoration/enhancement component not on tract = 0; and • Prioritized restoration/enhancement component on tract = 2. Secondary attributes The preliminary scores described above were adjusted based upon several secondary attributes. Those attributes were derived from North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data. These were considered secondary attributes because of uncertainty associated with sampling effort and sampling area. The attributes and their application to the reach ranking are discussed below. Natural Heritage Fauna Occurrences. Where single or multiple natural heritage element occurrences were documented on or within 300 feet of a reach, a score of one was added to the total primary attribute score. No additional points were applied for reaches with multiple occurrences. Natural Heritage Flora Occurrences. The NCNHP element occurrence database was reviewed to determine if preservation parcels contained natural heritage flora occurrences or if there were occurrences within 300 feet of a preservation parcel. None were documented. Natural Communities. If preservation parcels contained natural heritage communities or if occurrences had been identified within 300 feet, one point was added to the total score. Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NCNHP significant natural heritage area database was assessed to determine if preservation parcels were encompassed by or adjacent to significant natural heritage (SNH) areas. One point was added to the score of such tracts. Site prioritization A maximum score of 14 was obtainable for these sites, with the scores actually attained ranging from two to nine. Sites were assigned priority levels as follows: • Project score 7-9 = High Priority; • Project score 5-6 = Medium Priority; and • Project score 2-4 = Low Priority. Scores and priority rankings for the seven sites are shown in Table 3.1. Site 1, on the Right Prong of Martins Creek, is the only high priority site identified. Additional information on the sites, based upon field reconnaissance conducted by Equinox, information available from the Local Advisory Committee (LAC) and discussions with NCEEP, are listed below. • Site 1: NCEEP is actively speaking to the landowner about a potential project. The LAC identified this site as likely to see residential development within 10 years.
14
• •
• • • •
Site 2: This site consists of undeveloped lands on the golf course property. LAC members believe residential development is likely here within 5 years. Site 3: This site was in the process of residential development but according to the HRWC it has been placed on hold. This site was identified by the LAC as likely to see residential development within 5 years. The site scored low on ecological criteria and is adjacent to the new US 64 bypass. Site 4: This site is located adjacent to a high density development and was identified by the LAC as likely to be developed within 5 years. HRWC indicated that some roads have already been cut in for the proposed development. Site 5: This site was identified by the LAC as likely to see mixed use development within the next 10 years. Additionally, this site is owned by the same individual owning the golf course property and is adjacent to the bypass. Site 6: Field ground truthing did not indicate any recent changes in land use. Site 7: This property is owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. NCEEP staff indicated that it would likely be impossible to place an easement on Cherokee lands.
Many of the seven sites identified by the GIS analysis have either been recently impacted by the 64 bypass project or are likely to be infeasible because of impending development or other issues. Only sites 1 and 6 are not affected by these concerns. These are also the two sites with the highest ecological condition scores. Sites 1 and 6 are recommended to NCEEP as priority preservation sites. See Section 4 for maps of these sites.
.
15
Table 3.1 Attributes of Potential NCEEP Preservation Sites !
$ "
(" '
-.
(
, 1
2
4 +9+
!
)
-
.
,
343
! -
.
#
%
$
&
%
'
"
" "# $%&
"' $(&
) $*&
+ $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
#
/ 0'' $ &
"% $(&
) $*&
+ $(&
) $*&
)$*&
+$&
'
/ 20( $ &
"2 $(&
) $*&
+ $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
/
' 2** $ &
"" $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
+$&
+$&
/
,
%
45 6
56 ,
# %0 $(&
' $*&
) $*&
) $*&
+$&
) $*&
+$&
2
3
/
45 6
56 ,
/ 0(' $ &
0' $ &
) $*&
) $*&
+$&
) $*&
+$&
2
3
#
-.
#"
"# $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
2
3
.
4
. 7
.
$(&
8 :) 9 ) 8
16
Section 4 Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Project Profiles This section consists of profiles of the restoration/enhancement and preservation sites identified during this project. Each profile consists of a one page site description summarizing the major features of the site, followed by a map of the site. The site description is based on both GIS data and field reconnaissance. The primary source of GIS data was the IPSI database. Among the major data used were aerial images, hydrography (both line work and attribute data such as riparian condition, presence of channelization and erosion), livestock access, and septic systems. The Cherokee County parcel database (2006) was used for site screening and prioritization, including the determination of parcel boundaries and the number of parcels contained in a project. Individual landowner and property identification numbers were updated based on the August 2007 Cherokee County database. Information on some features obtained from the GIS data was adjusted based upon the field reconnaissance (discussed below). For example, stream type (perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) is available from the IPSI database, but the field evaluation indicated a number of issues: some streams did not actually exist, some streams classified as intermittent appeared to be perennial, etc. As discussed in the main text of this Atlas, field reconnaissance was limited in nature. Reconnaissance was conducted using a windshield survey approach in which determinations were made from the public right-of-way. No attempts were made to access private property. An effort was made to assess all identified reaches, though three restoration reaches (numbers 5, 8 and 13) were not evaluated because they were not visible from the public right of way. Only a partial evaluation was possible for several reaches. Even for reaches which could be fully evaluated (i.e. for which all or most of the reach could be viewed from the right-of-way), certain types of information were difficult to obtain. For example, it was generally possible to identify surrounding land use, the presence of livestock access to streams, overall riparian zone condition, as well as buildings, power lines and other obvious constraints. It was generally not possible to get a useful picture of stream habitat or channel substrate. Information on site conditions, BMP needs and project constraints must be considered provisional, as on-site evaluations were not conducted. Following a master table indicating landowner information for the parcels covering each restoration site (Table 4.1), the remaining information is presented on a site by site basis. Restoration site profiles are presented in order of priority, followed by profiles of the two recommended preservation sites. Note that there are gaps in the site numbering as some projects have been eliminated from the final set. Site photographs, where available, follow the individual profiles. Location maps for the sites were presented earlier in this document (Figure 2.1 for restoration sites, Figure 3.1 for preservation sites). Additionally, large 32” by 20” field reconnaissance maps, one overlaid with 2005 color infrared photography, are included in the front pocket of the document binder. A summary comparison of all restoration sites was presented in Tables 2.2 & 2.3 while preservation sites were summarized in Table 3.1.
17
Table 4.1 Parcel Data for Restoration Site Opportunities * /
,
!
, 1
"
(#080
//* *2/%0 #"***
;46 ,< 3;4 ,
)
(0"*'
%
!
228#
2/"**(// "(****
? 1;)4 < 3
0*
;4 ;)6 ;)6 ; @ 46 /**
- @
5
,+
)
(0"*'
/2 * 5 4 "
< .3;
)
(0"*/
< .3;
)
(0"*/
< .3;
)
(0"*/
2** 7 ;;)3< ) ; ;6; + @ @
"( = ; = 2"//2"
= .= > '* ;@?6,
)
< .3; @
%' 7 ;;)3< ) ; ;6< + @
+3A
,+
< .3;
%*0
Project Atlas October 2007
A Project Of The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
With Assistance From Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. Asheville, NC
Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Overview of Screening Approach 1.3 Organization of the Atlas
1 1 2 2
2 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Channel Restoration and Riparian Enhancement Sites 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Initial Reach Identification 2.2.1 Screening Based on Stream Features 2.2.2 Screening Based on Parcel Data 2.2.3 Differentiation Between Restoration and Enhancement 2.3 Field Reconnaissance 2.4 Reach Prioritization
3 3 3 3 4 4 5 6
3 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Preservation Projects 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Initial Reach Identification 3.3 Field Reconnaissance 3.4 Reach Prioritization
11 11 11 13 13
4 Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Project Profiles
17
5 References Cited
66
Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose As part of Phase 3 of the Peachtree-Martins Creek Local Watershed Plan, initiated by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. (Equinox) undertook a site search to identify potential stream projects meeting NCEEP criteria. This included a search for potential stream channel restoration, riparian enhancement and stream preservation opportunities that are intended to meet compensatory mitigation needs for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and other development. This document reports on the results of this site search, describing the identification and prioritization of sites and presenting detailed maps of project opportunities. It is intended as a companion document to the Watershed Management Plan developed for the Peachtree Martins Creek area (Equinox, 2007a). This site screening was originally undertaken as part of a Catalog Unit (CU) site search, completed by Equinox for NCEEP in January 2007 for a broader area of the Hiwassee River basin (Equinox, 2007b). The approach described below is largely taken from that analysis, although some changes in methodologies were made. For purposes of consistency, the same site numbers used in the CU site search are used here, though this creates gaps in the numbering scheme as some sites have been eliminated. The Watershed Management Plan (Equinox, 2007a) outlines several focus areas within which management areas should be concentrated. These focus areas are referenced in the site descriptions included in the present document. The recommended focus areas for addressing existing degradation include: • The Middle Martins Creek, Lower Slow Creek and Messer Branch sub-watersheds, which are considered primary focus areas for implementation of a broad range of remedial practices; • Sub-watersheds upstream from these primary focus areas are considered secondary focus areas (Upper Martins Creek, Slow Creek Headwaters and Middle Slow Creek sub0watersheds); • Several sub-watersheds were identified as having unique concerns in the planning area, including Mission Quarry (experiencing severe impacts from the quarry operation) and McComb Branch, which are subject to a variety of water quality and stormwater impacts. Recommended priority areas for preservation include: • The upper Peachtree drainage including the following sub-watersheds – Upper Peachtree, Moore Branch, Pipes Branch and the portion of Middle Peachtree upstream of Mission Road; and • The Upper Martins Creek sub-watershed.
1
1.2 Overview of Screening Approach The primary source utilized in the screening of potential restoration, enhancement and preservation reaches was the IPSI (Integrated Pollutant Source Inventory) conducted for NCEEP by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The data were based on TVA’s interpretation of color infrared aerial photography flown during the late winter of 2005 (TVA, 2006). Data acquired through the IPSI analysis provided detailed information on existing land use characteristics and conditions. Specific IPSI data components and additional databases used are listed in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b). Limited ground-truthing of potential channel restoration and riparian enhancement reaches was conducted to determine the accuracy of selected IPSI interpretations. Ground-truthing was limited to a windshield survey.
1.3 Organization of the Atlas The selection of channel restoration and riparian enhancement sites is presented in Section 2, followed by preservation site selection in Section 3. Profiles and site maps of individual restoration/enhancement sites and preservation opportunities are included in Section 4.
2
Section 2 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Channel Restoration and Riparian Enhancement Sites 2.1 Introduction A multi-step screening approach was implemented to identify and prioritize potential channel restoration and riparian enhancement reaches. 1. Initial reach identification. This involved a GIS screening using the IPSI database to identify reaches that appeared to meet specific NCEEP project requirements. 2. Field reconnaissance. This involved a windshield survey evaluation to assess the reliability of the GIS data and to identify other important features of each site that could not be determined from available GIS data. 3. Scoring and prioritization. Reaches were scored based on several factors pertaining to potential mitigation value and project feasibility. Sites were then prioritized based on this scoring.
2.2 Initial Reach Identification The screening approach was based on a two-stage elimination design which assessed both stream feature data and parcel data. The initial step identified potential restoration and enhancement reaches based on four primary stream features (stream type, riparian zone, stream length, and drainage area). The second step analyzed land parcel data and eliminated reaches for which the number of landowners would limit project feasibility.
2.2.1 Screening Based on Stream Features Initial screening involved the selection of reaches that met the following stream reach criteria developed in consultation with NCEEP: • Stream reach is classified as intermittent or perennial (IPSI); • Stream reach is classified as having inadequate riparian zone on both banks (IPSI); • Stream reach is 1,900 linear feet; and • Stream reach drainage area is < 10 square miles. Stream Type Reach assessment was directed at both intermittent and perennial reaches as classified by the IPSI GIS analysis. Intermittent streams were included within the reach search because of concerns that the IPSI stream classification under estimated the extent of perennial stream reaches. Riparian Zone Perennial and intermittent stream reaches were further assessed based on the IPSI GIS riparian zone classification. The IPSI classified riparian vegetation as adequate, inadequate and marginal based upon the width and type of vegetation and the extent of vegetative cover (extent of canopy coverage for forest, quality of vegetation for grass). All riparian areas with a forested
3
vegetation zone of less than 30 feet in width are considered inadequate, regardless of other factors. See TVA (2006) for additional details. Reach Length Stream reaches with inadequate riparian zones on both banks were evaluated to identify reaches of at least 1,900 linear feet. The 1,900 foot criterion was implemented based on the assumption that those streams slightly less than the NCEEP 2,000 linear foot minimum would likely ground-truth at or above the NCEEP minimum. Drainage Area Because restoration of large streams is often difficult and expensive, reaches that met the above criteria but that had a drainage area of > 10-square miles were eliminated from the analysis. This filtering process is based on NCEEP stream size restrictions. One site (Reach 7) with a drainage area exceeding 10 square miles was retained because it appeared that few complications were associated with this reach, despite the size of the stream.
2.2.2 Screening Based on Parcel Data For each of the reaches identified above, the number of landowners was assessed and compared with the total reach length. Due to anticipated project implementation constraints associated with reaches containing large numbers of landowners, those reaches with a large number of landowners relative to reach length were eliminated as potential projects. The landowner constraint criterion used was developed in consultation with NCEEP. Per this criterion only reaches with the following characteristics were retained as potential enhancement/restoration projects: • < 3000 linear foot reach with 4 landowners; • 3000 to 5999 linear foot reach with 6 landowners; • 6000 to 8999 linear foot reach with 8 landowners; or • 9000 linear foot reach with 10 landowners. The reaches eliminated by this step were then evaluated to determine if any smaller yet viable projects were embedded within them. Areas that contained at least 1,900 linear feet of stream associated with 3 landowners or less were considered to be viable projects.
2.2.3 Differentiation Between Restoration and Enhancement The above analysis identified reaches where riparian revegetation is needed (enhancement reaches) but did not identify which of these are also candidates for channel restoration due to altered channel morphology or stream instability. An effort was made to discriminate between restoration and enhancement reaches based upon the IPSI GIS stream channelization analysis criteria. However, field reconnaissance indicated that project types in the LWP area could not be readily or reliably differentiated based upon this source. The effort to differentiate between project types was abandoned and projects are referred to hereafter only as stream projects. A total of twenty reaches were identified as stream projects (Table 2.1). Riparian enhancement is appropriate for all of these reaches. Most also merit channel restoration for all or part of the reach length, though precise measurements can not be made with the data available.
4
Table 2.1 Potential NCEEP Stream Project Sites Reach SubStream Name Watershed* ID MMC LMC 1 Martins Ck 2 George Ck MMC 3 Martins Ck MMC 4 Martins Ck MMC 5 Hampton Ck HCK 6 UT Hiwassee FBR 7 Peachtree Ck PBT LSL MPT PBT 8 Slow Ck 9 Fate Puett Cove Ck MOB 10 Snead Br LSL 11 Graham Br LSL 12 Graham Br LSL LSL MBR SMD 13 Slow Ck 14 Slow Ck SMD 15 Ut Slow Ck SHW 16 Slow Ck SHW 17 UT McComb Br. MCB 18 Ut Hiwassee SUT 19 Mission Br CMB 22 Calhoun Br CMB
2.3 Field Reconnaissance Limited field reconnaissance was conducted in December 2006 and March 2007 to determine the accuracy of selected IPSI determinations and identify site features not evident from the GIS data. Field work focused on several issues: verification that stream channels included in the GIS data existed on the ground; evaluation of the IPSI classification assessment of perennial versus intermittent streams; and the identification of other project features, including potential constraints, upstream activities that may impact the project, wetland site indicators and potential opportunities for extending the project upstream or downstream. Reconnaissance was conducted using a windshield survey approach in which determinations were made from public right-of-ways. No attempts were made to access private property. An effort was made to assess all identified reaches, though three reaches (numbers 5, 8 and 13) were not evaluated because they were not visible from the public right of way. As documented in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b), delineation of perennial and intermittent streams was based on the presence or absence of flowing water within a clearly defined stream channel. The method used may thus under-identify intermittent streams to some degree, but a more detailed assessment was not possible given time and property access constraints. The estimated stream length from the GIS database was updated to the extent feasible based upon the field reconnaissance. Information on other reach features (e.g. whether livestock had
5
stream access, discussed below) was also updated. Data from field reconnaissance are included in the site profiles (Section 4). The field reconnaissance indicated that four of the twenty reaches were not viable projects and should be eliminated from consideration: • Reach 6 (Unnamed tributary to Hiwassee River in Falls Branch sub-watershed). A portion of this reach was eliminated due to multiple constraints, including structures that made a project infeasible. The remaining reach did not meet the NCEEP minimum length criteria. • Reach 11 (Graham Branch in the Lower Slow Creek sub-watershed). This reach is too short, given the length of existing channel on the ground. • Reach 16 (Slow Creek in the Slow Creek Headwaters sub-watershed). This reach is subject to multiple constraints, including a narrow valley which does not leave sufficient room for channel restoration. • Reach 17 (Unnamed tributary to McComb Branch in the McComb Branch subwatershed). Stream channels depicted in the GIS data did not exist on the ground. The locations of the final 16 sites are shown in Figure 2.1. Note that there are gaps in the numbering as some of the original sites are not included in the final set.
2.4 Reach Prioritization Site scoring Potential stream protect reaches were prioritized to distinguish between projects of varying feasibility and mitigation value. Each project was screened on five criteria: • Number of landowners per project reach (Cherokee County parcel data, 2006); • Total length of the identified project reach (Equinox analysis); • Livestock access to the identified project reach (IPSI); • Percent of stream bank erosion within the project reach (IPSI); and • Reach location adjacent to areas identified as potential wetland restoration reaches (Equinox analysis). Scoring on individual criteria was based upon the importance attached to the criteria and confidence levels associated with the data sources, as summarized below. Additional information on scoring is available in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b). Individual criteria scores for each were summed to obtain a total score ranging from 0 to 9. The process described above is identical to that used for the CU analysis, except that the extent of channelization is not used as a criterion. The field verification found that sites where no channelization was indicated by the IPSI did appear to be channelized to some extent. Eliminating the IPSI channelization criterion allowed all sites to be assessed using the same scoring system. Scoring for individual attributes and their application to the prioritization system are discussed below.
6
Figure 2.1 Map of Potential NCEEP Stream Project Sites
7
Number of Landowners. The feasibility of successful project implementation declines as the number of landowners associated with a reach increases. Since this is a critical factor in NCEEP project selection, and is the only criterion that bears on project feasibility, this factor was assigned a maximum score of 3, the highest of any criterion. The categories and scores assigned are as follows: • 6 to 10 landowners = 0; • 4 to 5 landowners = 1; • 2 to 3 landowners = 2; and • 1 landowner = 3. Reach Length. Due to project feasibility and mitigation potential, sites comprised of longer reaches were considered higher priority, as listed below. The reach length indicated in the GIS database was adjusted based on field reconnaissance. • Reach length (2,000 – 4,000 linear feet) = 0; • Reach length (4,000 – 9,000 linear feet) = 1; and • Reach length (> 9,000 linear feet) = 2. Livestock Access. Where streams are subject to livestock activity, additional impacts are likely to exist, increasing the benefits that may be derived from restoration projects. To capture this issue, stream reaches were categorized based on indicators of livestock access from the IPSI. The categorization was adjusted based upon the field reconnaissance. • Livestock access not associated with the project reach = 0; and • Livestock access associated with the project reach = 2. Stream Bank Erosion. The length of stream bank classified as eroding by the IPSI was calculated for each reach. This can be considered a minimum estimate of the amount of erosion present, since experience has shown that the IPSI underestimates the extent of erosion areas. Because of the uncertainty associated with the IPSI estimates, a maximum score of 1 was assigned to this factor. The categories and the scores assigned are as follows: • < 100 feet of stream bank erosion = 0; and • 100 feet of stream bank erosion = 1. Identified Wetland Areas. As documented in the CU analysis report (Equinox, 2007b), a limited analysis was conducted to identify areas in which potential wetland restoration sites may be located. Areas identified through GIS analysis as having slopes less than 2.15% were classified as potential wetland sites. Identified reaches that were located within these potential wetland areas were considered higher priority reaches based on the potential opportunity for greater ecological benefits associated with the total project reach. GIS based information on each reach was updated based upon the field evaluation. Scores are as follows: • Wetland restoration component not associated with reach = 0; and • Wetland restoration component associated with reach = 1. Site prioritization Scoring for each of the 16 sites is shown in Table 2.2, along with field reconnaissance information in Table 2.3. Scores ranged from 1 to 6 out of a maximum of 9. Based on the total site score, reaches were classified as High, Medium or Low Priority as follows: • Project score of 6 = High Priority (6 reaches); • Project score of 4-5 = Medium Priority (7 reaches); and • Project score of 1-3 = Low Priority (3 reaches);
8
Table 2.2 Scoring and Prioritization for Potential Stream Project Sites Site Identification Reach ID
Stream Name
5 3 1 15 13 8 4 2 9 14 7 12 19 10 22 18
Hampton Ck Martins Ck Martins Ck Ut Slow Ck Slow Ck Slow Ck Martins Ck George Ck Fate Puett Cove Ck Slow Ck Peachtree Ck Graham Br Mission Br Snead Br Calhoun Br Ut Hiwassee
Notes:
Site Scoring Criteria and Rankings Sub-WS
Landowners (#)
Reach Length (ft)
Animal Access
Bank Erosion
Wetland Component
Total Score
Site Priority
HCK MMC MMC LMC SHW LSL MBR SMD LSL MPT PBT MMC MMC MOB SMD PBT LSL CMB LSL CMB SUT
1 (3) 9 (0) 4 (1) 2 (2) 4 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 3 (2) 5 (1) 5 (1) 2 (2) 4 (1) 2 (2) 3 (2) 6 (0) 5 (1)
7,450 (1) 9,434 (2) 4,558 (1) 3,465 (0) 4,170 (1) 7,287 (1) 3,286 (0) 3,133 (0) 3,074 (0) 3,982 (0) 2,865 (0) 2,930 (0) 5,883 (1) 2,623 (0) 5,617 (1) 2,309 (0)
No (0) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) No (0) Yes (2) No (0) No (0) No (0) No (0)
Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) No (0) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) No (0) No (0) No (0) No (0) No (0)
Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) No (0)
6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 1
High High High High High High Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Low Low Low
-Numeric criteria scores are stated in parenthesis. GIS scores were updated based on field reconnaissance to the extent possible. See text for further discussion of criteria. -If site falls into more than one sub-watershed, the sub-watershed containing the major portion of the site is shown in bold. -Focus Area column denotes whether site lies in a Primary Focus Area for restoration, a Secondary Focus Area for restoration (located upstream of a Primary Focus Area) or a Preservation Focus Area. See text for further discussion.
9
Focus Area
Primary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Primary Preservation Secondary Primary Primary
Table 2.3 Field Reconnaissance Summary for Potential Stream Project Sites Site Identification Reach ID 5 3 1 15 13 8 4 2 9 14 7 12 19 10 22 18
Stream Name
Field Verific. Type
Hampton Ck Martins Ck Martins Ck Ut Slow Ck Slow Ck Slow Ck Martins Ck George Ck Fate Puett Cove Ck Slow Ck Peachtree Ck Graham Br Mission Br Snead Br Calhoun Br Ut Hiwassee
None Partial Yes Partial None None Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes
Upstream Impacts
Project Expansion Opportunities
P, SC, DRD, PL P, SC, PL P, SC, ST, RC, PL
LDR, RC, PL, LSI LDR, PL, LSI None
Yes Yes Yes
PL P, ST, SC, PL, PD P, ST, PL, GD, PD P, ST, SC, PL PL P, ST, SRD, PD, NUR ST, SRD, RC SC, PL P, ST, SC, PL, GD P, ST, PL, GD
LDR, PL LG, CON, LDR LDR, PL LG, LDR PL LDR, PL, PD LDR, RC, PL LDR LDR, PL None
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Site Features
Table Notes Field Verification Type refers to the extent of the field reconnaissance conducted at a site. Site Features denotes on-site constraints and other on-site features relevant to project feasibility. Upstream Impacts denotes observable features in the catchment upstream of the site that may affect project viability or uplift. Project Expansion Opportunity refers to possibility of adding additional stream length to project from areas immediately above or below reach.
Field Verification Type
Notes Located in golf course Wide floodplain Beaver dam impacts lower reach Narrow valley Wide valley Wide floodplain Off-line pond Wide valley Wide floodplain Flows through high value crop land In-line pond located just DS Wide valley Many landowners for a short reach
Abbreviations Site Features
Upstream Impacts
Yes
Entire reach could be seen
P
Power Lines
LDR
Low Density Residential
Partial
Part of reach could be seen
SC
Stream Crossing
PL
Pasture Land
None
Not visible from public right of way
PL
Pasture Land
LSI
Livestock Impacts
ST
Structure
LG
Logging
PD
Pond
CON
Residential Construction
DRD
Dirt Road
RC
Row Crops
GD
Garden
PD
Pond
SRD
State Road
NUR
Nursery Operation
RC
Row Crop
10
Section 3 Methods for Identifying and Prioritizing Preservation Projects 3.1 Introduction Forested reaches were identified as potential NCCEP preservation reaches, using a three-stage process similar to the one used to select restoration and enhancement sites. 1. Initial reach identification using the IPSI database: 2. Limited field reconnaissance; 3. Scoring and prioritization. Reaches were scored based on several factors and sites were then prioritized based on this scoring.
3.2 Initial Reach Identification Reaches were initially identified based upon parcel size, stream reach length, and riparian area condition, as discussed below. The 2006 Cherokee County parcel database and IPSI stream data layers were analyzed to identify parcels meeting NCEEP preservation standards of >100 acres and containing a minimum of 5,000 linear feet of perennial stream. Immediately adjacent parcels owned by one landowner which total at least 100 acres in area were considered to be a single property for the purpose of this analysis. Parcels of 100 acres or more that did not contain 5,000 linear feet of stream were further assessed based on immediately adjacent large parcels (> 100 acres). If these neighboring parcels, when combined, contained > 5,000 linear feet of stream, they were included as potential preservation candidates. The pool of potential preservation reaches was assessed further based on the IPSI GIS riparian buffer classification data. For a stream reach to be retained as a potential preservation project, riparian buffers on both sides of the bank had to be classified as adequate. The final pool of potential preservation opportunities consisted of reaches meeting one of the following criteria: • Single parcels that were >100 acres and had >5,000 linear feet of stream with riparian areas classified by the IPSI as adequate on both banks (a zone of woody vegetation at least 30 feet wide on each bank); • Multiple parcels owned by one landowner, which combined were >100 acres and had 5,000 linear feet of stream with adequate riparian vegetation; and • Adjacent parcels of >100 acres owned by more than one person that together had >5,000 linear feet of stream with adequate riparian vegetation. This criterion is met if the parcels jointly have more than 5000 feet of stream channels with adequate riparian areas, even if channel length is insufficient for the individual parcels. The locations of the seven sites identified are shown in Figure 3.1.
11
Figure 3.1 Potential NCEEP Preservation Sites
12
3.3 Field Reconnaissance A windshield assessment was conducted in March 2007, primarily to determine if current forested site conditions appeared to have changed since the March 2005 IPSI aerial analysis.
3.4 Reach Prioritization The seven reaches identified were prioritized based upon their ecological significance. The following primary attributes were assessed to determine ecological significance of each reach. • Total linear feet of stream having adequate riparian vegetation on both banks; • Extent of forested riparian area within the 300 foot stream buffer zone; • Location immediately adjacent to protected tracts; and • Prioritized restoration component within the reach. A number of secondary attributes were also considered in the prioritization and included the following: • Natural heritage fauna or flora occurrences on or adjacent to the tract (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program); • Natural heritage natural communities or significant natural heritage areas on or adjacent to the tract. Location of the site in an Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW) area was considered as an additional criterion, but there are no ORW or HQW within the planning area. Consultation with the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition (HRWC) confirmed that priority preservation areas have not been identified within the analysis area by either the HRWC or the Land Trust for the Little Tennessee. With no identified priority properties, this attribute was not included in the scoring system. Scoring on individual criteria was based upon the importance attached to the criteria and confidence levels associated with the data sources, as summarized below. Procedures followed were identical to those described in the CU analysis report (Equinox 2007b), which should be consulted for additional details. Individual criteria scores for each were summed to obtain a total score ranging from 0 to 14. Primary attributes Scoring for primary attributes is discussed below. Linear Feet of Stream Reach. The total linear feet of stream within each parcel classified as having adequate forested riparian zones on both banks was scored as follows: • 5,000 – 7,000 linear feet = 1; • 7,000 – 9,000 linear feet = 2; and • > 9,000 linear feet = 3. Extent of Forested Riparian Area. Through GIS, 300 foot buffers were delineated adjacent to stream reaches with adequate riparian areas. The percent of the buffer area classified as forested was then recalculated. Scores are as follows: • < 80% forested = 0; • 80 – 90% forested = 1; and • > 90% forested = 2.
13
Location Adjacent to Protected Lands. Existing protected tracts within the planning area were identified. The only identified protected lands within the planning area are in the Nantahala National Forest. The scores assigned are as follows: • Tract not adjacent to protected lands = 0; and • Tract adjacent to protected lands = 2. Restoration/Enhancement Component within the Reach. A preservation tract received a higher score if a prioritized enhancement or restoration reach was identified within the tract. • Prioritized restoration/enhancement component not on tract = 0; and • Prioritized restoration/enhancement component on tract = 2. Secondary attributes The preliminary scores described above were adjusted based upon several secondary attributes. Those attributes were derived from North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data. These were considered secondary attributes because of uncertainty associated with sampling effort and sampling area. The attributes and their application to the reach ranking are discussed below. Natural Heritage Fauna Occurrences. Where single or multiple natural heritage element occurrences were documented on or within 300 feet of a reach, a score of one was added to the total primary attribute score. No additional points were applied for reaches with multiple occurrences. Natural Heritage Flora Occurrences. The NCNHP element occurrence database was reviewed to determine if preservation parcels contained natural heritage flora occurrences or if there were occurrences within 300 feet of a preservation parcel. None were documented. Natural Communities. If preservation parcels contained natural heritage communities or if occurrences had been identified within 300 feet, one point was added to the total score. Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NCNHP significant natural heritage area database was assessed to determine if preservation parcels were encompassed by or adjacent to significant natural heritage (SNH) areas. One point was added to the score of such tracts. Site prioritization A maximum score of 14 was obtainable for these sites, with the scores actually attained ranging from two to nine. Sites were assigned priority levels as follows: • Project score 7-9 = High Priority; • Project score 5-6 = Medium Priority; and • Project score 2-4 = Low Priority. Scores and priority rankings for the seven sites are shown in Table 3.1. Site 1, on the Right Prong of Martins Creek, is the only high priority site identified. Additional information on the sites, based upon field reconnaissance conducted by Equinox, information available from the Local Advisory Committee (LAC) and discussions with NCEEP, are listed below. • Site 1: NCEEP is actively speaking to the landowner about a potential project. The LAC identified this site as likely to see residential development within 10 years.
14
• •
• • • •
Site 2: This site consists of undeveloped lands on the golf course property. LAC members believe residential development is likely here within 5 years. Site 3: This site was in the process of residential development but according to the HRWC it has been placed on hold. This site was identified by the LAC as likely to see residential development within 5 years. The site scored low on ecological criteria and is adjacent to the new US 64 bypass. Site 4: This site is located adjacent to a high density development and was identified by the LAC as likely to be developed within 5 years. HRWC indicated that some roads have already been cut in for the proposed development. Site 5: This site was identified by the LAC as likely to see mixed use development within the next 10 years. Additionally, this site is owned by the same individual owning the golf course property and is adjacent to the bypass. Site 6: Field ground truthing did not indicate any recent changes in land use. Site 7: This property is owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. NCEEP staff indicated that it would likely be impossible to place an easement on Cherokee lands.
Many of the seven sites identified by the GIS analysis have either been recently impacted by the 64 bypass project or are likely to be infeasible because of impending development or other issues. Only sites 1 and 6 are not affected by these concerns. These are also the two sites with the highest ecological condition scores. Sites 1 and 6 are recommended to NCEEP as priority preservation sites. See Section 4 for maps of these sites.
.
15
Table 3.1 Attributes of Potential NCEEP Preservation Sites !
$ "
(" '
-.
(
, 1
2
4 +9+
!
)
-
.
,
343
! -
.
#
%
$
&
%
'
"
" "# $%&
"' $(&
) $*&
+ $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
#
/ 0'' $ &
"% $(&
) $*&
+ $(&
) $*&
)$*&
+$&
'
/ 20( $ &
"2 $(&
) $*&
+ $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
/
' 2** $ &
"" $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
+$&
+$&
/
,
%
45 6
56 ,
# %0 $(&
' $*&
) $*&
) $*&
+$&
) $*&
+$&
2
3
/
45 6
56 ,
/ 0(' $ &
0' $ &
) $*&
) $*&
+$&
) $*&
+$&
2
3
#
-.
#"
"# $(&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
) $*&
2
3
.
4
. 7
.
$(&
8 :) 9 ) 8
16
Section 4 Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Project Profiles This section consists of profiles of the restoration/enhancement and preservation sites identified during this project. Each profile consists of a one page site description summarizing the major features of the site, followed by a map of the site. The site description is based on both GIS data and field reconnaissance. The primary source of GIS data was the IPSI database. Among the major data used were aerial images, hydrography (both line work and attribute data such as riparian condition, presence of channelization and erosion), livestock access, and septic systems. The Cherokee County parcel database (2006) was used for site screening and prioritization, including the determination of parcel boundaries and the number of parcels contained in a project. Individual landowner and property identification numbers were updated based on the August 2007 Cherokee County database. Information on some features obtained from the GIS data was adjusted based upon the field reconnaissance (discussed below). For example, stream type (perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) is available from the IPSI database, but the field evaluation indicated a number of issues: some streams did not actually exist, some streams classified as intermittent appeared to be perennial, etc. As discussed in the main text of this Atlas, field reconnaissance was limited in nature. Reconnaissance was conducted using a windshield survey approach in which determinations were made from the public right-of-way. No attempts were made to access private property. An effort was made to assess all identified reaches, though three restoration reaches (numbers 5, 8 and 13) were not evaluated because they were not visible from the public right of way. Only a partial evaluation was possible for several reaches. Even for reaches which could be fully evaluated (i.e. for which all or most of the reach could be viewed from the right-of-way), certain types of information were difficult to obtain. For example, it was generally possible to identify surrounding land use, the presence of livestock access to streams, overall riparian zone condition, as well as buildings, power lines and other obvious constraints. It was generally not possible to get a useful picture of stream habitat or channel substrate. Information on site conditions, BMP needs and project constraints must be considered provisional, as on-site evaluations were not conducted. Following a master table indicating landowner information for the parcels covering each restoration site (Table 4.1), the remaining information is presented on a site by site basis. Restoration site profiles are presented in order of priority, followed by profiles of the two recommended preservation sites. Note that there are gaps in the site numbering as some projects have been eliminated from the final set. Site photographs, where available, follow the individual profiles. Location maps for the sites were presented earlier in this document (Figure 2.1 for restoration sites, Figure 3.1 for preservation sites). Additionally, large 32” by 20” field reconnaissance maps, one overlaid with 2005 color infrared photography, are included in the front pocket of the document binder. A summary comparison of all restoration sites was presented in Tables 2.2 & 2.3 while preservation sites were summarized in Table 3.1.
17
Table 4.1 Parcel Data for Restoration Site Opportunities * /
,
!
, 1
"
(#080
//* *2/%0 #"***
;46 ,< 3;4 ,
)
(0"*'
%
!
228#
2/"**(// "(****
? 1;)4 < 3
0*
;4 ;)6 ;)6 ; @ 46 /**
- @
5
,+
)
(0"*'
/2 * 5 4 "
< .3;
)
(0"*/
< .3;
)
(0"*/
< .3;
)
(0"*/
2** 7 ;;)3< ) ; ;6; + @ @
"( = ; = 2"//2"
= .= > '* ;@?6,
)
< .3; @
%' 7 ;;)3< ) ; ;6< + @
+3A
,+
< .3;
%*0
