19970142 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970218

DEM M: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.p. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] AM: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone. [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT:
1. Owners Name: Windsor Aunhtry Comnany Windsor Forest Phase IV
2. Owners Address: P.O. now 16449. Si-a+-ion R rrppnyi11g%1 S.C. A6n6
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): _ I R 0 3) 271-98r
5 (Work);
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number
Mr. Drew Norwood
P.O. Box 16449, Station B Greenvii- e S.C. '29606
(803) 271=9855
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: H e n d P r G o n
Nearest Town or City: _ F1 P t nh r
Specific Location'(Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): T n t r s e c t i o n of F a n n i n g •'Rr i„d q p Road
SR 1358 and rase Road(Pregsle., Road) SR 14ia
6. Name of Closest S cream/River. Kimsey Creek
7. River Basin: - F r e r•h R r n a ri
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO M
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:_ 0.33
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: -0. 16
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 0 . 16
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 12" X 11" drawings only): Cis t ru c t i on o f a
residential hrnisi nridtmyplp,nmentt . to ing1lirle 44 Relocation of
annrox_ 640 l.f. of•KimsPv creek.
13. Purpose of proposed work: -E K-sv_i A n r P s i d V. h i a 1 h n ? i cz i n a
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note treasures
taken to IniAlirllZe wetland impacts. W P h a vP c] P S i nrL -p,rn pp r P r n G i n n n n n f r n t m A a S mri
to minimize the imnar•tPrl yatPra_
1 S. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine.Fuheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Fedaral.1y listed or proposed for listing endangered or thrtawned species or critical
habitat in the pcnuit area that may be affected by the proposed project. 1-lave you done so? YES [ j NO [ )
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the pennit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ ] NO [ j
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wedands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of !he
delineation line.
D. If a stormwatcr management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrotuiditig property? R e s i d e n t i a l
F. If applicable,'what is proposed method of sewage disposal? Mu n i c i na t sever
Owner's Signature

If
Q
0
K
O
.g
w
w
V
4
4ry??ti\
C3 ,
° mac,
r t
c
0
U
e
U
o
y?
Y

N ?
`f
? U
11 dM
O O O

O ` ?j V II 0 N
Z L
II?Jr in
10 .I.J UOO
. "U8
+
O .2-.w L J
_ O O

O
O Ou Jam'
O Z _ C
a '
? o
E rY
? Y J N
v ?

V)

Es

U
Vl
?o
- /N ,
-------rt-----------
l ti
................ .................. I ....... .... LiM.
Mo M + f

° I M / N N
f I .r
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I I ,
f I
z r? .
609
...............
0
,w. V . I

I a, 4-

r

aa ?T
4d
N
MI FI
te) IN
Mi M ten'
M 1 to 0

N a
N ?p
?
N
Z
w 'S _ o

w
c
O
E
O
U
rn
c
t
O
C
N
?L.. t?• ' , -?...i__._ . r. .r ,..r??Ya /?NiN?1AJai1Ww4i?M
TJ_ _ .f _ 1` + r ??x,? I?x I.. ) '._
?tt n? . I yam- •1.?.R••1y,'T-1 I :' S I
tl' ?\ ?'1.;? -?!`,? I ,` P ?l I ? ? I';??j.'
1,l
s
r
1 l ?
?
?
, .. {
I
? ? 1 ? 1
/b
.
•Y ? ? ?. t ? i I ? ? r ?
/? . a +
. ? ?' i

24
ri
kn II - e / F4. . ..
Z/ u' ?? WA O [] ?? `
?\ • ? 1. ' . it ?•n ? r??.
?K
y
At>
4 ' a1V,•
• T _?\ 3123
O \? , r rti, Il ad
S VILLE 1°, s0. •u t359
EG AIRPORT' N
?' ? ss 2 x
% 63222/
f cg. .
,j 3921
1117814?
?. ' \ Zorn - "?? ? ' ?,
Sill
UFB
n
WBQe d?sp a 25' ?31TE
' '4 li20
Q/ 2050
?\(
IV C-V
jorj 1b.
ZV c19 70 2-3
J I/
:• 2
I i ROAD ' .ti"•i'I
Q U 23
1 Butler Bridge O 134 ?? = ral Ili X19
\ a? c\ fir.1.. ark b V m "?" 3
? O
.77
1 ? V / u o
A+havft
Hendersonville
Airport
To
Asheville
as
Hsnds:soavllls
V t c! a t t y
W,NI?SoI? f}?CHT?y . ?.
?}c1f ro?v ?, 19 7 70 23 12
1
SHEE7- L-f- OV L-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
February 19, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
[DEHNR

The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199702312 dated Febrary 13,
1997 describing a proposed project by the Windsor Aughtry Company is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by March 14, 1997. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed Date c
P.O. Box 27687, ??y? FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 N ?f C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.I=-
,State of North Carolina :
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 4, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Water Quality u visors
From: Steve Tedde
Subject: Stream Reloc tion/Channelization Guidelines
In 1993, several DEHNR staff met with DOT staff to develop
stream relocation/channelization guidelines. Comments from each
regional office were solicited on the draft guidelines. The
final guidelines were written in October 1993 and DOT
subsequently adopted them.
There are two categories of relocation. A minor relocation
is defined as one that involves less than 100 total feet of
stream relocation with no more than 50 feet of stream relocation
on one side of a structure. If more than a total of 100 feet or
greater than 50 feet on one side of a structure is to be
relocated, it.is referred to as a standard relocation. Standard
relocations need to be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources
Commission but minor relocations do not unless the stream has a
HQW classification. The guidelines are attached for your
information.
DEM wanted to be assured that the guidelines would work
before we apply them to all projects. It appears now that these
guidelines will be successful if properly implemented.
Therefore, the guidelines for stream relocation/channelization
should be applied to all private and public projects that meet
the condition in the paragraph above effective immediately.
Please make them available as appropriate.
Should you have any questions regarding the guidelines,
please contact Eric Galamb at [phone].
attachment
streamgd.mem
cc: David Foster
Fred Harris, WRC
Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opporhnity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% pcst-consumer paper
`Stream Relocation Guidelines
NOTE: These guidelines are for-the piedmont and coastal regions. While these guidelines are similar to the trout
county requirements, they do not replace the existing process for trout counties. This' guidance is to be followed
prior to the permit process to facilitate that process and to minimize impacts
"Minor Relocations"
"Standard Relocations"
Applicable when: •
- Less than 100 feet of total relocation is required at a
given crossing (from the end of the structure, inluding
headwalls), and no more than 5,0 feet is relocated on
any one side (upstream or downstream) .
Technical guidelines:
-Relocation should be similar to original channel in
Width
Depth
Gradient
Substrate
-Bank vegetation should be re-established, but no
specific planting regime is required
Co-ordination with WRC field staff.
-No coordination is required unless in High Quality
Waters(HQW), critical habitat(as mapped by WRC),
or.at locations involving Federal/State listed species.
Treat these cases as "Standard Relocations".
Note: WRC coordination will be welcomed even on
"Minor" projects.
Applicable when:
- Greater than 100 feet of total relocation. is required at
a given crossing (from the end of the structure inlud-
ing headwalls), Or more than 50 feet is relocated on
anyone side (upstream or downstream)
Technical guidelines:
-Relocation should be similar to original channel iii
Width
Depth
Gradient
Substrate
For the following items, site specific requirements
will be determined through coordination with the
WRC field staff. These items will follow WRC's
established guidelines and will incorporate any
highway specific guidance jointly developed between
WRC, Hydraulics, and Roadside Environmental:
- Re-etablishment of bank vegetation with planting
regime required
- Meanders and habitat structures (root wads, wing
deflectors, etc.) approximating the original stream
Co-ordination with WRC field staff:
-Coordinate the relocation with•the appropriate WRC
district fisheries biologist
General Guidance: Minimize instream activities during peak spawning periods (April-June)
- Schedule instream activities during periods of low flow as much as possible
- Use vegetation to stabilize streambank vs. riprap to the maximum extent practicable
- Minimize use of fertilizer adjacent to stream
- Use native woody/shrub like species with small basal width within 25-50 ft. of the structure to reducd clog-
ging. Beyond that distance use native tree species.
- It is preferred that bank vegetation be re-established prior to introducing flow into the channel.
- For reference utilize NC Wildlife Res. Comm. document "NC Stream Protection and Improvement Guide-
lines"
NOTE: Coordination with WRC on projects covered by nationwide permits (outside the 25 trout counties) is
voluntary. This is a proactive effort by NCDOT and WRC minimize habitat impacts from highway projects
and to facilitate communication and understanding at the field level.

.t
t
f L
D
/ O
U .
Y
O • N
u w d
= 3 w o v
J B O O) !?
6 G C N
~ U
t
L \
C 0 U P
U 3 P

co
M
co
ti
N

o r4
m to r
O N C -? W%

to

z
UJ
a
41
c in

u o\.
W
Q
N w Y tn 0 P
u.
O

J
r
J 2
< o
r .r
7 N m

- a
O W
C
_ U
4

a
L
? r
2

J• W
S
?
r
7 Z

? S
• N
W
Z
.
..
m
r W
n ?
s aL
O
MN O
P? O S C M
N O N
?-
> C m
C Pd
a o o %
W L \
++
C v O
to < h C
L
n
J
2
Z 2
0 O
W
C
CL
• O
O N
O C In M
w 7 a co m_
toil m u N v
. a a7 mm•
cx Co L Q O \
W
^ O L v
N C M S ti
x
? o
_ u
W
S C
a
1 _. 4
N tL O P O
J v C N M
m :9 m C.03
V?V ?7 u M
u=i E d P
.-• O O O
LL M U P
r
v
M
m ti
D
C C? N
S ? ? N
U X X ? v
O O. S.. t..
O V m It
a N \
L. CD
2 p OC S P
C
O 'O
r a:
to vMi t?
m O N In
O J ~ N
0 o E N
O -? m m
U N E m
L 0 N
• t0 N L \
? p M O O
W O N t
c c: r O P
tx
O
r
a
x
Y
p C N
g O I- O d
d 1? m
U C L N P
O 67 > t
C W E N
a.• O V1
W ++ ti L \
V) 0
W u 7 P
C V3 O P
O O
r co
-C .0 C13
uc N..O?r
O o L M
O
-7 > N
- O \
O O 1~n < ti
w
O
L V1
0 CD
Z co
3 y N N
t-
U L
4 f?
- o v _ Q
< to v > N
(A E L v
lz , C3 #A
M < ti

O < IOn d
O m r
8
0 P
N
4.1
V 0
C4
O U
.• P
G C13 O Y P
?
0 a+

2 +C- C N
N O N 1
K ~
m N

8 a
O M
2 N M
w S C vN,
x. o. a
8 .0 ' _\
p L.
v

CL O N: O O
- S N: S

J
O
• ? m
. f„
c
M O O V,
Oi m 0O O O `Q
co
S m d V
N N
a \
di
P W M u ' O
0. N N O N P
r u 3 a. W
Z r ? .N J
r
S C m r• Y P r
Z r J
C W W
0
a
. t4 W
W cc
0 _j 03 u
3 W j .<1
O
N
N

M N
N

• O
m u p,
y
?
p
N `
v
i N

C u C v W
W N N 1 S
u J
v _
N N ?O OC <
1•
N N • p a
O O -+ r
C Y .-• W O. r N
v .. O W N p C N U
m N N d m O v
N N M
x N M M y S L N N
r W C33 N
\ \
O O -O• M y W N ~ N
J.° -7 m -+ M 01 J a P O
x M m > v o' un
o v a
g fA P ~ .y t0 m 0 W
s m to 6 i t O w r- Q p
D 3 tY 2 P J O N G. to P
O C
J U O
F- N
J Y Q W
u U,
• O C
m C N 67
a
J O ti d J N
N O O
co ? N N v m C M N.?' W
cli 'o in
-6 rIj
u. Y O O N\ u. X •'' tT ti
U M W. •O CD U O N
S O M p, d a m? a?
W
H
in '3 o?C N P ? D 3 O?G < Ip?• 7
S U O
~ __ 4 0
J m
C3 Y oc Y
J O
U W
? U
J Q
!EA
O 7 O N 7 N
03 in r•• m •O
co N W
O N O ? J N p
•m N L (? O ? N_ C ?_ v (V aH
N V y, W m N tV v W U N •> N\ W
o = y co y d P v o
O C7 V N v~i N .L L .f •y.. U S v .~ yL:r Z 4.. 0 'o CD
w p U OC = P O G S ?t 3 f? } H
m O C co
1.- 12' 12 I.-; w 0 10 C12
'?.. • \ c7 Y N .7
m'_O. p %'v m oc CC
tn-
Streambank Stabilization and Planting Guidelines for Stream Restoration and Relocation
Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Branch
January 27, 1997
Streams and rivers throughout N.C. have been long been eroded and degraded by increased flow from .
urbanization and channelizadon. With large amounts of impervious surfaces, erosion rates are higher and invasive
vesetation often takes over and disrupts the functions of these aquatic systems. Consequently, there is a great
demand for projects related to stream restoration and relocations. The Division of Water Quality would prefer not to
have streams buried ( piped or culverted) since this eliminates aquatic life in the affected stretch of stream. Detailed
stream relocation guidance is being developed by the N. C- Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) staff. The
guidance in this handout will serve as an interim basis until the WRC gifidelines are complete.
Streams restoration may occur as a result of compensatory mitigation or to enhance stream conditions.
Dearaded streams or rivers in need of restoration may have eroded stream banks, a lack of or poorly vegetated
riparian zones or may be severely incised or downcut below the natural riverbed Impacted streams may also be full
or sediment. Restored streams have increased habitat resulting in more diverse macrobenthic, fish or wildlife
populations as well as enhanced recreational use. Often invasive non-native vegetation should be removed and
replaced with native vegetation which has been proven to have effective root systems for stabilization.
Streams are often relocated during construction processes. During this process, it is important to minimize
impacts to water quality, wetlands and wildlife habitat. The ma.in'goal of relocating stream channels is to match or
improve the original stream to a pre-disturbance configuration. Variables such as width, depth, gradient, substrate
and meanders should be similar or better than the original stream configuration. Efforts for stream relocation or
stabilization may attempt to alter the stream cross sectional area or volume. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ
prefers that the relocated or affected channel be designed to the original dimensions. Since most natural channels
form to carry the two year storm within the streambanks, this design frequency will normally be the largest approved
by DWQ. River channels widened to carry a larger storm may be acceptable to DWQ if threats to structures and
roads are apparent. However, the DWQ believes that floodplains should be allowed to function as water storage and
pollutant removal and that flooding in these floodplains should be recognized as a natural, acceptable phenomenon.
The opportunity exists in stream relocations to improve upon a stream that may have been altered by channelization
or development. Meanders in streams should be duplicated or created (if absent) so that the stream has sinuous
channels and pool to riffle sequences should be established for piedmont and mountain streams. It is important to
have a variety of conditions from fast, shallow riffle areas to deeper, slower pool areas and an assorted load of
substrate which is naturally distributed in flowing streams. Pool to riffle sequences should be spaced at 5 to 7 times
the channel width. Pools are generally two times deeper than riffle areas. When possible, the substrate from the
original channel should be collected and reused at the new site. Sinuosity or windiness is measured as the thalweg
distance(deepest part of a stream such as during low flow conditions) divided by the straight line distance (as a crow
would fly) over a stretch of stream. If the goal for the new stream is to move material, sinuosity should be decreased
A program (XSPRO) is available to calculate shear stress to determine which size particles can be moved depending
. at
46
on velocity, sinuosity and the slope of the stream bed -
The new channel should be completely stabilized before water is introduced into the new channel. After
stream reconstruction is complete, the stream channel should be sinuous, the bank should be stable and the stream
should have a decreased sediment load and a matched or increased value of biological diversity and aesthetics.
Currently there are many different types of bioengineering techniques available for streambank stabilization
whereas in the past, riprap was thought to be the answer to stabilization needs. The widespread use of riprap is
undesirable because it causes an increase in velocity and volume of water to downstream areas, creating erosion,
sedimentation and flooding downstream. Riprap also does not provide suitable habitat as does natural rock
substrate. Natural rock has more of the small crevices and a diverse mixture of rock sizes in streams create
variations in flow hence more niches, so macrobenthic diversity is higher when natural substrate is present. There
are also problems with mowing or maintaining the aesthetics of rip rapped banks. During riprapping, trees along
river banks are removed which eliminates shading and increases water temperatures. The foss of organic matter
from streams (the absence of leaf litter, logs, branches) is also a negative factor associated with riprappiug.
In areas of high flow, such as outside curves of meanders or in severely eroded stretches, riprapping may be
necessary to prevent scour and undercutting of banks. In these situations, riprap should be extended into the channel
bank toe of the slope for a few feet to bank full height. Bank full is considered to be the highest point that the water
level typically reaches on an average of every 1.2 years. Bank full can sometimes be detected by sand deposits or a
change in vegetation.
Several new bioengineering techniques are available for streambank stabilization and are briefly mentioned
below. These methods in conjunction with native plantings can be used to produce aesthetically pleasing,
biologically diverse streams.
Root wads (along with 6-8 feet of tree trunk) from hardwood trees
have been used by the WRC in various projects for stabilization. These
structures are useful in areas that have high velocity, but bank height must
be at least 4 ft. Root wads are installed into the eroding bank and are
anchored with rebar or boulders. By the time the root wads rot out, native
vegetation is replaced. Tag alder and buttonbush are frequently used as
plantings among the root wads.
Brush layering consists of laying willow cuttings (several feet in
length) horizonatally, with the branch tips toward the stream and rooting
end away from the stream. Soil is piled on top of the cuttings and several
more layers are installed. When installed during a dormant period (winter
or fall), growth new growth should be apparent the following spring. This
is a good method to use in areas of high waters.
A -jacks are a new tool which were used in the Rocky Branch
restoration demonstration (NCSU) and were placed in the outside curves of
the eroded stream bank A -jacks are 6-legged concrete structures which
interlock and can be stacked as a pyramid. A -jacks are used in combination
with coconut husk fibers which are soaked and compressed and made into
logs. These logs are used at the toe of the slopes and are placed so that they
D
o ;
.. J ' -
-17
r
.
7 r-
+'. _ <c t r
overlap the A-'acks. Plants can be planted directly into these logs and they .:k.' l'
J
"Ilk
will biodegrade in 5-7 years after which plants have stabilized the area. -
Used in this manner, A -jacks are much more stable than rip-rap.
Lunkers are another stabilization device which are elongated bench-
like structures that are open on 3 sides allowing waters to flow through ?... I?
them, while also providing fish habitat. They can be made of recyclable 4-
material or of oak -?
Riprap may be used when necessary to protect the outer toe of
meanders. Rip rap should be placed on the outside curves from the toe to ,..
bank full height. Bank full is considered to be the highest point that the
water level typically reaches on a yearly average. Bank full can sometimes
be detected by sand deposits or a change in vegetation.
Rock joint plantings consist of inserting live stakes of plants between,
riprap. Plants growing among the rocks will help to stabilize the area and
slow the flow of water. V r
Vegetative plantings
The use of native vegetation is desirable since native species are non-invasive and they reduce velocity, protect
banks from scour and have root systems which create bank support. Vegetation also contributes organic tnarrer and
provides shade to protect aquatic life. Shading helps reduce water temperatures and enables higher levels of
dissolved oxygen to be held in water.
In addition to establishing bank vegetation for shading, plantings should be placed on the erosional side (or
outside curve) of streams where velocity is greatest. Vegetative plantings dissipate erosive forces and hold sediment
in place. Plants most effective for bank stabilization have deep roots, low growth forms, dense branching patterns
and are resilient under pressure such as flooding. It is desirable to have at least a 25 foot width of bank vegetation
where feasible.
When replanting of banks is required, there should initially be 400 trees per acre with a total of 320 after 3
years (80% survival rate). Trees planted should be large enough (several feet in height) to ensure that they won't be
scoured away during adverse weather.
The following is list of desirable plants for streambank stabilization:

_n
- 4 ??
Plants Commonly Used for Streambank Stabilization r Bioengineering, Techniques
Co?mon.name`"a`ms :Botanical4tiame.x... ..,az. woinments?`r?€i:`"
Woody plants
River birch (upper bank) Betula nigra Grows well on upper bank areas.
Green ash Frarinus ennn-h•anica Grows 50 to 60' in height.
Silly dogwood (lower
bank) COMUS amomum Great wetland planting potential - stick in the
round and it grows.
Hazel-nut Corylus americana Although not a wetland plant, does well in
wetland situations.
Tag alder Alnus serrulata Widely used, low growing.
Pawpaw Asimina triloba Understo shrub - can et u to 15 or 20' tall.
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Grows easily, dies back eve winter.
Buttonbush Ceohalanthus occidentalis Grows well in water, small shrub
Black willow (lower bank) Salix nigra Good at becoming established, will root easily,
good lateral root growth for stabilization.
Beauty be rry Callicarpa americana Naturalized species, 3-4' tall Will grow in
moist bank, may be hard to find in nursery.

a
t
s

Herbaceous lams -
?C`bIIlIIIOIl:n2II1C;?E? !•?a?(?'Il3II1C.,. .??? ?CO?I?ei?TS •. `•
Duck potato or Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia or Grows effectively in wetter areas.: Good =
Sa ittaria spp. stabilization potential.. .
Arrow arum Peltandra vir inica Similar to duck potato.
Pickerel weed Pontederia cbrdata Can be used in deeper waters and as stream
edge species.
Rose mallow Hibiscus moscheutos Can be used on banks where you don't want
tall vesetation.
Blue flae iris Iris vir inica Showy iris flower. May be later divided.
Sedges, Rushes Carex spp, Juncus s Can withstand some inundation....

* Alnus and Myrica are able to fix Nitrogen atmospherically. High levels of N have been found in Alaus where
leaves of Alnus have had 4 times the nitrogen as those of other deciduous trees.
y
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer: TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
**EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ***
PERMIT YR:
APPLICANT NAME:
PROJECT-TYPE:
COE #:
RCD_FROM _CDA:
REG_OFFICE:
97 PERMIT NO: 0000142 COUNTY:
WINDSOR AUTRY C0.-WINDSON FOREST PH.IV
STREAM RELOCATION PERMIT TYPE:
199702312 DOT #:
COE DATE_FRM_CDA:
ARO
RIVER_AND_SUB_BASINJ: 040302
STREAM_CLASS : ?',,S'-V- _qc)
WL_IMPACT?: Y CN)
WL_REQUESTED : P
WL_SCORE M :
MITIGATION?: Y
MITIGATION-SIZE: v
STR_INDEX_NO: 6-57-22
WL_TYPE:
HENDERSON
IND
02/18/97
lull?291s
?r
WI. ACR EST? : Y/N
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?:CV/N
MITIGATION-TYPE: /,(/W
DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y/&
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y&
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y16)
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE SSUE/CON J DENY
COMMENTS t ova / I e d , - - d ? o r ¢C? 6,?0 of S? tP e14
?, ?n/1577 uGf io7? '2
con S a &t 17--ma /( ?e Cje5c tiler NCO hc)CC? C- Aa IiWel i S >Lr, 6e.
I -_j
-- r - rot 4ek w A iI i d i mal lei S of S (?GY % 1?I E'?2 t
3. clufre?7 LI, 5 f ream i5 iii LPIo d's 17?2W
/.10 f--
c. ; P s i s /1 F??? p?9.
1,?or f?? ?U DTs alb -??ool ell, /V.,( -e
S ?u?cl (cY ?? U5 A' ?w C? U & I6? y S h P ,
CC: Regional Office
Central Files
a
4

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199702312 a
PUBLIC NOTICy
February 13, 1997
The WINDSOR AUGHTRY COMPANY, Post Office Box 16449, Station B,
Greenville, South Carolina 29606 has applied for a Department of the Army
(DA) permit to RELOCATE APPROXIMATELY 640 LINEAR FEET OF KIMSEY CREEK AS PART
OF THE PROPOSED WINDSOR FOREST PHASE IV SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF FANNING BRIDGE ROAD, near Fletcher, in Henderson County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show that the applicant proposes to relocate approximately
640 linear feet of Kimsey Creek into a newly constructed channel which will be
approximately 500 linear feet. The purpose of the work is to accommodate the
construction of a 37 lot residential development. The existing stream channel
is currently running through four of the proposed lots and the applicant wants
to move this portion of the channel off of the proposed lots and into an
adjacent new channel. Downstream from the relocation project, the remainder
of the creek on the property (approximately 1,100 linear feet) will be left
intact. In addition, at least 10 feet of vegetated buffer from the top of the
bank landward will be left along the 1,100 linear feet of existing channel and
the 500 linear feet of new channel. The new channel will be constructed and
completely stabilized before flow is turned into it. Plans showing the work
are included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army (DA) permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) has determined the applicability of a
Water Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the

-2-
District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such
resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and
to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
t
r

-3-
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section,
North Carolina Division of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR), Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR), plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean
Water Act certification on or after March 7, 1997.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for
Clean Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina
27607, on or before March 7, 1997, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin, until 4:15 p.m.,
March 14, 1997, or telephone [phone].
a

1
e r ?.

i

Y N = 1
- LIN
p
*,n S N w As
A
• 11
C ?O „ 0 o
v 0 . co

o
E °'??,??
oo
++ w in
N IINJ N
' AL 1
a ?s
?j
N N

II
a
8
wo
U 1
q ,
F
«»
.,
.• o
?? oo
° ?,,

y
t
r
p o
?
Q
Z
~
c
t y
M wr
O
1
`OO
ID
0
co
O
"04
~ .
O
m N Ii N
? ?? O N 0 N
J
In
U
U
L 1
- yY 0 Y z

V)
o ?

v
$ Fc
c
? o
`a U
°' E $
c $`
? c SU
? N
\ \ $E
® pn \ ` \ L
co
Y \ \\ '/ // / . .??N
o in
....:
..........
....................... 1 /
......
I ..
----- y :\
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Y ? i / •
w
1
y
I I I /
.............. Y
------------
i
rn
c
O
E
O
U
rn
c
s
O
c
p
N
pv tii ? V W ? a v ?? ? .
k4 t
+
r
n
n • p
' S /

.
.
?? .y U
WA O p
- :.• -- SK y?AN?
W4AD

n23
\ II 11 2
S VILLE 10
1 AIRPORT' 1359 o
a
,

^
-
Q 13 it .'?'.
\11 Q a ~
e N"22/
11
'
\. 1 p n ?.
11 114
•s
, r o
IN• O n t eg.

M

1

M 2
m•
1 a
\ 1 r ??? ?
( • lla
\ ?I I yI

UFB 19 1
M?
' \ \ -2060
\•N \?• \ ' `
1 0
1 w
? StBtl
?
\1
? ?r
I
?
11 \?1 ? ` ? ?
3 ?
\P c
a

UFB
as
' '?QI?\\:. \1; \\ / \ p wageC?sp al • 25• S1TE
Cm ]v ate »2O

,? • A. ?. wI NDSO
4vGfATlev
e Q')
CIO -
\
I U ' g97o2_317-
I
vx?
i
• ? J
•.p''
I
1 i
z

ROAD U
23
Q 1 Butler r
\ Qe
••
rai
131 "
11
4 • • -0 3919
0: ..
F 3
??? 1 rr?
a
O V
s? a xI? • w

1
.
?; D• 0
.
Q. ' Z
\ \?J r 1 I/ n? \?• o
I

Asn.rnr
Henderson.A19
Airport
s
v
To
A.wvfUe
V i c l e I t' q
(A) OR f}vGHTRY CO.
,+cTra,v !? . l9 9 7 0 2312
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, F"RWA
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Resources Now
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHN R
John N. Morris, Director
March 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM
REGU\/LG
MAR 12 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCPS
TO: John R. Parker, Jr.
FROM: John Sutherlan -
SUBJECT: Relocation of Kimsey Creek near Fletcher in Henderson County,
Public Notice Number 199702312
We have reviewed this public notice and do not recommend approval of the permit to
allow the applicant to relocate Kimsey Creek. The reason for our position is the likely negative
effect this project will have on stream habitat, wetlands, and water quality
cc: Frank McBride, WRC
John Dorney, DWQ ?
Steve Reed
Jim Mead
Jeff Bruton
P.O. Box 27687 ??y? Voice 919-733-4064
Raleigh, North Carolina ?? C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
27611-7687 50% recycled/ 100/6 post-consumer paper
' Ea North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ® _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1186, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MFMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker, Jr., Inland 404 Coordinator
Division of' Coastal Management, DEHNR
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton, Assistant Dilrcctor -C/11 L?N p n? ??+aGp?
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
March 5, 1997
, request from the Windsor
relocate approximately 640
Forest Phase IV
,derson County.
a, ,
The Windsor Aughtry Compan7 is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404rmit from the U. S. Anny
Corps of Engineers. Staff' biologists with the NCWRC have reviewed the subject document, and
an onsite investigation was conducted on February 25, 1997, to further assess potential
construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The applicant proposes to relocate approximately 640 linear feet of Kimsey Creek into a
newly constructed channel, which will be approximately 500 linear feet. The purpose of the
work is to accommodate the construction of a 37 lot residential development. The existing
stream channel is eurwntly running through four of the proposed lots and the applicant wants to
move this portion of the stream channel off of the proposed lots and into an adjacent new
channel. Downstream from the relocation project; the remaining 1,100 linear feet of the stream
on the property wi I1 be left intact. In addition, at least 10 feet of vegetated buffer from the top of
the bank landward will be left along the 1,100 linear feet of the existing channel and the 500
liucar feet of now channel. The new channel will be constructed and completely stabilized
before flow it; turned into it.
This section of Kimsey Creek provides one of the few remaining undisturbed stream
reaches in the area. It has a bankfull width of 6-8 feet and a substrate of cobble, gravel, and stand
with several veins of bedrock present on lots 35 and 36. This stream is not Designated Public
Mountain Trout Water, but provides good habitat for various nongame fish species and other
aquatic organisms. It should be rioted that Kimsey Creek is a tributary to Cane Creek, which
provides spawning habitat for smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish, and muskellunge. a regionally
significant fishery.
.ti
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Mar 06'97 15:01 Ne.004 P.03
Winsor Aughtry Company 2 March 5, 1997
Action No. 199702312
The NCWRC is concerned about potential degradation of spawning habitat resulting Gum
sedimentation and the elimination of virtually all fish habitat in the project area. Stream
channcliration has catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and disturbance of the natural form of the
stream channel will likely cause downstream erosion problems, possibly affecting other land
owners. We routinely recommend vegetated buffer zones of at least 50 feet to control
sedimentation into streams, provide shade and cover, and maintain a travel corridor for wildtite.
Based on the potential for the further degradation and loss of habitat in the area, the
NCWRC feels the applicant has not considered alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. The NCWRC recommends that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers not
issue this permit and that the applicant explore alternatives such as incorporating the natural
stream dimensions into lot design; thereby, reducing the number of lots in the project area from
four to two (combine lots 32 and 33; and lots 35 and 36).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any
questions regarding these continents, please contact Mr. Mark Davis at [phone],
cc: John Dumey, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh
Steve Chapin, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Mark Cantrell, U. S. FM & Wildlife Service, Asheville

State of North Carolina IF
Department of Environment, PFA
Health and Natural Resources 1 • 0
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Roger N. Schecter, Director
February 19, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199702312 dated Febrary 13,
1997 describing a proposed project by the Windsor Aughtry Company is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by March 14, 1997. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, t- * FAX [phone]
f An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
N* C
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
00,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199702312
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
9-70142
r?
o 0
r
2 Up c"?
?f,)
Enclosed is the application of the Windsor Aughtry Company for Department
of the Army authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to relocate
approximately 640 linear feet of Kimsey Creek at the proposed Windsor Forest
Phase IV subdivision, off of Fanning Bridge Road, near Fletcher, in
Henderson County, North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section
325.2(b)(i.,) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification is required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law.
A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the certification
has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State
action. Therefore, if you have not acted on the request, or asked for an
extension of time, by March 11, 1997, the District Engineer will deem that
waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin in the
Asheville Regulatory Field office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert W. Johns
Office Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
of
February 13, 1997
Enclosure (application)
-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607