20040668 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20040511

,w
NCIJRC
ti
Fax:[phone] May 4 '04 10:24
NG WILDLIFE RESOURC$S CQMMI$SION
DiVISION OF INLANI7 FzSH13RZES
F. 01
bq
I-IAIiITA1' C:ONS6ILVA'1'Ip'?a ? YROGRAM
, ri''? ...y'; . ' ??S.,d? ??."• ,, _?.
,, *z
4??; ? ?
.a+;i?,w , .i.;?.,r::•?' :t?7.", ,?.?r . .. ..
?...... , .. .
IP,ACSIMtLE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Ta: Fxobt:
Cindy Karoly Micky Clemmons
coMPANY: DATE;
NC division of Water Quaity 4MAY-04
PAX NUM88A: ToTAL NO. OF PAGES xNCLUD1NC covER:
91 9-733-6M 2
P[30N8 NU]Y1BSR; SfifVDP.R'S PHONE NUMAEIi:
82&452-6191 e428 _
SE1VDHk's aAX NUbIBHR:
828-452-7772
? URGENT 10 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMF.NT ? pLEASE REP1.V a PLEASE RF.C.YC:I.E
No7s51coMMHNTS:
Cindy,
When ! turned in the permit application for the Romulus Duncan
Stream Restoration Project, I did not have a ietter from him indicating
we were serving as his agent in the permitting process. i have
a#tached a letter that states this #'act. I was nat able ta get up with
him until last week. If there are any prablems with this project or if
you need me to gQ aut to the site with yaur field staff, just give me a
call.
Micky Clemmons
7L-
?
/ 4
?
612 NORTH SALtSBURY STREET
R.ALBIGJ-x, NC 27604-i188
MAY-4-2004 TUE 08:37 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
P. 1
I %' NCWRC
na Wildlife?ResourGes I
=es R. Fullwood, Esecutive Director
to Whom It May Goncern:
P. 02
ission
n this date 1"zr4 .,
T Rvmulus Duncan w I L.. ? <
svg&?? 1?r
give Mr. Micky Ctemmans, Stream Restoration Coordiaator with the North Carolina'VVildlife
R,esourres Commission, pernussion to act as my agent in accomptishing a stream restpration
proje.ct an my property. Specif'tcally, he may act as my agent in obtaining environmental permits
from the U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers, N. C. Division of Water Quality, and N. C. Uivision of
Land Ctuality, which xre nceded to accompaish this project.
a
I Micky Clemmons ?•' y'?- 4n thiS a8t? 41a{O 0
will obtain the above mentioned permits for thc North Carolina Wiidli£e Resources Gommnission.
1'VYaiiing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 6' 1721 Mail Service Cetrtcr I Raleigh, NC 27649-
1721
Telephdnc: [phone] ext_ 281 1 i+'ax: [phone]
MAY-4-2004 TUE 08:38 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
FAx : A72-t152-7772 May 4' 04 10:24
?? yV H( F? Michael F. Easley, Governor
?
Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
? . .:.? Division of Water Quality
(p -? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy D'uector
Division of Water Quality
May 11, 2004
DWQ# 04-0668
McDowell County
Mr. Romulus Duncan
1441 Dysartsville Road
Nebo, NC, 28761-8874
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Duncan:
------ _ Yo.u have our._apprQYal,_in_accor.dance.with the attached_conditi.ons, to res#ore.97Q.linear_fee# of_1-ioppErs GrEek, ____
including 30 linear feet of temporary culvert impacts, using natural channel design methodologies as described in your
application received by the Division of Water Quality on April 26, 2004. After reviewing your application, we have
determined that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3399 which can be downloaded from our
web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 27 when issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead
with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. You should send an application to the Division of Land Resources for their review of your project under dam
safety rules as well as erosion and sediment control. Also this approval, will expire when the accompanying 404 permit
expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and the additional conditions listed below: •
1. Equipment used in the streams shall be in good working order and be free of oil leaks and drips. Equipment
shall be checked daily for leaks and drips;
2. Dredged material shall be disposed of in uplands;
3. Please note that if this project is later proposed as compensatory mitigation, additional application to DWQ will
be required as well as additional monitoring;
4. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect
surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual. b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures must be
such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
, Sedimenf and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow
sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act;
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Weflands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncweNands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
?
? ?tt
Mr. Romulus Duncan
Page 2 of 2
May 11, 2004
5. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of
the impacts depicted in the Pre-construction Notice Application. All construction activities, including the design,
installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be
pertormed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur;
6. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they
shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources
has released the project;
7. You are required to return the attached Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in
the 401 Certification has been completed.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
any questions, please telephone Kevin Barnett in our Asheville Regional Office at 828-251-6208 or Cyndi Karoly in Raleigh
at 919-733-1786.
'.l
Sincerely,
,
_ ,. /?:• ? ?'
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
,
AW K/cbk
Attachments
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regionat Office
Central Files
File Copy
Mickey Clemmons, NCWRC, 20830 Great Smokey Mountain Expressway, Waynesville, NC, 28786
040668
?aJ
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
WETLANDS1401 GRQUP
TO: Division of Water Quality (DWQ) reviewers APR 2 6 2004
FROM: Micky Clemmons, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) WAT ER QuALIr1'SEGT10
N
SUBJECT: Application for WQC #3399 to do a stream restoration project on the Romulus
Duncan property, Hoppers Creek, McDowell County.
DATE: April 21, 2004
Enclosed is our completed application for NWP 27 and WQC #3399 to conduct a stream
restoration project on the property of Romulus Duncan in the Nebo community, Hoppers
Creek, McDowell County. This is not a stream mitigation project. VVe are doing this
restoration project in cooperation with the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative
partners and with funding from a grant that they secured from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). This project is intended to restore a reach on
Hoppers Creek that the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative partners have
identified as a top priority for restoration due to the excessive sedimentation that is
occurring there.
Please note that in addition to this Water Quality Certification #3399 application we have
also applied for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Nation Wide Permit 27.
We are conducting a cultural resources review of this site by completing a Phase I survey
at the direction of the State Historic Preservation Office. Additionally, we will be
acquiring a N. C. Land Quality certification for the erosion control plans at this site.
This request is primarily for work done to excavate a new floodplain and new meandering
channel as well as the installation of a temporary 20 foot culvert on a small, unnamed
tributary, to access part of the area. It should be noted that this culvert has already been
installed. When I found out that this had been done I called the USACOE, Asheville
Field Offce and talked with Office Chief, Scott McClendon. I explained that I had talked
with WRC's Engineering Services Division about mowing the restoration site so that birds
would not nest there and subsequently have their nests destroyed when we started the
restoration project. A part of doing this mowing, and later heavy equipment work, would
require installing a temporary crossing of a small, unnamed (2-3 ft. wide) channel. I
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ' 1721 Mail Service Center ' Raleigh, NC 27699-
1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 `3 Faz: [phone]
;:? 6 6 8
:? 4 t>=
?_r
explained to Engineering Services personnel how I would like to construct this crossing
and we decided to use some surplus culverts that we had at the Balsam Depot. Before I
knew that they were mowing the site or installing the culverts, it had been done.
I explained to Mr. McClendon that this was not our normal mode of operation and he was
aware of that. I told him I felt we had three options: 1) remove the crossing until we could
get permitted authorization, 2) apply for an after-the-fact permit for just this crossing, or
3) leave the crossing and include a request for its authorization under the project permit
request that would be going ta the USACOE and DWQ within a couple of weeks. Mr.
McClendon said that it did not make sense to take the crossing out and then put it back in
again later or to seek a separate permit for just this crossing. His preference was that we
do option 3 and include this crossing with our project pernut request. This crossing is
shown as an impact in the attached permit request. The crossing was installed at a right
angle to the stream and had a geo-textile laid across the channel, two culverts installed
(one at a higher elevation), and clean 3-4 inch rock placed on the crossing. No
sedimentation was associated with this installation. At the completion of the project this
crossing will be completely removed.
There are no wetlands at this site and the only jurisdictional area is the existing stream
channel. The existing channel is so incised that I suspect the existing ground water level
is to low to support this habitat type. There are also no buffer rules in place to protect this
stream. We believe this project meets the "conditions of certification" for WQC #3399
since it is not for mitigation, will not impact wetlands, does not impact areas under buffer
rules and should meet DWQ's definition of stream restoration. Based on this
understanding, we are notifying the Division of this project with this memo and
submitting three copies of our construction plans (1 color and 2 black/white copies). It is
our understanding that in this situation an application fee is not required, so we have not
submitted one. However, we do understand that DWQ may have a different determination
about this project and will contact us within 30 days if a fee and formal application is
required.
Please contact me if I have been negligent in supplying any needed information for the
processing of this review. In as much as this is being done with a CWMTF grant and the
funds are supposed to be used by the end of June, 2004; we are anxious to begin
construction. Any expediting of the review process would be appreciated.
Oflrice Use Onlp: Form ve?sion ivtay 2002 ,
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ?
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
b Processing ? 4 ,? 6?` ?
?
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certifica.tion
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is loca.ted in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4),
and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the tap of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
l. OwnerlApplicant Information
Name: Mr. Romulus Duncan
Mailing Address: 1441 Dysartsville Road
Nebo NC 28761-8874
Telephone Number: 828-652-6355 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must
be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the ownerlapplicant.)
Name: Mr. Micky Clemmons. Stream Restoration Coordinator
Company Affiliation: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Mailing Address: 20830 Greax Smoky Mountain Expressway
Waynesville NC 28786
Telephone Number: 828-452-6191 x26 Fax Number: 828-452-7772
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
III Project Information
Page 5 of 13
IIL Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the properiy with respect to locat Iandmarks
such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property boundaries
and develogment plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan
must include a scate and north arrow. The specific footprints of a11 buildings, impervious surfaces,
or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans shoutd include the appropriate
USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property boundaries outlined. Plan
drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is
clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purgoses, the USACE requires information to
be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch forrnat; however, DWQ may accept
paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings rather than a sequential sheet
version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans a.re reduced to a small scale such that the final
version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that the project has been placed on hold until
decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Romulus Duncan. Stream Restoration, Hoppers Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): lJI14
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PN: A) IA
4. Location
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Nebo (mailing address)
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Exact directions to the site are
included in the attached construction plan on pg.14 under prebid meeting.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.62056/81.85111
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for ea.ch crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 2.8 acres exca.vated, fill upland area of that size within 9.0 acre project
limit.s
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/soundlocean/lake):Honners Creek, trib. to S. Muddy Cr
8. River Basin: Catawba drainag;e
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:I/h2o.snr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.}
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at
the time of this application: Existing conditions are described on pUes 1-5 of the attached
restoration construction plan.
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Tlzis description begins on page 5 and continues throug,h the remainder of the attached
restoration construction plan The Notes for Contractors section be 'n? s on pagLe 14 and details
the equipment that we plan to use as well as other project specific information
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The objectives of this proj.ect are to decrease
streambank erosion by converting the existing, unstable GSc stream channel to a stable E4
stream channel, to create a floodnlain that is accessible to the stream at bankfull stue, and to
improve the function of in-strea.m a.quatic habitat and the riparian area.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this project
(including al1 prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include the
USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date pernuts and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No prior project history, to our knowledge.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future pemut requests a.nticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
We understand that the EEP progam is talking with adjacent landowners with regards to
continuinst this work u_pstream through their pro?,ram and in partnership with the NCWRC.
However, no commitments to this work have been made at this point.
VL Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to deternvne, delineate and map ail impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. AlI proposed impacts, permanent and
temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan.
All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wettand and strea.m
evaluation and delineation forms shoutd be included as appropriate. Photographs may be included
Page 7 of 13
and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or
description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: See attached list
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wefland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on maP)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100 year Floodplain**
es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(lineaz feet)
Type of Wetland***
NI

; List each impact separately and identify temporazy impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, graduig, h11,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc_ For dams, separately list impacts due to both shucture and flooding.
lOQ-Yeat floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved locat floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-359-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wefland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwatet matsh, forested wefland, beaver pand, Carolina
Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the tatal acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N in
Tota1 azea of wetland impact proposed: lU i 14
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma )
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
IntermittentY
lease specify)
1 ciearing 970 Hoppers Cr. 20-30 feet Perennial
1 excavating 970 Hoppers Cr. 20-30 feet Perennial
2 Temp.culvert 30 feet Uitilamed trib. 3 feet Perennial

• List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts mclude, but are not lumted to: cuiverts and associateu np-rap,
dams (sepazately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabBizatian activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straiglttening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, pians and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the originat and relocated streams must be inciuded.
Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a siream has no name, list as iTT (unnamed tribudar}+) to the nearest
downstream named sheain into which it flows. USGS maps are availabie through the USGS at 1-800-358-96I6, or online at
www.usQS_aoir. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., rvyy.topozone.com,
tivww.mapquest.com, etc_1
Page 8 of 13
?VW'vv.usQs.?ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., w-'v4v.topozone.com,
Nuyvw.mapquest.com, etc.)-
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 1400
4. Individually Iist all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U. S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma )
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
ba , ocean, etc.)
?

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts_ Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging, flooding,
drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and strea.m impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should be
described here and illustrated on a.ny maps included with this applicarion.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetla.nds
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, exca.vation, installation of draw-
down valve or spillway, etc.): N IA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N f A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developeti. If appticable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Attached restoration nlan describes these measures. which include: routins flow so that we
work out of flowing; water, salvaging existing vegetation and replanting when possible, using
several erosion control devices, seeding; temporary veg. within 72 hours of completing stream
segments. WRC oversight of alI work.
Page 9 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, mitigation may be required by the NC Division
of Water Quality for projects involving grea.ter than or equal to one acre of impacts to freshwater
wetlands or greater than or equal to 1501inear feet of total impacts to perennial streasns.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Perrnits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including
size and tyge of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource
will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation as
proposed. Exa.mples af mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not
limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland and/or upland
vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource
functions and values by creaxing, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similaz functions and values,
preferable in the sa.me watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order for
USACE or DWQ to consider the applicaxion complete for processing. Any application lacking a
required mitigation pla.n or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An
applica.nt may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft
Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:!/h2o.enr_state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm i?de.html.
Pravide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide as
much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of
mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a descrigtion
of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach a separate
sheet if more space is needed.
Nlr+
2. Mitiga.tion may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Plea.se note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior to
submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at httn_/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrpfindex.htm. If use of the
NCW.RP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the following
information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NIA
Page 10 of 13
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NI14
Amount of Riparian wetla.tid mitigation requested (acres): n?1 q
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N f A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): VIA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Daes the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land?
Yes 0 No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmemal document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Envuonmenta.l Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note:
If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, ca.1l the SEPA coordinaxor at
[phone] to review current thresholds for environmen#al documentation.
Yes ? No M
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? Na ?
X. Proposed Impacts an Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the apglicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly iderrtifiable on the accompanyin$ site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers_ Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (Neuse),
ISA NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply
Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No 0 If you answered "yes", provide the foltowing information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to ea.ch zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
*
Zone ImPact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mi6gation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Page 11 of 13
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donarion
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCEiC 2B .0242 or.026Q. _
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus totat acrea.ge on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the
property.
There are no impervious surfaces nresently existing within the project boundaries and this project
will not result in any.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available ca.pacity of the subject facility_
None will result from this proj.ect A port-a john will be temporarily located at the site
during construction
XIIL Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes Q No 10
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No 0
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to a11ow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may choose
to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work
schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened
Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
We are attemptin tg o be gin this project Mav 17 or as soon after that date as possible. This is being
funded by a Clean Water Mannement Trust Fund want and grant requirements catl far work
under this mant to be accomplished by July l. So an??erliting of this permit rec?uest would be
helpful.
4
applicant/Agent's Signature I Iiate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
Comments for section VI., item 1. page 8.
VL Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United StateslWaters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delinea.te and map all
impacts to wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project.
The applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII
below. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and
waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineaxion map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland
and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact
is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section
VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or description, please attach a
sepazate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
1. Temporary loss of shade from existing trees. However, many of these
trees are undermined by the stream and are falling into the stream causing
further channel instability.
2. Excavation of the right bank for a 100 ft. width by 1000 ft. length could
result in minimal sedimentation of the channel. The existing channel is
contributing app. 70 tons/year so the minimal sedimentation from this
project will be mitigated by stapping this ongoing, chronic erosion. We
will avoid working in flowing water by constructing the channel on the
new floodplain prior to water being turned into it. Consmiction on the
existing channel will be done after water is turned into these new
segments. Our constraction sequence should a11ow us to avoid significant
sedimentation from excavation and channel construction activities.
3. There may be a minimal short-term impact from a temporary culvert
placed in a sma11 (2-3 ft.) channel. This was constructed so that all
materials were placed on a geo-textile. Two 12" pipes were used at this
installation, with one of those placed at a higher elevation to handle
bankfull or greater flows. Clean stone was used to backf 11 over the pipes.
We believe that these will be our only impacts to jurisdictional azeas and we have
taken steps to mitigate the degree to which they may cause impacts.
'E'A" North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
Apri121, 2004
Ms. Amanda 3ones
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Mr. Romulus Duncan - 404 Permit Application
Hoppers Creek stream restoration
McDowell County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Baker:
Mr. Mickey Clemmons of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission), on
behatf of Mr. Romulus Duncan, requested a letter of concurrence from the Commission for a 404 permit
from the U. S_ Army Corps of Engineers. Biologists reviewed information provided by the applicant and
are familiar with habitat values of the project area. 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 restore an incised and eroded reach of Hoppers Creek in McDowell
County, North Carolina. The project is not for strearn mitigation requirements; rather, it is being
conducted with funding from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to improve aquatic habitat and
water qualiiy in the Muddy Creek Watershed. Meanders, a floodplain bench, and stabilization structures
made from woody debris will be used to restore the reach, which will change from its existing channel
length of 970 linear feet to an approximate final length of 1,3001inear feet. Also included in the
application is 30 linear feet of temporary culvert fill in an unnamed tributary to Hoppers Creek that was
already constructed.
Hoppers Creek is classified as C by the Division of Water Quality and not designated trout water
by the Commission. It is our opinion that this project should have no adverse effects on trout resources.
Maintaining sta.ble stream banks, reducing a source of sediment in the watershed, and other
aspects of the restoration should provide long term benefits to fish and wildlife resources; therefore, we
support the project. However, the Commission is concerned about the potential for short-term adverse
impacts to aquatic resources in this drainage. We can concur with the issuance of a 404 Permit provided
the following conditions, which aze reflected in the project plan and that we feel will minimize adverse
effects on resources, are attached:
1. Only clean, sediment-free rock, large woody material, or other bioengineering techniques
should be used for bank stabilization. Root wads should be installed low enough in the bank
so that a significant portion (at least one-third) the root wad is inundated during normal
flows.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telenhnner [phone] Pxr. ?R1 • Fax! [phone]
Page 2
April 21, 2004
Hoppers Creek, Romulus Duncan restoration site
McDowell County
2. Under no circumstances should rock, sand or other materials be dredged from the wetted
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of
eroding banks or for the explicit purpose of anchoring stabilizing structures. Such materials
are unstable in flowing-water situations and are unsurtable for bank stabilization. Instream
dredging has catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and disturbance of the natural fonm of the
stream channel will likely cause downstream erosion problems, possibly affecting other
landowners.
3. Stabilization measures should only be applied on or near existing erosion sites, leaving other
stable streambank areas in a natural condition. Grading and backfi}ling should be minimized,
and tree and shrub growth should be retained if possible to ensure long term availability of
streambank cover for aquatic life and wildlife. Backfill materials should be obtained from
upland sites.
4. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained
on the pmject site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Erosion control
matting should be used on disturbed streambanks in conjunction with appropriate seeding
instead of straw mulch.
5. Repairs to eroded banks should be conducted in a dry work area to the greatest extent
practicable. Sandbags or other diversion structures should be used where possible to
minimize excavation in flowing water.
7. All mechanized equipment operated in or near surface waters should be inspected and
maintained regularly to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, Iuhricants,
hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials.
8. Native trees and woody shrubs (e.g., willows, alders, sycamores, dogwoods, oaks and red
mapte) and herbaceous plants should be planted along the streambank to reestablish the
riparian zone and to provide long term erosion control.
9. Trees and shrubs should be protected from damage by animals (e.g., beaver and deer) and
humans to the extent necessary to insure successful stabilizarion of streambanks.
10. Post project activities or modifications that would impact adversely the established riparian
buffer or other stabilization structures are not permitted over the life of the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
S' rely,
.
ave 1VIcHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habita.t Conservation Program
cc: Mr. Mickey Clemmons, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
.,? J ? ?d ? ?? ?
VVEI'LANDS/Q01 GROUp
APR 2 6 2004
WATER QUqL/n,SECTiON
Romulus Duncan Restoration Site
Hoppers Creek, McDowell County
Stream Restoration Plan
Prepared for the
The Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative
And
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Micky M. Clemmons
A. Brent Burgess
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Raleigh
2004
Execudve Sununary-This report details plans for stream restoration on
approximately 1,000 linear feet of Hoppers Creek, lrnown as the Duncan Romulus
restora6on site, McDowell County, North Carolina. The objective of this project
is to stabilize eroding stream banks by constructing a meandering stream that can
access its flood plain. The existing channel is a deeply incised GSc channel that
has little or no access to its flood plain during banlduil flows. The right bank at
this site will be lowered to establish a new flood plain, with a flood-prone widtli of
approacimately 140 feet. A new, meandering E type channel will be excavated on
this flood plain and woody material will be used to enhance aquatic habitat. The
entire project site will be revegetated upon completion of the channel construction
and protected by a conservation easement.
The Muddy Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 98 mi2 in Burke and McDowell
counties in western North Carolina. Muddy Creek itself is formed by the confluence of the
North and South Muddy creeks, which join the Catawba River about one mile downstream of the
Lake James powerhouse. Since the early 1990's the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) has been working to establish a trout fishery in the Catawba River between
the Lake James dam and the City of Morgantown (Goudreau 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998). Results
of surveys indicate that this reach of river has the potential for sustaining a trophy brown trout
fishery (Besler 2003). The WRC has approved designating the Catawba River, from the Muddy
Creek confluence to the Morgantown water intake structure Hatchery Supported Trout Water.
One of the primary factors limiting natural trout reproduction, aquatic primary productivity, and
the aesthetic enjoyment of floating this reach is the high sediment loads a.nd turbidity entering
the river from Muddy Creek.
In 1998, the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative (MCWRI) was started with a
broad based membership of interested partners. The goal of MCWRI is to seek to improve water
quality and aquatic habitat in the Muddy Creek Watershed and in the Catawba River by
significantly reducing sedimentation and other non-point source pollutants. A Technical
Committee of the MCWRI recently completed a watershed restoration plan (MCRP 2003) that
included an assessment of the watershed. This assessment shows that at three broad levels of
evaluation the Muddy Creek watershed is significantly impacted. Biological data indicate that
both fish and aquatic insect communities are impacted by sediment and collectively would rate
the watershed in fair condition. Chemical data indicate that temperature, fecal coliform and total
suspend sediment are not within acceptable limits. Physical condition data show that the stream
substrats is primarily composed of sand and that there are many sites along the waterway with
exposed, barren banks. Almost all of these measures of stream health indicate that Hoppers
Creek is one of the most impaired reaches in the watershed. Bank pins installed to measure the
rate of stream bank erosion indicate that bare banks along Hoppers Creek have lost 10 to 48
inches of soil in the last year. In total the report estimates that these banks have contributed over
70 tons of soil to Hoppers Creek and the Muddy Creek watershed. Because these data indicate
that Hoppers Creek is significantly impaired and is a significant contributor of sediment to the
system, it was ranked as one of the highest priority reaches in the watershed for stream
restoration.
One way that the MCWRI is meeting its goal of "significantly reducing sedimentation" in the
watershed is through voluntary partnerships with local landowners. Mr. Romulus Duncan has
2
been working with the MCWRI to accomplish its goals within the watershed and now wants to
take steps to reduce sedimentation that is occurring at his properry on Hoppers Creek, a tributary
to South Muddy Creek. This plan is the result of our collaborative work with Mr. Duncan to
meet this objective. The plan documents existing stream channel conditions and the proposed
design plans to restore channel function and stability and habitat quality along approximately
1,000 linear feet of Hoppers Creek at the Romulus Duncan site, McDowell County (Figure 1).
Methods
Existing conditions at the Duncan site were determined through field investigations conducted
between October 2003 and February 2004. Representative cross-sections, a longitudinal profile,
and bed load samples were collected and analyzed using standard stream survey techniques
(Harrelson et a1. 1994; Doll et al. 2003). The geomorphology of the stream was classified using
the Rosgen (1996) stream classification system. A reference reach (Rosgen 1998) located less
than 3 miles from the project site was used as the model for the restoration design (Figure 2).
Site and reference conditions were analyzed, and the project design developed using
RIVERMorph stream assessment and restoration software (RSARS 2003). Topographical maps
were used to determine stream drainage area. Mountain and piedmont regional curve data
(Clinton et a1. 1999; Doll et al. 2002; Harman et al. 1999; Harman et a1. 2000) were used to
evaluate field conditions and the final restoration design.
Egisting Conditions
Channel Morphology
Hoppers Creek at this location has a drainage area of approximately 9.1 mi2. Land use along
this creek consists of agricultural fields or pastures, managed silviculture and forest lands
(MCRP 2003). Very little land use has resulted in the creation of impermeable surfaces within
the watershed, and those that do exist are primarily from low density residential development
and roads. The percent of the watershed impacted by this type of development is probably to
low to significantly alter watershed hydrology; however, 40% to 45% of the watershed has been
converted to agricultural lands and this may impact hydrology. There are a number of small
farm ponds in the watershed and two larger flood control ponds of 30 ha (75 acres) and 4.5 ha
(11 acres). These ponds were designed to alter watershed hydrology, and they probably increase
the length of time it takes the stream channel to reach the bankfull stage and the length of time
the stream stays at this stage. The valley is a Type VIII (Rosgen 1996) at this site with wide,
gentle valley slopes, with a well developed floodplain adjacent to river terraces.
The Hoppers Creek reach, which we are proposing to restore, has a relatively flat valley with
a slope of 0.0022 (ft/ft). The reach is basically a straight channel, having a sinuosity of 1.02.
Creek channels that flow across flat valleys typically exhibit a high degree of ineandering. This
low degree of sinuosity indicates that the creek was previously channalized. The entrenchment
ratio at this site is 1.36 (incised) and the bank height ratio averages 3.16. These measurements
indicate that most flood-flows can not access a floodplain. This condition could have been
3
caused by a head-cut that moved through the reach or by channelizing activities that may have
confined flows and caused down cutting and increased incision. The existing reach is
approximately 950 feet in length and ends at the bridge on McDowell County Secondary Road
1769.
Six cross-sections of the project reach were surveyed to evaluate existing creek dimension
variables (Appendix 1). Bankfull was determined using field indicators that included locating a
scour line along the bank and evaluating the developing floodplain towards the downstream end
of the reach. The bankfull stage obtained from these measurements was evaluated using regional
curve information (Haxman et al. 1999; Doll et a1. 2002). Because the reach was so straight there
was little variation in the channel profile; however, at one site a short riffle had developed and a
cross-section was surveyed there to evaluate the bankfull dimension (Appendix 1.3). Bankfull
width at this cross-section was 26.8 ft, bankfull depth was 3.8 ft, and cross-sectional area was
102.9 ft2. Cross-sectional area was greater at this cross-section than at the other cross-sections
surveyed. The channel at this reach is beginning to form a floodplain. The channel has become
so incised that the banks are failing and falling into the channel. This is happening both as slab
and rotational failures. According to Simon's (1989) channel evolution model, the channel is at
class III with a typical U-shaped channel and is entering class IV with accumulated material
beginning to form a floodplain at a lower elevation than before incision. The slumped material
forming the new floodplain was more evident at the downstream end of this project site and can
be seen on photos at cross-sections 7+33 and 9+05 (Appendices 1.5 and 1.6). This on-going
process is the reason this section of the Muddy Creek watershed had some of the highest bank
erosion rates (MCRP 2003).
At the upstream end of the project reach the channel shows the greatest entrenchment with
ratios ranging from 1.36 to 1.6, but with the last two cross-sections being 1.96 and 3.81. This
factor resulted in a range of stream types at the first level stream classification, based on each
cross-section, and included types A, B and G. Cross-section 9+05, which had the lowest
entrenchment value, was classified as an E. The rea.ch level II stream classification is a type GSc
channel. The G reflects the low entrenchment value, the low width/depth ratio and the low
sinuosity value. The 5 rating indicates this is a sand bed stream and the c rating indicates the
channel is in the lower range for channel slope.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed along this reach starting just downstream of the property
line and continuing downstream to a point just above the secondary road bridge (Figure 3). We
measured the location and length of riffles, runs, pools and glides along the profile. The typical
pattern of occurrence of these features and their regularity was disturbed by the straightness of
the channel, the modifying influence of large woody debris and the excessive sand substrate of
this reach. Pools were found in association with large woody debris and appeared to be created
primarily by scour as debris increased velocity and shear stress on the bed. Relatively long
reaches of run or glide type habitat were broken up by very short scour pools and their associated
woody debris. Riffles with gravel or cobble substrate were rare (only 2) and some reaches
designated as riffles could have been designated as shallow runs with sand beds.
Bed material composition and mobility was assessed by doing a pebble count and taking bar
sample and riffle bed samples (Table 1 and Appendix 2.1 and 2.2). Pebble count data show that
4
the size distribution ofparticles in the reach is skewed toward small material, D16 = 0.11 mm,
D50 = 1.1 mm and D84 = 13.69 mm. The percent of particles by- substrate classes for the reach
indicates that gravel is a large component (43.280/o), but that sand is the primary component
(49.26%) of the bed surface material. When this data is divided into a riffle sa.mple and a pool
sample (including pool and glide features) the pools were dominated by sand (D50 = 0.72 mm
and 67.77% of sample); however, the riffles were dominated by the gravel component (D50 =
10.64 mm and 79.55% of sample). Because pools and other features with greater depth dominate
this site, sand that moves into the site remains there, thus limiting substrate heterogeneity. There
are no outcroppings of bed rock or large boulders at this site. Bar and riffle bed (pavement and
sub-pavement) samples were most similar to the riffle pebble count with DSOs of 5.29 mm and
14.93 mm. This indicates that gravel is present in the reach under the sand and modifications
that increase sand mobilization would increase substrate heterogeneity and habitat quality.
Reference Reach
An acceptable reference reach was located close to this site (Figure 2); however, it is not in
the Muddy Creek watershed, but is in the Catawba River basin. Ha11.Creek was located by
observing streams within the Muddy Creek and adjacent watersheds that appeared on reference
area maps. Hall Creek was chosen because it was located in a similar type valley (VIII), had a
similar size watershed (5.87 mi2), the stream can access its floodplain, it has a vegetated buffer,
and the channel is relatively stable. The landowner was contacted for permission to access the
property and characterize the reach. Hall Creek is an E4 stream type and probably best typifies
what would exist at Hoppers Creek had it not been channalized. The same methods as
previously referenced were utilized at this site to characterize the stream's dimension, pattern
and profile. Bed material was also characterized using pebble counts, a bax sample and a riffle
bed sample. Dimensionless ratios of ineasurements taken from the reference reach cross-
sections were used in the design for the Hoppers Creek site. Basin Creek a 7.2 mi2, C4 type
stream, located upstream of the confluence with Cove Creek, Wilkes County (D. Clinton,
personal communication), was also evaluated for its usefulness in developing a design for this
project but RNERMorph could not develop a satisfactory design solution using this data.
Riparian Buffer
At the Duncan Romulus site the stream flows through a moderately wide, flat valley. The
valley at the upstream end of the project reach is narrowed by an intruding ridge line. This
feature narrows the valley on the right bank to 40 ft. The valley is wider on the left bank at this
point, but little of this area is within our project area. From this narrow point the valley widens
to over 200 feet toward the downstream end of the project. The riparian area on the left bank has
been planted in pines and is managed for pulpwood. This pine plantation is at least 30 feet from
the top of the stream bank. The area between these trees and the stream has a mowed path for
accessing the area and a narrow border (5 to 10 ft wide) of trees on the stream bank.
The riparian area on the right bank is an abandoned pasture. This pasture has been
abandoned for at least 10 years and is in an early stage of succession. There are a number of
small trees including pines Pirrus spp., walnut Juglans nigra, black cherry Prurrus serotina, and
river birch Betula nigra. Close to the waters edge are larger trees that were growing when the
5
area was actively pastured. A number of invasive, exotic species are present at this site
including, privet Ligustrum spp., multiflora rose Rosa multiflora, and Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica, which individually or in combination, dominate portions of the old pasture
and impede colonization by beneficial native species. This area supports various populations of
wildlife including various songbirds, rabbits Sylvilagus sp., quail Colinus virginianus, wild
turkeyMeleagris gallopavo, and whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus. A small unnamed
tributary flows across the right floodplain and enters Hoppers Creek at station 6+63 on the
longitudinal profile. This tributary is relatively stable over most of its length, but does become
incised close to the primary channel as it has downcut to the elevation of Hoppers Creek.
The stream banks between the normal water level and the top of the bank have varying levels
of vegetation. Towards the upstream end of the project reach the banks slope at a 1:1 ratio,
whereas at the lowest cross-section the banks slope at a 4:1 ratio. This further illustrates what we
described above as the channel evolving a floodplain more rapidly at the downstream end of the
project reach. Consequently, where this bench has developed it has become vegetated with
various species of riparian herbaceous vegetation. Throughout the reach, even on the steeper
upstream banks trees are growing. Many of these are large river birch or cherry that have not
been impacted by activities on the adjoining land. There are a number of river birch growing at
or just below the bankfull elevation. A number of these have also become undermined and have
fallen, or may soon fall, into the channel. Trees growing at the top of the bank have put down
roots that are now exposed on the stream bank. Many of these have also become undermined
and have fallen into the channel from the top of the bank, usually causing a massive bank failure
and mass wasting into the stream (Figure 4).
Conservation Easement
Prior to any ground disturbing activity at this stream restoration site a conservation easement
will be established to protect the restored stream channel from future impacts. An easement
corridor between 100 and 150 feet in width will be surveyed and permanently marked. A
conservation easement document will be developed that stipulates the rights and responsibilities
of the landowner, as well as those of the WRC. The contents of the easement have already been
agreed to in principle by these parties. The conservation easement agreement will be recorded
with the deed and held in perpetuity by the WRC. This will insure protection of the site into the
future.
Restoration Plan
Objectives
The objectives of this project are to decrease streambank erosion by converting the existing,
unstable GSc stream channel to a stable E4 stream channel, to create a floodplain that is
accessible to the stream at the bankfull flood stage, and to improve the function of in-stream
aquatic habitat and the riparian area.
6
Channel Morphology
Channel morphology will be restored to a stable form by implementing a Priority 2
restoration approach (Rosgen 1997). The existing stream bank will be lowered so that bankfull
or greater floods can access the floodplain. Mr. Duncan has agreed to allow excavation of the
right bank, within the conservation easement, to a depth that approximates bankfull. Topsoil will
be stockpiled and used on the final floodplain surface. Excess excavated material will be spread
outside of the easement lines, but within the project limits (Figure 5). Once the floodplain is
constructed a new meandering channel will be excavated. Woody material will be used to
construct rootwad revetments and log vanes. The use of boulders will be limited to grade control
cross-vanes at the top and bottom of the project. When complete, the channel will be restored to
an E4 stream type (Figure 6).
Reference information was taken from Hall Creek (a tributary of Silver Creek), an E4 type
stream in Burke County and less than 3 miles from this site. Hall Creek is similar in size, has
similar substrate, drains agricultural land, and is of a similar valley type. This reference
information was then used to develop the final design for Hoppers Creek (Table 2). The final
design was based on dimensionless ratios of the reference morphological measurements and
compared to the Mountain Regional Curve information.
The Hoppers Creek channel will be restored to a meandering pattern that one would expect
for an E type stream. Meanders decrease the slope of the stream, which in turn lowers the
erosive fo'rce that the stream has during high water events. Low slope streams with simila.r bed
material and in a similar valley type are generally meandering. The meander pattern will fit
within the easement area that is being established. The belt-width, or width over which the
stream meanders, will range from 76 to 97 ft and the meanders will have a radius of curvature
between 41 and 63 ft. This belt-width can fit within the easement, which has an average width of
approximately 140 feet. The proposed pattern for this site was developed from curves developed
in RIVERMorph (RSARS 2003), connected for the valley length and adjusted to fit the existing
conditions (Figure 6). Channel length will change from approximately 960 linear feet to just
over 1,300 linear feet.
The proper channel dimension and profile will also be re-established along the constructed
channel on Hoppers Creek. Pool cross-sections will be deepened on the outside of bends and
have a point bar that slopes toward the outside bends (Figure 7). They will have a mean depth of
3.44 ft and a maximum depth of 5.19 ft. All depths are relative to the bankfull elevation. Riffles
will have a more homogeneous cross-sectional profile and have a mean depth of 2.93 ft and
maximum depth of 4.14 ft. Runs and glides will be transitional features between riffles and
pools. The bankfull width (35.0 ft.) and width/depth ratio (12.0) will be constructed in
accordance to reference conditions, but design dimensions were moved toward those expected
for a C stream type in order to reduce near bank stress. While E-type streams often have lower
width/depth ratios (reference reach was 8.82), this design will give Hoppers Creek stability
characteristics of a C type channel, while they are still within the E paxameter range. We are
taking this approach because we are concerned about the short-term absence of root-mass that is
normally an important component of a stable E channel.
7
The longitudinal profile of Hoppers Creek will be adjusted by constructing riffles, runs,
pools, and glides in a naturally occurring sequence (Figure 8). As was seen in a natural setting at
both Hoppers Creek and Hall Creek, woody material will be used to establish pools. We will
construct rootwad revetments in the outside bends of the meanders to stabilize these features and
to provide aquatic habitat. In addition to the root-wads, log vanes will be used to maintain pool
depth and to turn high water off of the banks. Two cross-vanes will be constructed, one at the
upstream end and one at the downstream end of the project. These two structures will be
installed as safeguards against grade changes moving up the stream. All structures will be
constructed according to standard guidelines (Appendix 3). Restoring the correct dimension,
pattern, and profile, along with the addition of stabilizing structures should improve sediment
transport and the sorting of bed material. We believe that gravels will become a larger
component of the substrate at the restored Hoppers Creek site, as it is at the Ha11 Creek reference
site (Appendix 2.3 and 2.4). This substrate change along with the addition of large woody debris
should improve aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms.
The construction sequence at this site will be planned so that as much work as possible will
be done in the dry or out of the stream flow. After the floodplain is constructed the new channel
will be excavated. Channel segments that are outside of the existing channel will be constructed
first and in the dry by leaving berms to separate them. As the new segments are completed they
will be connected to each other by fabric lined bypass channels dug across the new point bars.
Water will then be turned into the new channel. While the water is flowing through the new
segments, and between them by way of the bypass channels, new meanders in the old channel
will be constructed and abandoned parts of the old channel will be filled. When this is complete
the berms will be removed and bypass channels plugged so that the stream can flow through the
completed channel reach. Lastly, the bypass channels will be filled and finish sloping will be
accomplished.
Sediment Transport
In general, the degraded conditions associated with this mitigation site are not a result of
sediment transport problems. However, sedimentation from eroding stream banks and the
watershed in general has caused a significant quantity of sand to enter the system. The unnatural
profile of this reach has caused the loss of riffles that would have higher water velocity and
create a more heterogeneous substrate. Aggrading sand is present in all of the pools, glides and
deeper runs of this reach. The problem stems from past mechanical modification of the stream
channel and continued impacts from upstream eroding banks.
We have evaluated the competency of the proposed channel to insure that aggradation or
degradation will not occur based on design parameters. Sediment transport was validated using
RIVERMorph's (RSARS 2003) Sediment Transport Competency module. This module
calculates the minimum depth required to maintain channel competency without aggradation.
Degradation may occur if the design reach has depths significantly in excess of the channel
competency depth. The channel competency depth is predicted using a critical dimensionless
shear stress formula (Andrews 1986) that is based on the largest particle observed in mobilized
material, which is the largest particle from the bar sample. This method is based on the ratio of
di to the d50bea, 58 mm/10.64 mm = 5.45 for Hoppers Creek. This results in a critical
8
dimensionless shear stress of 0.0085 and a required mean depth of 2.80 ft. The design bankfull
mean depth of 2.94 ft is within limits that should not cause aggradation or degradation.
Riparian Zone
One of the most important components of this plan is the restoration of a riparian zone that is
accessed during floods that are at or above bankfull stage. This will require the removal of
existing vegetation along the right stream bank for a width of 50 to 150 ft. During construction,
small trees and shrubs will be salvaged and heeled into a soil bank for later pianting on the
floodplain and along the restored streambank. Larger trees that have to be removed will be used
to create structures within the channel. Along the margins of the constructed floodplain where it
will slope back up to the existing ground elevation, slopes will not exceed 2:1 and will be less
where possible. Some large trees growing at or near the bankfull stage will be left and
incorporated into the channel and riparian design. Topsoil excavated from the floodplain area
will be stockpiled and reapplied to the floodplain after excavation.
Slopes from the existing ground elevation to the developed floodplain and stream banks will
be stabilized using coir ground matting anchored with wooden landscape pegs. Both temporary
ground cover (millet) and permanent riparian vegetation will be seeded under the erosion control
blankets. As soon as the floodplain excavation is complete the area will be seeded with a
temporary ground cover of millet. Soil amendments will be added according to soil tests and
recommendations made by the N.C. Department of Agriculture. Installation of erosion control
materials and seeding will be done as stream segments a.re complete and before water is turned
into the section.
Stream banks should have a final slope that should resist undercutting and allow vegetation
to become established, resulting in increased bank stability. Where possible, existing sod
composed of herbaceous plants will be salvaged and replanted along the stream banks. After
stream banks have been sloped they will be seeded with brown top millet (at least 1 lb/1000 ft2)
and with a WRC all-purpose native riparian seed mix at the rate of 10 lb/acre (Table 3). Woody
vegetation, including live stakes and rooted trees, will be planted along all disturbed areas during
the dormant season. Native woody species such as tag alder Alrrus serrulata, silky willow Salix
sericea, silky dogwood Cornus amomum, and elderberry Sambucus canadensis will be planted
along stream banks. At the top of the banks and extending to the entire floodplain, native trees
that provide shade and cover and food for wildlife will be planted. Woody plantings will be at
the rate of 320 stems per acre as specified in the North Carolina joint agency guidelines (USACE
et al. 2003). The exotic invasive species, privet Ligustrum sp., multiflora rose Rosa multifZora,
and Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera jcrponica, will be cut and stumps treated with an herbicide
solution.
Erosion Control
One of the primary objectives of this project is to control existing erosion and sedimentation
problems by developing a floodplain and stream with proper dimension, pattern, and profile.
Since erosion control is one of our primary concerns, we will be diligent to insure that the project
does not contribute to existing problems. We plan to do this primarily by staging the work so
9
that most of the channel construction is done in the dry or out of the stream flow. Secondarily,
we will accomplish erosion control through the use of erosion control materials and practices in
accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (NCSCC 1988).
We will follow the construction sequence that is outlined in the following section. This will
basically involve: excavating the floodplain, cutting the new meanders on the floodplain while
leaving a wide berm to isolate this work from the old channel, cutting bypass channels to connect
the new meanders, turning the water into the new meanders, completing work along the old
channel, removing the berms from bottom to top and allowing water to flow through the new
channel. When the new floodplain is excavated the entire area will be seeded with millet for
temporary erosion control. Slopes from the existing ground elevation to the new floodplain
elevation will be seeded with temporary and permanent seed and matted with a straw and
biodegradable net erosion control blanket. Because this project requires having as much as 2
acres of riparian ground exposed while we construct a new channel we will control erosion by
establishing temporary ground cover and installing a silt fence between bare ground and the
stream. The new channel segments will act as catch basins while they are isolated from the
stream flow and will be cleaned of any accumulated sediment before.water is turned in to them.
Soil excavated from the new floodplain will be stockpiled on high ground (Figure 5) and
protected from erosion by having a silt fence installed between the spoil and down slope areas.
At completion, wasted soil will be graded into the landscape, fertilizer and lime added and
seeded. The silt fence will remain in place until the spoil area is completely vegetated. Farm
paths and •roads entering public roads will have stone placed along the first 50 feet to avoid soil
being canied from farm roads on to the public roads. Stone will also be placed on any wet areas
of the farm road. One temporary culvert crossing of a small, unnamed tributary has been
installed at this site in conjunction with this project. This was done to facilitate mowing of the
site. The installation of this crossing was communicated to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(S. McClendon, personnel communication) and will be reviewed as a part of the permitting for
this project. This crossing was constructed by first laying a geo-textile material across the
crossing, then installing two 12 in culverts, and placing clean stone over the culverts.
As stream meander segments are completed, the banks will be seeded with both temporary
and permanent seed and coir matting installed. Our normal course of work will include seeding
and installing erosion control matting within 72 hours on any stream segment that has been
graded. Coir matting will be used on all stream banks, except point bars, which are low stress
areas. Jute matting may be used to cover strips of bare ground that are narrower than the coir
matting is wide. Erosion control blankets will be pinned in place using 12 in wooden "Eco-
stakes" on 4 ft x 4 ft spacing (Appendix 3.5).
All bare ground areas will be seeded with temporary ground covers of millet, barley, rye,
or winter wheat. Stream banks will also be permanently seeded with a native riparian seed mix
(Table 3). Graded or impacted areas outside of the easement will be permanently seeded with
timothy or blue grass and mulched with straw. Plant species used to revegetate areas outside of
the easement wili be based on the preference of the landowner. All seeding will be done before
the coir or jute matting is installed. Prior to construction, the soils will be tested to determine if
any soil amendments are needed. If these tests indicate a need, we will add amendments after
10
grading and prior to seeding and the application of erosion control products. Seeded areas will
be watered to encourage fast germination and growth of the cover crop. All erosion control
structures will be inspected after every rain event and at least once a week. Spoil areas will be
checked regularly for the first 2 months to insure that no corrective actions are needed. If
additional measures are needed we will carry them out within 5 days.
GENERAL WORK SEQUENCE FOR THE ROMiJLUS DUNCAN STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT:
1) Stockpile erosion control materials at the site.
2) Move equipment on site and walk through the entire project with the contractor.
3) Delineate travel pathways on site and clear them.
4) Establish the waste area on the east side of Hoppers creek on the high ground area near the
power line right-of-way and upgrade existing access road junctions with gravel.
5) Haul boulders and stone to the site for building and,access needs.
6) Grab vegetation within the new floodplain area, move and heel-in trees and shrubs that can
be replanted, make root-wad and vane material out of larger trees and stockpile.
7) Excavate the new floodplain, maintain slopes to existing ground and travel pathways, install
silt fence along the stream as floodplain elevation is reached.
8) Mark new pattern on the floodplain to guide the contractor, dig new channel segment, leave
12 ft berm between existing channel and new channel segment.
9) Construct proper dimension, pattern, and profile according to design and add structures on
each meander segment.
10) Construct temporary fabric lined bypass channels to connect meander segments.
11) Block the old channel and turn water through a bypass into the new meander segment.
12) Move equipment to the left bank and fill segments of the old channel that will not be a part
of the new alignment, but will be floodplain and point bars.
13) Make needed modifications to the old channel that will serve as segments of ineanders on
the new alignment. These modifications involve constructing the proper dimension, pattern,
and profile including: rounding into bends, adding wood structwes and sloping to meet
design specifications.
14) After all channel segments are complete we will remove the berms from downstream to
upstream and fill the bypass segments. The stream flow will then be diverted into the new
channel.
15) Complete any final floodplain sloping, replant stockpiled trees and shrubs, seed entire
project site with temporary and permanent seed mix. Inspect and add any needed erosion
control practices.
16) Remove all equipment, including any trash or waste.
17) Erosion control structures will be checked weekly and after every rainfall event while the
project proceeds to insure that all structures are functioning. Regular inspections will
continue and modifications made after project completion until a good stand of vegetation is
established. Any needed maintenance or improvement will be made immediately after the
inspection and no later than 5 days after the determination of a need.
18) During the next dormant season additional trees will be planted throughout the site and after
this the temporary crossing on the unnamed tributary will be removed.
11
Conclusion
Restoration of this site to an Ea stream type with the appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile will reduce channel erosion and the amount of sediment being deposited into Hoppers
Creek, and in turn Muddy Creek and the Catawba River, from this site. Installation of log vanes
and root wads will increase in-stream aquatic habitat diversity. Water quality will be improved
through reduced sedimentation and aquatic and wildlife habitat will be improved with the return
of a functioning stream and riparian corridor.
References
Andrews, E. D. and D. C. Erman. 1986. Persistence in the size distribution of surficial bed
material during an extreme snowmelt flood. Water Resources Research. 22(2):191-197.
Andrews, E. D. and J. M. Nankervis. 1995. Effective discharge and the design of channel
maintenance flows for gravel-bed rivers. Pages 151-164 in J. E. Costa, A.J. Miller, K. W.
Potter and P. R. Wilcock, editors. Natural and anthropogenic influences in fluvial
geomorphology: the Wolman volume. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical
Monograph 89, Washington, D. C.
Besler, D. A. 2003. Performance of stocked fingerling brown trout in the bridgewater tailrace,
2000-2002. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration, F-24, Final Report, Raleigh.
Clinton, D. R., G. D. Jennings, W. A. Harman, J. M. Patterson, L. O. Slate, and J. Williams.
1999. North Carolina reference stream channel morphology relationships. Pages 393-
400 in D. S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, editors. American Water Resources Association,
Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. American Water Resources Association,
Middleburg, Virginia.
Doll, B. A., G. L. Grabow, K. R. Hall, J Jalley, W. A. Harman, G. D. Jennings, and D. E. Wise.
2003. Stream restoration: a natural channel design handbook. North Carolina Stream
Restoration Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant. Raleigh.
Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, R. E. Smith, and J.
Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the
piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of American Water Resources Association,
38(3):641-651.
Goudreau, C. J. 1994. Bridgewater tailrace survey - 1993. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-24-18, Final Report, Raleigh.
Goudreau, C. J. 1996. Bridgewater tailrace survey -1995. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-24-20, Final Report, Raleigh.
12
Goudreau, C. J. 1997. Bridgewater tailrace survey - 1996. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-24-21, Final Report, Raleigh.
Goudreau, C. J. 1998. Bridgewater tailrace survey - 1997. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-24-22, Final Report, Raleigh.
Harman, W. A., G. D. Jennings, J. M. Patterson, D. R. Clinton, L. O. Slate, A G. Jessup, J. R
Everhart, and R. E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North
Carolina streams. Pages 401-408 in D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, editors. American
Water Resources Association, Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. American
Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Harman, W. A, D. E. Wise, M. A. Walker, R. Morris, M. A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G. D.
Jennings, D. Clinton, and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull regional curves for North
Carolina mountain streams. Pages 185-190 in D.L. Kane, editor. Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association Conference: Water Resources in Extreme
Environments. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Harrelson, C. C., J. P. Potyondy, and C. L. Rawlins. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM-245, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
MCRP (Muddy Creek Restoration Partners). 2003. Feasibility report and restoration plan for
The Muddy Creek Watershed. Report of Equinox Environmental Consultation and
Design, Inc. to the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative Partners, Asheville,
North Carolina.
NCSCC (North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission). 1988. Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual. Raleigh.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Rosgen, D. L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Pages 12-22
in S. S. Y. Wang, E. J. Langendoen, and F. D. Shields, Jr., editors. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. University of
Mississippi. Oxford.
Rosgen, D. L. 1998. The reference reach - a blueprint for natural channel design. American
Society of Civil Engineers River Restoration Conference. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
RSARS (RIVERMorph Stream Assessment and Restoration Software). 2003. Version 2.1.0
professional edition, Copyright 2001-2003, RIVERMorph LLC, Louisville, Kentucky.
14
Notes for Contractors
The following notes are specific to the Romulus Duncan Stream Restoration Site Hoppers Creek,
McDowell County construction plan. Any aspect of this plan that is unclear to interested
contractors should be pointed out to the NCWRC and resolved before the contractor bids on this
project.
Prebid Meetins
A prebid meeting with all interested contractors will be held on April 28, 2004 at the Romulus
Duncan farm. This farm is located approximately 8.4 miles south of the intersection of I-40 and
NC 226 at Exit 86, left on Dysartsville Road (SR1769, 1.8 miles), Dysartsville, North Carolina.
There is a power substation located along Dysartsville Road just before you cross Hoppers
Creek. We will meet near this power substation beginning at 10:00 A.M. on Apri128, 2004.
Contractors interested in bidding, but who are unable to , attend this meeting should call Micky
Clemmons (NCWRC office: 828-452-6191 ext.26 or cell: 828-506-9498) before April 28 to
resolve any questions. If you are going to bid you should attend this meeting or make other
arrangements for seeing this site.
Contractor's Responsibilities
• Follow construction plans and the work schedule set by NCWRC staff. Any conflicts that
arise should be brought to the attention of Micky Clemmons, Stream Restoration
Coordinator or Brent Burgess, Stream Restoration Technician. Problems or needs should
not be discussed with the landowner or his workers.
• Follow the instructions of the NCWRC staff regarding the implementation of this plan. StafF
will be on site during construction to direct all activities.
• Provide equipment and operators needed to complete earth moving and stream restoration
construction. Provide labor to do erosion control installatioq including placement of
erosion control mats, spreading hay or straw mulch, seeding and other types of work that
require individual hand labor.
• The contractor and his employees are to be diligent in keeping the site clean. Trash and
waste such as bags, cans, bottles, cigarette butts, grease, etc. should be removed at the end
of every workday and discarded properly.
• Fueling and lubricating of machinery should be done away from all surface waters.
• The contractor is responsible for any damage that occurs to the landowner's property.
• Be prepared to work Monday through Friday, unless WRC staff cancels work, due to poor
weather conditions or unforeseen conflicts. Generaily, daily work will be for 10 hours,
Monday - Friday. All state holidays will be observed and no work will occur on holidays.
We will attempt to work with the contractor to schedule work in a way that fits the needs of
his schedule and personnel, whenever possible.
• Arrive at the construction site at the specified time, prepared for the day's work. If the
contractor or his employee's can not work on a particular day the contractor should inform
the NCWRC staff 24 hours in advance, or in an emergency situation, prior to the beginning
of the workday. Failure of the contractor to notify the WRC staff of work delays will result
in liquidated damages being assessed against the contractor in accordance with the contract.
Excessive delays due to workers not arriving on time or at all, will result in canceling the
contract and the contractor will be excluded from future WRC contract work.
15
• Equipment must be in good working order and should not be leaking any fluids that could
contaminate the stream or property. Equipment that does not meet this requirement can not
be used. If a mechanical or leaking problem develops with any of the equipment provided
by the contractor as work proceeds, the contractor will be required to replace or repair it.
• Sign work logs each day to track hours and activities.
Equipment to be provided by the Contractor (see contract for specifics)
2 Track hoes (at least 1 with a hydraulic thumb) and operator
1 Rubber tired front end loader and operator
2 Dump Trucks and operators (contractor should have the ability to provide more if needed)
1 Bulldozer and operator.
Labor (at least 2 able bodied workers, willing and able to take direction from WRC staffto carry
out various tasks. Equipment operators generally function as labor when not needed to operate
equipment. The total labor crew may not be needed every day; labor needs will be coordinated
far enough ahead that the contractor can make needed plans.)
If the contractor is familiar with this type of work and wants to submit a bid that includes other
types of useful equipment, he can. Awarding of the bid will be based on the above listed items.
Bids will be evaluated based on the hourly fees, and the equipment the contractor has. Bidders
should specify what types of equipment they have. If bidders cannot start by May 17, the earliest
date they can start should be stated. Preference will be given to those who can start by this date.
WRC Responsibilities
• Provide construction plans and direct implementation of plan by supervising construction.
• Obtain U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers 404, Division of Water Quality 401, Land Quality
Erosion Control Plan, Cultural Resources, and Clean Water Management Trust Fund
approval of this project.
• Provide erosion control materials and confirm that they are stockpiled at the work site prior
to the startup date.
• Be on site while contractor is working to guide work.
Construction Sequence
• Upon awarding of this contract, WRC will contact the successful bidder and establish a
starting date (Tentative date is May 17, 2004, but this is contingent upon having a
conservation easement signed and necessary permits in hand).
• Contractor should use the first day to move equipment on to the project site along routes
designated by the WRC.
• Construction will follow the details as presented in the accompanying plan (see "General
Work Sequence for the Romulus Duncan Stream Restoration project" in the construction
plan and the work details explained in the plan)
• WRC and the contractor will make a final inspection to insure that the site is complete before
equipment is moved from the site.
• After the final inspection and WRC approval of construction, equipment will be removed
along approved routes on the final day.
16
Time
Work is slated to begin May 17, 2004 and be completed within 60 days of project initiation.
Delays due to bad weather will be at the discretion of the WRC staff.
Requested Bid
Contractors that are interested in bidding on this project should submit a bid based on their cost
per hour for each type of equipment (including operator), cost per hour for laborers, and any
other costs that the contractor will expect WRC to cover. WRC staffwill stipulate a maximum
number of hours that can be worked under this project contract, based on the accepted bid.
Compensation will be made monthly for work done during the previous month. At the end of the
month the contractor is expected to turn in an invoice for that months work. This invoice should
reflect hourly work records kept by the contractor and signed by WRC staff at the end of each
day and the contracted prices for hourly work. The WRC tracks this daily and can provide the
contractor with a copy at the end of the month for invoice purposes. Compensation for the final
month (or part of a month) will be made at completion. This final invoice may be carried into a
second month if less than 2 weeks are required to finish. Checks usually take at least 2 weeks to
be processed by the WRC Raleigh Office after the invoice is submitted and can take up to 4
weeks; however, this is unusual. Bids should be returned to Micky Clemmons at the address
shown in the contract information by 4:00 P.M. April 30, 2004.
17
` ??- -- - .' Vt
S T -
+It ' : ¢ i,?s r"• `?. O ?^ .
o'
;,?:, i;? . . ?- 1• ,
;I3tricar
• ' . ?? . . ' l.?r ?? .. , ?? . ,
w- . ly''
1 . a . ? . ti . r ?+\ ?" ? . ? • ' '
?I.P
., ?
y r ? `? f . `?I .. -- I, . ?' y, 1 a / '•;?? `, . '.J`,?.
+???fj,. r--?"--ts?u? ? J,` + ??_ ? ???^•?_ . J ?
i ?:! r-. . . . ? , / . ?t+l? (' j . , ? • a .? F ? ! ^ ( "?. ': ?j
FIG[1xE 1.-Romulus Duncan stream restoration site, Hoppers Creek, Muddy Creek watershed,
Catawba River drainage.
18
?
- - r.
?
?
ti
?
O
?
?
>
. ce
?
?
3
a3
?
?
c?
?
3
0
-f-I
cn
[A
?
?
.?
?
U
Cc
a?
?.
a?
U
?
N
?.
?
N
?.
.:?
?
N
L.
U
?
x
?
?
?
0
?
?
?
.?,
?
0
.?
?.
0
?
?
?
?.
?
?
?
?
U
?.
a?
?
a
0
x
?
?
?
?
0
U ?
C,j O
? U
. ?
U
? Q
N ?
GO
-.?
19
?
?
as
T
y g. ; ? • ?
bD 0
C4 ?..

J ?
,? u cc

06
w,

?°?
'.- - -'- --- -

-- - _. __. 1

-• C?s

? Q+

Cd
°
a
? en 3
r
l «
? y-- --?-"'--- ?1!__ -#-- - -- --- i ? y ?

?
_ • ''? '? ? ?

?

?,ii Et ?
•
y. ?a i ? ? ?• .
? I
? w. •3 i = ?? bA
? rt J -?C O a?

? ?
?
?- - -+-- - - ------ -----y c?
U

I c?'s
N
G?7
cd
.D
V Z t' ? ? ti,

? N - -?- - - - k, - ? 44- - - - - - - - - -J? .? Q - ? -W
r

O ? f

? ?• ?
? t I +

? ? ? ? ?
?
?~' 'C :?
J , o o?
w ¢' >
: ? i _
I - ? a?
? +C4 ? O
0
+1 C/)
:

?
- -
?
- - - 4,
? . ? C
cd C)
?
- - -
- - _ V

?
?. `_-
? fn
Q

?? uo?z?l;a??
i ?
`?' o ? o
.
a?

U
00
. ? Cif (Yl
20
?

4&z*

W
? J ? . _
`
? .. • "
y'??p, ir.

? P"N'';4:w" . .
µ71FIP
?.
. .?
.?- . ;..;
SO` + :.
3 y
c ?t a ?
.?A7?? ?u.. - . ?. ., ? ,_.
r,4'
• ?r

e.. . .e . -- ? .
?? .
«i ?' ?y•
FiGt7RE 4.-An example of where large trees on the top of the stream bank at Hoppers Creek are
becoming undermined and falling into the stream. This results in extensive failure of the stream
bank and mass wasting of bank sediment into the channel.
?4;? ?
•; °?
: j
6 9
* 3
si-
i?
447,??
? _ ??,?•`?_ "? . ? ? ?
k fA
?
z7
> i
_..
. ? ? . ? ?. R ? .
#„ _.. . ? . . ? ? . _
? ? n?' ? ?T ?? y' ?? ??ia ? ? ?
.. ? . ia-_ ? +u. ? i ?? a-• ..
,:.
gw ?-

?
?
f?
?
O
.?
cti
>
cd
U
k
?
W
0
cn •
? 't7
cn
? 0
? 'L3
? eq
?. Co
>
cd
? U
O x
U ?
?
Cd ?
.? 3
Q c
1-+
cqs
C?j
O
3 ?
o -b
? c
Cn cd
? 6
0
o .r
?
3
?
x M
L) U
?
?.?
x ?
a
21
22
Not to Scale
KEY:
?
Root wads -`
MW
Existing pine
plantation and path
not to be disturbed
Log vanes
Created O
Floodplain
Easement line _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Existing impaired Existing early successional field
channel. to be lowered to create a
floodplain and planted.
FIGU1tE 6.-Channel segment showing the typical stream pattern of the proposed meandering
channel, existing channel, and old field to be lowered to create a floodplain. The existing 950 ft
channel will be restored to 1,300 ft.
23
FIGUUE 6.-Photogaphs showing the pattern that was created in RIVERMorph and the circles
used to measure the radius of curvature and to adjust the curves to a more natural form (1), the
design widths attached to the thalwag and the channel outline connecting these widths (2), and the
channel width and meander pattern designed for the Hopper Creek restoration (3).
24
YT:
hT
?

r
+?
?
?
?
?
r
<<
Proposed pool cross-section
- ? .- _- - -.- - - - - - _.'
. . . . . ? . . . . ; .
. .. . . _ _ . . . . ?`__? . . . . . . . . . . ?F . . .
-, h: ? .A -1 ,-& .t ,. .. 4 1-
I Horizontal Distance (ft) I
FiGVxE 7-Typical riffle and pool cross-sections proposed for construction on the new
meandering channel on Hoppers Creek. The blue dashed line indicates the elevation of bankfull
and the rectangies created by the 1 ft by 1 ft grid indicate the vertical scale is slightly larger than
the harizontal.
Proposed riffle cross-section
25

102. 8an1dull
100. _ D _ 89:95 99.89 _ 99.84 _ 98.78 _ 99.73 99.67 _ 99.62 _ 99.57
r1
?
CC3
? 96. 5 26 _ 96.06 95.75 95.86 . _ 95.84 95:53 _ 95.65 _
.? 95.04
94.82
w
93. Thalweg
91. _
90.0
0 52 104 156 208 260
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
FlGtrxE 8.-Typical longitudinal prafile proposed for construction on the new meandering
channel of Hoppers Creek. The blue line indicates the elevation of bankfull and the black line the
thalwag elevatian. Differences between bankfull elevation and thalwag are shown for one
meander wavelength.
26
TABLE 1. Bed material sampled at riffles (R) and pools (P), a bar, and a pavement/sub-
pavement (samples combined) sample taken at the project reach on Hoppers Creek. Samples are
presented by size class index (D 16 of riffle shows 16% of riffle sample is <0.52mm) and by the
percent of the sample within a particle class for each channel feature.
Channel feature sampled
Bed material Riffle Pool Combined R&P Bar Sub-pavement & pavement
By size:
D 16 (mm) 0.52 0.10 0.11 0.64 1.41
D35 (mm) 7.00 0.38 0.60 1.78 9.32
D50 (mm) 10.64 0.72 1.10 5.29 14.93
D84 (mm) 22.57 3.91 13.69 24.25 26.99
D95 (mm) 30.12 10.47 26.47 31.43 30.95
By class:
Silt/Clay (%) 9.09 6.67 7.46 0 0
Sand (%) 11.36 67.77 49.26 37.45 19.73
Gravel (%) 79.55 25.56 43.28 62.55 80.27
Cobble (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Boulder (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Bedrock (%) 0 0 0 0 0
27
TABLE 2.-Stream restoration existing and design characteristics for the Romulus Duncan site,
Hoppers Creek, Muddy Creek watershed, Catawba River drainage, McDowell County.
Variable Existing Eausting Exsting Design Design_
River Name: Hoppers Cr Hall Cr Basin Cr Hoppers Cr Hoppers Cr
Reach Name: Impacted Reference Reference C low Lm & Rc high Lm & Rc
Drainage Area: 9.08 mi2 5.87 mi2 7.20 mi2
Staxe: N.C. N.C. N.C.
County: McDowell Burke Wilkes
Latitude: 35.62056 35.6449 0
Longitude: 81.85111 81.8122 0
Survey Date: 10/30/2003 2/19/2004 11/17/2003
Classirication Data
Valley Type: TypeVIII TypeVIII "
Valley Slope (ft/ft): 0.0022 0.003 0.01453 0.0022 0.0022
Number of Channels: Single Single Single Single Single
Width (ft): 26.83 24.62 29.5 35.0. 35.0
Mean Depth (ft) 3.83 2.79 2.2 2.95 2.95
Flood-Prone Width (ft) 36.51 100 329 142 142
Channel Mat. D50 (mm) 1.1 6.66 54.5
Water Surf. Slope (ft/ft) 0.00216 0.00359 0.01377
Sinuosity 1.02 1.54 1.02 1.38 1.42
Discharge (cfs) 831 362 375
Velocity (fps) 8.1 5.33 5.5
Cross Sect. •Area (ft) 102.0 68.68 64.9 102.0 102.0
Entrenchment Ratio 136 4.06 11.15 >4.0 >4.0
Width ta Depth Ratio 7.01 8.82 13.41 12.0 12.0
Stream Classification GSc E4 C4 E4 E4
Dimension Summary
Floodprone Width (ft) 36.51 100 329 142 142
Riffle Area (ft) 102.87 68.68 64.9 102 103
Max Riffle Depth (ft) 5.31 3.93 3.1 4.1 4.1
Mean Ri$le Depth (ft) 3.83 2.79 22 2.9 2.9
Min. Req. Mean Depth 2.8 2.9
Riffle Width (ft) 26.83 24.62 29.5 35.0 35.0
Pool Area (ft) 86.47 64.2 89.3 96.2 96.9
Max Pool Depth (ft) 5.5 4.93 4.8 5.4 5.2
Mean Pool Depth (ft) 3.72 3.28 2.55 3.4 3.4
Pool Width (ft) 23.33 19.6 35 27.9 27.9
Run Area (Sq ft) 67.69 0 79.05
Max Run Depth (ft) 4.82 3.77 3.8 4.0 4.0
Mean Run Depth (ft) 3.36 0 1.78
Run Width (ft) 20.14 0 44.42
Glide Area (Sq ft) 75.74 0 112.15
Max Glide Depth (ft) 4.9 3.69 3.7 3.9 3.9
Mean Glide Depth (ft) 321 0 2.34
Glide Width (ft) 23.89 0 48
Pattern Summary
Meander Wavelength (ft) 0 149.3 300 197.2 242.5
Radius of Curvature (ft) 0 31.3 51.2 41.0 63.0
Belt Width (ft) 0 95 64.7 76.2 97.4
Channel Length 254.4 317.7
28
TABLE 2.-Continued
Variable Existing Existing Existing Design Design
Profile Summary
S riffle (ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0042 0.02082 0.00201 0.00198
S pool (ft/ft) 0.0019 0.0023 0.00194 0.00107 0.00106
S run (ft/ft) 0.0027 0.0032 0.00306 0.00152 0.00150
S glide (ft/ft) 0.0024 0.0030 0.00647 0.00140 0.00139
P- P(ft) 54.2 118.26 305 168.2 168.6
P length (ft) 19.63 55.25 37.5 78.6 78.8
Low Bank Ht (ft) 10.65 4.26 4.5 3.0 3.0
Banldull Slope (ft/ft) 0.00216 0.00359 0.01377 0.0017 0.0017
29
TABLE 3. North Carolina Wildiife Resources Commission's native seed mix used for stream
restoration and enhancement projects.
Common name Scientific name Percent
Rice cut grass Leersia oryzoides 10.0
Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus 10.0
Woolgrass Scirpus cypemus 10.0
Sensetive fern Onoclea sensibillis 5.0
Green bulrush Scirpus atravirens 5.0
Hop sedge Carex lupilina 5.0
Soft rush Juncus effusus 5.0
Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus 5.0
Deertongue
Lesser bur-reed
Eastem gamagrass
Elderberry
Many leaved bulrush
Nodding bur-marigold
Squarestem monkey flower
Joe pye weed
Swamp milkweed
Red chokeberry
Silky dogwood
Winterberry
Spicebush
Maple-leaved viburnum
Panicum clandestinum 5.0
Sparganium americanum 5.0
Tripascum dactyloides 5.0
Sambucus canadensis 5.0
Scirpus polyphyllus 2.5
Bidens cernua 2.5
1Llimulus ringens 2.5
Eupatorium fistulosa 2.5
Asclepias incarnata 2.5
Aronia arbutifolia 2.5
Comus amomuin 2.5
Ilex verticillata 2.5
Lindera benzoin 2.5
Viburnum acerifolium 2.5
APPENDIX 1: Cross-sections taken on the ezisting channel, Hoppers Creek Muddy Creek
watershed, Catawba River drainage, October 2003..
APPENmix 1.1-Cross-section of a run at 0+04, at the Duncan restoration site, Hoppers Creek,
Cross-section 0+04 run
o Ground Points ? Bankfull • Water Surface
indicators Paints
wbkf = 20.1 Dbkf = 3.4 Abkf = 67.7
1
1
1
.-?.
r
? 1
?
i?
?
fl,t
W
Horizontai Distance (ft)
Left picture: the right
stream bank at cross
section 0+04.
Right picture: viewing
downstream to cross-
section 0+04.
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150
APPENDix 1. Continued.
APPErmix 1.2.-Cross-section of a run at 2+04, on the Duncan restoration site, Hoppers Creek.
Cross-section 2+04 pool
o Ground Points o 8ankfull T Water Surface
indicatars Points
Wbkf = 24.9 Dbkf = 3.6 R6kf = 90.7
r-_
4=
.-.?
?
Q
a.:.
t?
?
N
W
Horizontal aistance (ft)
Left picture: looking
from the right bank to
the left bank at cross-
section 2+04..
Right picture: looking
from the left bank to
the right bank at cross-
section 2+04.
31
? ?"v r :•} 1Pj ct+ :.3 "0 Pi :3 lG] It6 Q3 IMP I10 lzr? 1e0 I;G 1,F0
32
APPFNmIIX 1. Continued.
APPENmix 1.3.-Cross-section of a riffle at 3+57, on the Duncan restoration site, Hoppers Creek.
Crass-sectiQrr 3+57 riffle
d Ground Points o Bankfull v Water Surtace
Indicatars Points
Vbkf = 26.8 Dbkf = 3.8 Abkf = 102.9
1
1
1
'-'' 1
4=
r_ 1
0
>
N
W
Horizonta! Distance (ft)
0 70 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Left picture: view is downstream to cross section 3+57.
Right picture: erosion of right bank at cross-section 3+57.
33
APPENDUC 1. Continued.
APPENDIX 1.4.-Cross-section of a glide at 6+10.6, on the Duncan restoration site, Hoppers
Creek.
Cross-section 6+1 0.G glide
o Ground Paints ? Bankful( t Water SurFace
Indicators Points
Vbkf = 26.6 Dbkf = 2.9 pbkf = 76.8
1
1
1
'—` 1
?
G
?
N
77
Horizontal Distance ift}
Left picture:
looking from the
right bank to the
left bank at
cross-section
5+10.6.
Right picture:
looking from the
left bank to the
right bank at
cross-section
6+10.6.
0 10 ZO 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100 110 120
34
APPENDIX 2. continued.
ApPENmix 1.5_-Cross-section of a glide at 7+33, on the Duncan restoration site, Hoppers Creek.
Cross-section 7+33 glide
o Ground Points a Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Mtbkf = 21 _2 Dbkf = 3.5 Abkf = 74.7
1
1
.,.
?
= 1
fl
r
iG
?
N
W
0 10 ZO 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Harizontal Distance (ft)
Left picture: view downstream to cross-section 7+33.
Right picture: looking from the left bank to the right bank
at cross-section 7+33.
35
APPENDIX 1. continued.
APPENmix 1.6.-Cross-section of a riffle at 3+57, on the Duncan restoration site, Hoppers Creek
+Cross-section 9+05 pool
o Ground Points ? Bankfuil v Water Surface
Indicators Points
wbkf = 21.7 Dbkf = 3.8 Abkf = 82.2
12
11
11
?-.
? 1U
a
0 10
?
?
> g
W
W 9
S
s
0
Left picture: view downstream to cross-section 9+05.
Right picture: looking from the left bank to the right bank
at cross-section 9+05.
10 20 30 40 50 60 TQ 80 90
Horizan#al Distance (ft)
Appendix 2. Pebble count and particle size data from the Hoppers Creek stream restoration site
APPENDIX 2.1 Pebble count data for Hopper Creek at the Duncan stream restoration site. The top graph shows the cumulative
percent finer than a specific particle size and the bottom graph shows the percent of the sample that falls within a specific particle
giZe Rlile inclicat.Pq
thP c»m»la.tive nehhle cnimt da.ta. that comhines the nool camnlec (white) a.nd the riffie samn1Ps (red)
y I UU"/o
? 90%
d 80%
4c-. 70%
W 60%
>_ 50%
g 40%
? 30%
2 20%
V 10%
,e 0%
26%
0.24
N 0.22
'y 0.2
M 0.18 ' -
r 0.16
? 0.14
p, 0.12
E 0.1
y 0.08
4. 0.06
? 0.04
0 0.02
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
PARTICLE SI2E (mm)
w
o's
Appendix 2. continued
APPErmIx 2.2-Bedload data for Hoppers Creek at the Duncan stream restoration site. The top graph shows the cumulative
percent by weight of particles finer than a specific size and the bottom graph shows the percent by weight of the sample that
falls within a specific particle size. White represents the bar sample and red represents the combined data from the pavement
and sub-pavement sample.
^
? 10Q%
? 90%
d 80%
? 70%
w 60%
>_ 50%
g 4o%
? 30%
? 20%
V 10%
? 0%
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
PARTICLE 31ZE (mm)
Bar • - -? • - Pavement+Sub-pavement
Appendig 2. continued
Appendix 2.3=Pebble count data from the Ha11 Creek referenge reach, used in the design of the Duncan stream restoration
site. The top graph shows the cumulative percent finer than a specific particle size and the bottom graph shows the percent of
the sample that falls within a specific particle size. Blue indicates the cumulative pebble count data that combines the pool
samples (white) and the riffle samples (red).
...
? 100%
90%
y 80%
70%
ui 60%
> 50%
g 40%
? 30%
? 20%
v 10%
? 0%

7 7
?

? -
Appendix 2. continued
APPErmix 2.4-Bedload data for Ha11 Creek reference reach, used in the design of the Duncan stream restoration site. The
top graph shows the cumulative percent by weight of particles finer than a specific size and the bottom graph shows the percent
by weight of the sample that falls within a specific particle size group. White represents the bar sample and red represents the
combined data from the pavement and sub-pavement sample.
? 100%
? 90%
? 80%
k. 70%
w 60%
FZ„ 50%
g ao%
? ao%
? Zo%
? 10%
A o%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Bar ?-- Pave
ment+Sub-pavement
40
APpENDIx 3. Drawings of typical in-stream structures that may be used at the Hoppers
Creek stream restoration site and typical erosion control drawings.
A.3.1-Typical for log vane structure showing plan and profile views.
MEAN WATER LEVEL
HOLE
FLOw

PROFILE VIEW
iextile material
APPENDIX 3. Continued.
41
A.3.2 -Typical root wad structure showing plan and cross section views.
42
APPENDIx 3. Continued.
A.3.3.-Cross-vane structure showing plan view, profile view, and cross-section view
PLAN VIEW
PROFfLE VIEW
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
APpFlvnlx 3. Continued.
A3.4.-Cross-vane structure showing plan view and cross-section view
..., ,.,.n
43
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
APPENDIX 3. Continued.
A
ical erosion control drawmiz and mstaliation sauidelines tor mattiniz installation.
____ ___ _______ __?--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beginning and end of Sides of the mat 6 in Overlap
mat anchored in anchored. anchored through
trench, both mats and at
X X X X X ?
StapleS 2 feet
X X
Creek X X
X X X a o
X X Wedges
Bankfull
Elevation
X
Erosion Control Mat Installation
1. Prepare soil before installing blankets,
including application of fertilizer, lime and
seed.
2. Stream edge of mat located at bankfull
elevation or lower and tucked behind coir roll
(when used).
3. Begin at the top of the channel by anchoring the
blanket with soil and double stapling.
4. Roll center of mat in direction of water flow.
Staple every 2 ft across and down or every 4 ft
with wooden staples.
5. Place blankets end over end (shingle style) with
a 6 in overlap. Use a double row of staggered
staples or wooden wedges to secure blankets.
6. Full length edge of blankets at top of slopes
must be anchored.
7. Adjoining blankets on side slopes must be
overlapped 6 in and stapled every 2 ft or every
4 ft with wooden staples.
8. The terminal end of the mat must be anchored
in a soil trench. Backfill and compact the
trench.
9. Anchoring of blankets will be done with either
6" staples or 12" wooden "Eco-stakes".
.r?
?