20041608 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20040903

\NATF6
?6
.nrr` `C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 22, 2004
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
PO Box 387
Elkin, North Carolina, 28621
Re: Permit Application for proposed Lemmond/Deberry Mitigation Site in Union County
DWQ No. 041608 for TIP No. R-2123AC, BB, and CC
Dear Mr. Mickey:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Although NC DWQ supports the mitigation project, we cannot provide
mitigation credit for the enhancement of intermittent streams. It does not appear that an official stream
verification was made by a NC DWQ or Corps of Engineers staff member. We suggest that you set up an
appointment with a NC DWQ, Wetlands Unit staff member t& visit the site and make a stream verification
regarding the proposed mitigation site. If the stream is determ ed to be a perennial stream, then the
mitigation project would be eligible to receive mitigation credit.;
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore; until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
Sinc rely,
fit.
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
cc: Polly Lespinasse, DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
File Copy
One
? ithCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit dV![tllCll??l,?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650:
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httl2://h2o.enr.state.no.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
•
C g 3 r,
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ `3cc?jA<<.;?
Steve Lund, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEP A
LeiLam Paugh, NCDOT
FROM: Joe Mickey, NCWRC
DATE: August 23, 2004
0
SUBJECT: Lemmond/Deberry Mitigation Site, unnamed tributary to Goose Creek, Union
County
We are pleased to submit the Lemmond/Deberry stream mitigation enhancement plan for your
review. Also enclosed is a copy of the proposed conservation easement boundary survey for this
site. This plan is being submitted as partial fulfillment of the off-site stream mitigation
agreement between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and North Carolina
Department of Transportation for the TIP R-2123 project in Mecklenburg County. This plan
meets the requirements for the Priority I mitigation category.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service will need to coordinate any comments on mussel impacts that
they might have to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Comments on the content of the plan
should be sent to me at P. O. Box 387, Elkin, NC 28676 or by email to [e-mail] net.
Once the plan is approved by the NC Department of Water Quality and US Army Corps of
Engineers, we will begin the process of putting the project out for construction bids.
Thanks for your time in reviewing this plan.
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
SEP 4 3 2004
WATER DUALITY SECTION

Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
46.- %Z I&GaOC AAA„s e" .2
0".3 Juej,03?-Pae
/s*,Ol-
ffice Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DNNIQ No. `4 1 6 0
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project; please enter "Not Applicable
. I. Processing
1. Chec all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
ection 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
e401 ection 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
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 located 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 top of page 2 for further details), check here: 0
H. Applicant Information

1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: E'AA&tw..?.? .-
Mailing Address: I Q,&
Telephone Number: 90 753 -° Y 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 owner/applicant.)
Name: ?x-- « c..
Company Affiliation: A- )C- : d l e C /J?a?soc:re.? s 66,", se s s ec.
Mailing Address: P. D heem Xd?7
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:i
Fax Number: 3_36/SJ
.cdec?r?eo
Page 5 of 12

Use Only:
USACE Action ID No.
D'i Q No.
Form Version May 2002
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A"_)
1. Processing
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:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
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 NCVW prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located 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 top of page 2 for further details), check here:
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: 6 &-o y t G Pw•. e,6^,> 4et4.4-s
Mailing Addres : 70 G G oos.? Gu-m2w& !J
Telephone Number: 7 3 - .?.2E+ 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 owner/applicant.)
?Lc? <<? /• E.? 11?? sycvc o it.c?•aJ
Company Affiliation: Me,
Mailing Address: A 17 gu dc97
-
N c- 0.046 Z/
• Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
Fax Number:
0M. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers,`and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
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 purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format,
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 are
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: •4e^4,w4. Q.•i J f /?_2 46A'A 6_J se ylk*-
r
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): 7_11OR w a./.I 3 A e- a d- ?-?-
0CC 44W rK+!l?w?-?tas ?'esv? flees we*
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):1 2 Z 4 -0 14.
l0?4?erdy. ..., d$ - 2.LZ- ts3x
• 4. Location
County: u#Ji o Nearest Town: Jk,Jra..? 7ya..1
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): nsdoc ft fl a",- L-L p L&A
u %?.4.%e_ .Z le S Go*k. Ai-a4 M Caws s lsmdss? Gw?es
I-S 4. /,, 44 _Q.w..o 6005'ae C., 1442W. - 3 r- V AOLOnaj eai 4.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): A
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres)a G!, evne.4 C ?i e,?4.? 4 u•?e a?. ? w ,n v04eaAw 1 e'4kSizapdo-4'*
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Gt?o S ??rts ?C
8. River Basin: Y_o.tg ?C.i. I)
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at Jltt)://h2o enr stale nc.us/ad,nln/n7apS;?
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and
at the time of this application: -Se aL.1
•
land use in the vicinity of the project
''_ - l J.- -
Page 6 of 12
• 10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: S a c- /A61A
IV.
•
V.
NI-
is

Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits 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.
Al67il.?E -
Future Project Plans
Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate 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
delineation 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 separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide iustification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
0 1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Some 2. Individually list wetland impacts below:

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100 year Floodplain**
es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* T- h ' t t d 'd of t en r im acts include but
acts Irn are not limited to: mechanized clearing; grading; fill,
p
p
st eac unpac separa e1y an i en y po ary
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at httt}://ut\t to . fenm rov.
• *** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 4 ?? 3 ??.??,s
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.3 + Ve0A.&O06 jAttlaD
ew Li.d..,,?„e ?4•?e.w ?F
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
Intermittent?
leases
LAC xe 4, r: r "
Y1 ? specify) tea. v •

* List each impact separately and identify temporary , impacts. Impacts include, but are not imntea io: Guivel Lb UILU Ubb=,Mi uy-aoy,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net losstgain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included
* * Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
u,z z;.usas.eou. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., vv\?v-, t(:ir.;zone.co;n,
• \i1;1?.Akipp.UCCt.C<11t1, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 8 of 12
• 4. Individually list 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)
(if Name of applicable) Waterbod3' Type of Waterbody
ake, pond estuary, sound,
ba ,, ocean, etc.

r_n ..a]..-. A-A..
..« ..??,
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not unnwa to: nu, -MV-014
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation k;
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
• Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
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 developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
• Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
•
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, 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 type 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. Examples of 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 creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same 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 application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant 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
little: //li2o. ei ir. stat.e.ne.us/ncN?-etIands.!st.rmui6e. html.
1. Provide 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)
i of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
4 &- 0-- a.. fry "A P
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please 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 Liiii):/ili2o.eiir.state.iic.us/\Nirl)*/iiidex.litiii. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information: "A
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
• Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
SIX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes [" J? No ?
NG/ev r
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No E3---
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 ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant'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 identifiable on the accompanying 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
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirem nts), or other (please identify
Yes ? No If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each 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

nn
1 3
2 1.5
Total
" Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extents an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
•
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
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 NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XH. 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 capacity of the subject facility.
NA
0
XUL Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No [9-'-
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No L!r
XM Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow 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).

,8 4, //. A-9e-U9A4, Z3 /6 X
Applicant/Agent' i atur Date'
A,e_n_t^s sig_at ru a is valid o y if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
•
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resotirces Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
AGENT AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT
is
This agreement made and entered into by and between the NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION ("Commission") and Susan and Edmund Deberrv ("Owner"
or owner's agent). The Owner hereby grants the Commission permission to act as the
Owners' agent to obtain all needed permits from all units of government including, but not
limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina to
accomplish a stream restoration project on the Owner's property.
The Commission agrees to obtain and pay any permit processing fees required for the
Commission's and North Carolina Department of Transportation's Stream Mitigation
Program.
Signed:
C,4
(Property ees Signature or designate)
708 Goose Creek Drive
(Address)
Indian Trail. NC 28079
(Town, state, zip code)
[phone]
(Phone number)
Date: 6- Z 2 -- 0 L/
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Representative
By/title/date:
Joe Mickey / Stream Restoration Coordinator / June 11, 2004
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ® 1721 Mail Service Center "9 Raleigh, NC 27699-
1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 19 Fax: [phone]
•
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
AGENT AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT
C]
This agreement made and entered into by and between the NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION ("Commission") and Gary and Carolyn Lemmond ("Owner"
or owner's agent). The Owner hereby grants the Commission permission to act as the
Owners' agent to obtain all needed permits from all units of government including, but not
limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina to
accomplish a stream restoration project on the Owner's property.
The Commission agrees to obtain and pay any permit processing fees required for the
Commission's and North Carolina Department of Transportation's Stream Mitigation
Program.
Signed:
(Propeiffy Owner's Signature or designate)
706 Goose Creek Drive
(Address)
Indian Trail NC 28079
(Town, state, zip code)
[phone]
(Phone number)
Date: 6zt rLo ?L
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Representative
Joe Mickey / Stream Restoration Coordinator / June 11, 2004
•
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ® 1721 Mail Service Center ' Raleigh, NC 27699-
1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 ' Fax: [phone]
•
Lemmond/Deberry Mitigation Site
Unnamed Tributary to Goose Creek, Union County
Restoration Plan
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STREAM MITIGATION PROGRAM
Transportation Improvement Project R-2123 AC, BB, CC
i
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr.
Staci S. Hining
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Raleigh
August 2004
ID
The Goose Creek watershed in Mecklenburg and Union counties represents one of
two remaining North Carolina habitats of the federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter
mussel Lasmigona decorates. As a result of concern for this species, the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) have
designated the entire Rocky River drainage, which includes Goose Creek, as a priority
area for conservation and protection. Because of this concern, when the NC Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) proposed construction of the I-485 corridor, US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE), NCDWQ and USFWS permit conditions required that NCDOT
mitigate for project impacts by restoring degraded habitat in the Goose Creek watershed.
The NCDOT then entered into a stream mitigation agreement in 1998 with the NCWRC
to do the required stream mitigation. This plan is submitted as partial fulfillment of the
off-site stream mitigation agreement between NCDOT and NCWRC for project R-2123
AC, BB, CC (I-485 outer loop). Under this agreement a total of 3194 linear feet of
stream mitigation is required by the USACE (permit 199504596) and NCDWQ (permit
3049). This Priority I plan (USACE et al. 2003) documents existing conditions,
objectives of the project and the proposed approach to stream restoration along 419 linear
feet of an unnamed, intermittent tributary to Goose Creek known as the
Lemmond/Deberry site, Union County (Figure 1).
Methods
is Baseline conditions for the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek were determined
through field investigations during February and March 2004. Representative cross-
sections and longitudinal profile were measured using standard stream survey techniques
(Harrleson et al. 1994; Mickey and Hining 2003). Laser beacon survey equipment was
used to collect cross-section and longitudinal data. Substrate size distribution was
determined using the modified Wolman Pebble Count method (Rosgen 1996).
Morphological data was entered into the RIVERMorph (2003) program for analysis. The
stream was classified using the Rosgen (1996) Level H classification system. Established
stream mitigation restoration/enhancement guidelines were utilized for this project
(USACE et al. 2003; Doll et al. 2003).
Area topographical maps were used to determine stream drainage area and land use.
Soil type was determined from MRCS soil maps (USDA 1992). Regional curve data was
determined from Piedmont North Carolina stream data (Clinton et al. 1999; Harman et al
1999; Doll et al. 2002).
Existing Conditions
Morphology
The unnamed, intermittent tributary has a drainage area of 0.1 mil. Land along this
stream consists of agricultural fields, small wood lots and residential lots. Chewacla silt
0
loam (ChA) soils are located along the stream channel (USDA 1992). These soils are
very deep, nearly level (0 - 2% slopes), and are somewhat poorly drained. Cid
channerysilt loam (GmB) soils are located on 1% - 5% slopes. These soils are found on
moderately well drained, nearly level and gently sloping ridges and depressions at the
head of intermittent drainageways (USDA 1992).
The unnamed tributary flows through a moderately sloping valley, classified as valley
type VIII (Rosgen 1996). Valley type VIII is identified by the presence of river terraces
and depositional floodplain landforms. From station 0+00 to 1+98 the stream flows
through two residential yards. From stations 1+98 to 6+17 (confluence with Goose
Creek) the stream flows through a mature bottomland hardwood forest interspersed with
Goose Creek floodway channels and shallow vernal pool habitat. The unnamed
tributary's floodplain is mainly confined to the stream channel walls due to down-cutting
and over-widening of the channel. Trees in the buffer zone consist mainly of ironwood
Carpinus carohniana, black walnut Juglans nigra, sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua,
sycamore Plantanus occidentalis, boxelder Acer negundo, pine Pinus spp., yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera, black cherry Prunus serotina, and several oak species Quercus
spp. One invasive exotic species, Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense, dominates portions
of the riparian zone and impedes colonization of beneficial native species.
The longitudinal profile survey began at the downstream end of the culvert pipe under
Goose Creek Drive and proceeded downstream for 617 ft to the confluence with Goose
Creek. The longitudinal profile represents the 419 ft of the unnamed tributary that will be
placed in a conservation easement and lost to Priority I restoration (Figure 2). This
stream segment, which appears to have been channelized in the past, has a sinuosity of
1.03 (ratio defined as stream length/valley length). Water surface slope is 1% (0.01).
Bankfull was determined using field indicators, primarily a scour line and using regional
curve information for rural piedmont streams (Harman et al. 1999). Bankfull was
difficult to determine because of the vertical, eroding stream banks. Channel dimensions
were determined with the use of three cross-sections (Figure 3). Fine gravel (D50 = 4.24
mm) is the bed material in the riffle (Figure 4). Very coarse sand (D50 = 1.22) is the bar
material (Figure 5). Averaged substrate data from three cross-sections (Figures 3.1 - 3.3)
indicates the stream channel is an entrenched F 4/5 stream type. However, at the lower
cross-section (Figure 3.3) the stream can be classified as a G 4/5 stream type. In both the
F and G stream segments there is a large amount of depositional material primarily
composed of an unconsolidated, heterogeneous mixture of small gravel and sand. A
pebble count in this area resulted in a D5o of 0.3 mm (coarse sand). Bank erosion and
sediment rates are typically high as indicated by the pebble count result of 7% clay, 21 %
sand, and 72% small gravel. Past channelization activities has accelerated bank erosion
and down-cutting. These types of activities are common in unstable F and G channels.
Riparian vegetation plays a marginal role in streambank stability at this site. At many
locations, the banks are vertical and contain little in the way of bank stabilizing
vegetation.
Stable reference reach streams are difficult to find in the Goose Creek watershed,
therefore, reference data was used from Sal's Branch in Umstead State Park, Wake
2
County (Appendix 1). This stream has a drainage area of 0.4 mil and is classified as an E
stream type. Dimensionless ratios taken from this reference reach were used in the
design of this Priority I stream restoration project.
Mussels
Critical habitat for the federally and state endangered Carolina heelsplitter is located
in Goose Creek downstream of the NC 218 bridge. This project is located approximately
0.2 mi below the NC 218 bridge in the designated critical habitat area. Mussel species
have not been observed in this small tributary. However, above and below the
confluence of the unnamed tributary, five mussel species were found during July 2004 in
Goose Creek (Savidge 2004). These species are the eastern elliptio Elliptio complanata
(state significantly rare), variable spike Elliptio icterina, eastern creekshell Villosa
constricta, and Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughniana (state/federal species of concern)
and the introduced Asian clam Corbicula fluminea, . The Carolina heelsplitter was not
found at this location.
Conservation Easement
For piedmont streams, a NCDWQ permit condition requires that the stream project
have a 50 ft riparian corridor, both banks, placed in a conservation easement (CE) before
construction can take place. The CE survey has been completed for this project and
negotiations are ongoing to close this transaction with two landowners and the North
is Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The 2.294 acres placed in the CE will
provide permanent protection for the restored stream channel (Appendix 2). A copy of
the final CE survey and signed CE will be supplied to NCDWQ and USACE upon
completion of the as-built survey.
Site Improvements
The objectives of this project are to eliminate 419 ft of existing stream channel and
construct 511 ft of new channel, creating an E 4/5 channel type (Figure 6). The new
channel will re-connect the stream to its existing floodplain and increase sinuosity from
1.03 to an average of 1.6 (RiverMorph 2003). New channel construction will allow for
establishment of riparian vegetation along the streambanks and enhancement of vernal
pool habitat.
Priority I Restoration
The Priority I restoration is proposed in an existing bottomland forest (Appendix 3).
This approach allows for the new channel to be constructed in the dry and stabilized
before the existing stream is diverted into it. The Sal's Branch reference reach was
chosen due to similarities in drainage areas, proposed stream tyre, and cross-sectional
area. The design riffle will have a cross-sectional area of 4.5 ft (Figure 7. 1, Appendix 1)
and the design pool will have a cross-sectional area of 10.4 ft2 (Figure 7.2, Appendix 1).
Design pool-to-pool spacing will average 22 ft, maximum pool depth will be 1.82 ft,
• maximum bankfull riffle depth will be 1.08 ft, and average riffle slope will be 0.2 %
(0.02) (Figure 8. 1, Appendix 1). Meander wavelength will average 23 ft (Figure 8.2).
Proposed channel dimension and profile parameters are designed to ensure channel
competency and sediment transport. Shear stress was calculated using Shields curve to
insure that flows in the proposed new channel could move the D50 pavement particle size
of 4.24 mm. The estimated bankfull shear stress of 0.09 lblft2 is able to move, on
average, a particle of 6.22 mm at a minimum mean depth 0.82 ft (RIVERMorph 2003,
Appendix 1).
Grading to create the new channel will accommodate the channel plan form, cross-
sectional and profile design dimensions (Figure 7, Appendix 3). Construction of the new
channel will improve channel-floodplain connectivity, complement the physical function
of the channel during flood events, and enhance riparian habitat along the new channel.
Excavated materials from the new channel will be stockpiled and used to fill portions
of the old channel. There will not be enough onsite excavated soil to completely fill the
old channel; therefore, several vernal pools will be created in the old channel. In addition
to these vernal pools, several low depressions will be created or enhanced along the new
channel floodplain as spring-time vernal pools. Location of these pools will be
determined during construction of the new channel. In some areas the floodplain
elevation will be lowered to form a depressional area or a low berm will be constructed
along the new channel to create the vernal pool.
• Stream structures planned for this Priority I project include those that enhance in-
stream habitat and stability. Rock vanes, log vanes, and root wad structures (Appendix 3)
will be used to reduce the near bank stress and direct flows towards the center of the
stream and maintain riffle grade. These structures will also improve in-stream aquatic
habitat and provide long-term bank stability. In the last 75 ft of new channel, a step-pool
complex (Appendix 3.5) will be constructed to slowly drop the new channel thalweg and
connect it at the confluence with Goose Creek.
Flexible design will be used for the placement of log and/or rock vanes, rock weirs,
and step-pool structures. Flexible design allows for the placement of structures at
appropriate locations during construction. Root wads will be used on the outside of
meanders (pools) and rock vanes and rock weirs will be used to maintain stream grade
and create in-stream habitat. Log vanes will be used in conjunction with root wads and
as individual log vane structures. In-stream structures will be constructed according to
standard guidelines (Appendix 3). Footer rocks will be placed approximately 2 ft below
the normal stream bottom. Rock, averaging approximately 250 - 500 pounds (2 to 4 ft3)
in size will be used to construct the structures. Rock for vanes, weirs, and step-pools will
be obtained from a local quarry. Root wads and logs will be collected from trees
removed for construction access or new channel construction. Structures will be built by
a track-hoe with a thumb working from the top of the bank.
C,
4
• Riparian Improvements
New channel construction will reduce undercutting and allow riparian vegetation to
become established, resulting in increased bank stability (Appendix 3.1). After the new
streambank has been graded it will be reseeded with brown top millet or winter wheat/rye
(1 lb per 1000 ft2.) and with a NCWRC native all-purpose grass/wildflower seed mix at
the rate of 10 lb per acre (Table 1). Woody vegetation, including live stakes and rooted
trees, will be planted along all disturbed areas. Understory native woody species such as
tag alder Alnus serrulata, silky willow Salix sericea, silky dogwood Cornus amomum,
and elderberry Sambucus canadensis will be planted along sloped streambanks. On the
upper banks native trees such as red maple Acer rubrum, yellow popular Liriodendron
tulipifera, black cherry Prunus serotina, black walnut Juglans nigra, white oak Quercus
alba, and red oak Quercus rubra that provide shade, bank stability and cover and food for
wildlife will be planted. Woody plantings will be at the rate of 320 stems per acre as per
DWQ guidelines (USACE et al. 2003). The exotic invasive species, Chinese privet, will
be cut and stumps treated with a solution of glyphosate (North Carolina Botanical Garden
2001). Woody debris (downed trees, logs, branches) created from onsite construction
will be placed in appropriate areas along the project corridor and inside the CE. Debris
piles will be stacked in irregular patterns throughout the site as wildlife nesting, shelter
and feeding areas.
Mussels
is It is unlikely that this unnamed intermittent tributary contains mussels. A meeting
with USFWS personnel on June 9, 2004 indicated that once they review this site plan, the
USFWS will probably have no concerns with construction at this site (M. Buncick and J.
Fridell, USFWS, personal communication). A formal notice of concurrence will be
issued once the USFWS has reviewed the site plan. If mussels are found during
construction, work will be halted and the area searched for additional specimens. An
attempt will be made to identify the mussels and they will be relocated out of the project
area.
Erosion Control
During construction, equipment will only access the stream when absolutely
necessary. For this project, it is anticipated that less than 0.5 acre of soil will be disturbed
at any one time. All track hoe work can be accomplished from the top of the bank. All
construction materials including rock, root wads, logs, and erosion control materials will
be stockpiled at a central location at the site. To limit disturbance of soils, all equipment
will travel along identified travel corridors. If necessary, stabilized construction
entrances will be used to allow construction equipment non-erosive access to and from
the site. This area will allow soil to be shed from equipment wheels prior to entering the
paved roadway.
Disturbance of soils will be limited to only what work can be accomplished and
• stabilized on a daily basis. Stockpiled soils or disturbed areas on steep slopes will have
5
erosion control fencing installed as needed. Once the banks are sloped, they will be
fertilized, limed and hand seeded. The surface of the sloped bank will be covered with
excelsior erosion control matting and anchored in place with wooden survey stakes and
landscape staples. Disturbed areas on level ground will be seeded and mulched with
straw. Other sediment controls, such as silt fence, will be used in areas where disturbed
soils have access to flowing water. Riparian woodland vegetation adjacent to the
construction work area will be identified by flagging and protected from inadvertent
construction impacts. Trees that need to be removed will be identified prior to
construction.
Shill Containment
All equipment supplied by the contractor must be in good working order and will not
be leaking any fluids that could contaminate the stream or property. In case of an
accidental spill of hazardous materials (hydraulic fluids, gas, oil) two Attack Pac
emergency spill kits will be on site during construction. Any spills of hazardous materials
will be cleaned up immediately with contaminated soils disposed of according to state
regulations.
Cultural Resources
During several site visits no remnants (pottery pieces, flint chips, arrowheads)
indicating past Native American activity have been found. On July 22, 2004, the North
. Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) indicated that they had no record
of historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, the NCDCR had
no comment on the project as proposed. N,, during construction, any items determined to
be of historical significance are found, work will be halted and the NCDNR notified.
Monitoring
Once the project is complete an as-built survey will be conducted. Future monitoring
surveys can then be compared to the as-built survey to determine if the new channel is
stable or moving towards an unstable condition. Channel components monitored at this
site will include cross-sections, longitudinal profile, pebble counts, and vegetation
survival counts/plots. Monitoring will be conducted for five years after construction and
will follow the "Stream Mitigation Guidelines" for monitoring developed by the USACE,
NCDWQ, NCWRC and US Environmental Protection Agency (USACE 2003).
Biological monitoring is not required at this site.
Conclusion
Creation of a new meandering channel, installation of in-stream habitat structures,
and an improved riparian corridor will reduce channel erosion and the amount of
sediment being deposited into Goose Creek from this site. The Priority I project will
create a stream that resembles a more natural stream channel environment. Water quality

6
• will be improved through reduced sedimentation. Aquatic and wildlife habitat will be
improved with the return of a functioning riparian corridor.
References
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 Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference. Bozeman,
Montana, ed. D. S. Olson and J. P. Potyondy. 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 geometric relationships for urban streams
throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of American Water
Resources Association, Vol. 38 (3):3:641-651.
Harman, A. H., 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 Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference. Bozeman,
Montana, ed. D. S. Olson and J. P. Potyondy. 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.
Mickey, J. H. and S. S. Hining. 2003. Greene mitigation site, Goose Creek,
Mecklenburg County, enhancement plan. Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation stream mitigation program. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
North Carolina Botanical garden. 2001. Controlling invasive exotics in your yard, trees,
shrubs, herbs, vines. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
RIVERMorph Stream Restoration Software. 2003. RIVERMorph Applications.
Louisville, Kentucky.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books. Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
•
7
Savidge, T. W. 2004. Freshwater mussel survey for Kathleen Haigler mitigation
property, TIPs R-2123 and R-2420B, Union County, North Carolina. The Catena
Group, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 2004.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 1992. Soil survey of Union County, North Carolina.
USACE (United States Corps of Engineers), Wilmington District. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream
mitigation guidelines. Wilmington, North Carolina.

•
8

z
0
U
0
0
w

U
0
y
0
C7
0
C
a?
Cd
a
a?
a?
0
a?
a
0
0
0
C)
c 11
wti

9
•
C]
•
ai
Cd
a
x
-rs

a?
a?
Q
0
N
a
a,
0
0
C7
0
e:l
Cc
r
-ts
Q)
a)
.t ;
O
C,3 O
O
;,O N
. bA ti
0
N ?
W
O
w?
LL
U m (33
0
f o ? #
a
v
` v
co

0
0
Ln
u?

O
a

v ?

N
t?
Q

4

d
Q

O co t4 tt C4
O m 0) 87 O? O
O N
a'1
U01PA013
10
•
•
•
FIGURE 3. 1. Cross-section 3+05, riffle.
11
FIGURE 3. Three cross-sections, Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed tributary to Goose
Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004 (bankfull measurements in feet).
•
•
a Ground Points ® Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 5_1 Dbkf = _9 Abkf = 4_7
100
99
= 98
N -
W 9F
New Channel
96 Location
95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Horizontal Distance ifti
• FIGURE 3.2. Cross-section 3+57, riffle.
FIGURE 3. Continued.
12
•
•
FIGURE 3. Continued.
Q Ground Points a Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4.8 Dbkf = 1 Abkf = 4.7
100-
98-
.................... 96
C?
N New Channel
94
W Location
92
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Horizontal Distance (ft)
• FIGURE 3.3. Cross-section 5+32, riffle.
13
r1
LJ
•
•
c?
a?
a?
U
a?
0
O
N
cd
ce
a)
.?T
C
O
N
P-
O
O
tn
O
-F-
M
O
,.
C5
N
O C>
U N
O ?
N ?
N O
a?
o
46
.Fi
w zs
ci
IL
IF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co
0
o ?
N
N
U
CL
0
0
a
C3 o o a o 0 0 0 0 0
O M CD h- to to f M N
r
aaui-A 4u9aa9d
14
r?
u
•
•
i..
N
Cd
u
0
0
O
++
ce:l
"L3
N
?i
0
Y
.fay
i-?
e
0
a
E
?o
?o
? N
'L7
a3 ?
N 0
?U
Cc
5R
W-4 -0

a-
a
C-
0
E E
co
-0
c
0
E

0

0
0
r

O
Q

o
?

a?

CL

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o
O G7 OO n- o t[) <t t'rl tv ?-
aaul=l IUOOJad
1J
FiGuRE 6. Plan view of the Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed tributary to Goose Creek,
Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004.
•
Goose Creek _-4
Cross section 5+32
Existing channel
Bcti_oll)kir!"l
B C>tto 53-41 a II t-l
Cross-sections
3+s7
3+05
Start of project
us:t(7 tit -11 i
tt;resi
I Goose Creek Drive
FiGuRE 7. Design riffle and pool cross-sections, Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed
• tributary to Goose Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004 (measurements
in feet).
16
•

•
o Ground Points s Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.1 Dbkf = .7 Abkf = 4.5
105
10
CT
tiS
9
W
95
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)
FIGURE 7.1. Design riffle cross-section.
o Ground Points o Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.1 Dbkf = 1.7 Rbkf = 10.4
105
42 100
Q
3
N
W
95--
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)
FIGURE 7.2. Design pool cross-section.IGURE 8. Typical design longitudinal profile and
pattern for one meander wavelength, Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed tributary to Goose
Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004.
17
L'
•
1...J
105--
104--
103-- f Bankfull
102--
C 101--
.2
10
? ss
W
9
97
/ Thahaeg
96
95
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
FIGURE 8.1. Design longitudinal profile.
FIGURE 8.2. Design pattern for one meander wavelength.
18
TABLE 1. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's native seed mix used for
stream restoration and enhancement projects. 2001.
• Percent of
mix (%} Common Name Botanical name
10.00 Rice Cut Grass Leersia oryzoides
10.00 Va Wild rye Elymus virginicus
10.00 Woolgrass Scirpus cypemus
5.00 Sensetive Fern Qnoclea sensibillis
5.00 Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens
5.00 Hop Sedge Carex lupilina
5.00 Soft Rush Juncus of usus
5.00 Softstem Bulrush Scirpus validus
5.00 Deertongue Panicum clandestinum
5.00 Lesser Bur-reed Sparganium americanum
5.00 Eastern Gamagrass Tripascum actyloides
5.00 Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
2.50 Many Leaved Bulrush Scirpus polyphyllus
2.50 Nodding Bur-marigold Bidens cernua
2.50 Squarestem Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens
2.50 Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium fistulosa
2.50 Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata
2.50 Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
2.50 Silky Dogwood Comus amomuin
150 Winterberry Ilex verticillata
2.50 Spicebush Lindera benzoin
•
2.50 Maple-Leaved viburnum Viburnum acerifolium
Total 100.00
CJ
19
Appendix 1. Natural channel design data from Sal's Branch reference reach, the
existing unnamed tributary and the proposed new channel, Lemmond/Deberry site,
• Union County, July 2004.

is
Reference Exisiting Design
SunecCrew DoWelenevsky Mickey/Hining
Sun ev Date 6/1/2001 3/4/2004
Stream Type E F4 E4
Drainage Area (ini-) 0.40 0.10 0.10
Bankfull Width (Wbld) 10.70 10.42 6.10
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) 1.30 0.70 0.74
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dn?ax) 1.90 1.23 1.08
Width Depth Ratio 8.23 14.89 8.23
Max Rile Depth Ratio (Dmax Dbkt) 1.46 1.76 1.46
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (AbLO 13.80 4.54 4.54
Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 4.40 5.64 5.62
Bankfull Discharge ( bkf) 60.67 26.42 26.42
Width of Flaxl Prone Area (Wfpa) 100.00 8.00 57.00
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) 9.35 0.77 9.34
Min Meander Length (Lm) 35.00 410.00 20.00
Max Meander Length (Lm) 43.00 410.00 25.00
Min Meander Length Ratio (LmlWbkf) 3.27 39.35 3.28
Max Meander Length Ratio (Lm Wbkf) 4.02 39.35 4.10
Min Radius of Cun-ature (Re) 11.00 28.00 4.00
Max Radius of Curvature (Rc) 21.00 183.00 6.00
Min Radius of Cun-ature Ratio (Re Wbki) 1.03 2.69 0.66
Max Radius of Cun-ature Ratio (Re Wbkf) 1.96 17.56 0.98
Min Belt Width (Wblt) 20.00 154.00 12.00
Max Belt Width (Wblt) 62.00 154.00 24.00
Min Meander Width Ratio (Wblt'Wbkt) 1.87 14.78 1.97
Max Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) 5.79 14.78 3.93
Sinuosity (K) 2.00 1.03 .6 averagE
Valley Slope 0.01 0.01 0.01
Avg. Slope (measured) 0.01 0.01 0.003
Min Riffle Slope (Srif) 0.02 0.01 n/a
Average Riffle Slope (Srif) 0.05 0.02
Max Riffle Slope (Snit) 0.04 0.18 n/a
Min Riffle Slope Ave Slope (Stiff Save) 3.20 0.81 n/a
Average Riffle Slope (Srif Saee) 0.00 4.03 5.67
Max Riffle Slope Ave Slope (Sniff Save) 7.20 14.52 n/a
Min Riffle Length Lriffle 3.00 4.00 n/a
Average Riffle Length Lriffle 30.00 11.00
Max Riffle Length Lrifffe 28.00 59.00 n/a
Min Riffle Length. Bankfiill Width (Lrif Wbkf) 0.28 0.38 n/a
Average Riffle Length Length Bankfu ll Width (Lrif Wbkf) 0.00 2.88 1.80
Max Riffle Length Bank-fill Width (Lrif Wbkt) 2.62 5.66 n/a
20
Appendix 1. Continued.
•
•
r?
?J
Reference Exisitin Design
Pool Slope (Spool) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pool Slope Ratio (Spool Sara) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Min Pool Depth (Dpool) 2.80 1.14 0.50
Average Pool Depth (Dpool) 1.56 0.70
Max Pool Depth (Dpool) 3.20 2.01 1.82
Min Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool/Dbkf) 2.15 1.63 0.68
Average Pool Depth Ratio (D x)l'Dbkt) 0.00 2.23 0.95
Max Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool/Dbkf) 2.46 2.87 2.46
Pool Area (A 1) 24.00 1'0.4
Pool Area Ratio (Apool/Abkf) 1.74 0.74
Min Pool Length (L pool) 21.00 4.00 n/a
Average Pool Length (L l) 24.00 11.00
Max Pool Length (Lpool) 35.00 118.00 n/a
Min Pool Length Ratio (L LWbk-f) 1.96 0.38 n/a
Average Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/Wbkf) 0.00 2.30 1.80
Max Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/Wbkf) 3.27 11.32 n/a
Pool Width (W 1) 10.70 6.10
Pool Width Ratio (Wpool/Wbkf) 1.00 1.00
Min Pool Pool Spacing (P-) 51.00 15.00 n/a
Average Pool/Pool Spacing (p-p) 55.00 22.00
Max Pool Pool S . acing ( ) 66.00 122.00 n/a
Min Pool Spacing Ratio (p-p/Wbkf) 4.77 1.44 n/a
Average Pool Spacing Ratio (p /Wbkf) 0.00 5.28 3.61
Max Pool Spacing Ratio (p- : Wbkt) 6.17 11.71 n/a
Materials:
1. Particle Size Distribution of Channel
d16 0.88 0.88
d35 2.70 2.70
d50 4.24 4.24
d84 11.00 11.00
(195 22.60 22.60
2. Particle Size Distribution of Bar
(116 0.37 0.37
d35 0.70 0.70
d50 10.00 1.22 1.22
d84 30.00 4.67 4.67
d95 6.99 6.99
Largest Size at Toe of Bar 13.00 13.00
Bankfull Shear Stress 0.45 0.09
Movable article size 20.00 6.20
21
•
Appendix 2. Lemmond/Deberry proposed conservation easement map, unnamed
tributary to Goose Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004.
I57 ?w/5AAI1n rsAAJ APrROK. A-OC4rZaws OF
PtwAwal?NT /FI264`*c-r (s 6YAKpS SwicTAAiiO By
cFK, "cwrro AaFSas
TO 6Er fu Ilc. owl y?=Ifoy,
^'?? us8 THESE r0 Spoor
\ CE lta.aay
NOW OR FORMERLY
?
TA
ro 94,
4c,4c'9 ,t6 '\ T
AX# 08 222-017
\ OB 103 PG 507

?AAHMEL
H
_ 10 IISAyaaaFEAlry ARrA
c
`
u ?? t GN
AOAUS oe6
^ z
?
R
-
1. =
ywwa ?
EX ba
I./+
A+F
nn.cF

X l9E?-'' pssrwuc? AIMOK
K a rAze A r jos' y111to
A3E cw T{?i4
Ae;y?a.?oy
? A ?a s
NOW OR FORMERLY
D-K CARRIKER
AND WIFE BUFORD C. HEIRS
TAX/ 08-222-016A
DB 259 PC 498
RMwA sraw?,
12H6 66r4AEFwa
TiI ES6 Two ParAa7S `
I t ,F
4 S [ rr CABYxT ONO It YF'
SgY N??` _' CAROIY U".M)1OND ter,
LZ 7 m Oa r,.mow. ssjss
t G CAB A FiLE 4-A
'? J .sue ?
•
1 Wm allow t%
b - ..r
•?
?
V
1
?R
l
1 tb6? SHED
t
1 Yfa? ?1
Tuf 08-222-037 et , ??
;
EDMUND
LOT C BLOCK i
CAB A. FILE 4-A \

1 t
t
. 1
1 ?
FIP
t VgIVE
y cE CREEK D
x
OOa
r V
s0' R METAL 'E
!
Niw'
O ?
r
I
NIRO F_W4 y/+
20' OFFSET
g
w
N TAX# DO-
ALLEN A
N DO 755
o
K
o
OF E
! TAXE 06-222-034
' ALLEN W. RABB
DO 756 PC 318
LOT 9. BLOCK I
CAB. A. FILE 4-A
/
EIP /
1
AccFas "-?R?
G?paiapq-
F?ll-$ PA=y4 4LjY
rAfW J OA.uif Y41AQ
r E?2'lZ-___/ \
I 75.6 b
OFFSET AWr FSAAW ?, TOP OF BANK
TAXtIQB-222-036
?_' CARY T.
H 6
AREA 1B
CENTERUNE '
pTCH
1 1.59 ACRES
g
EASEMENT
'
BUFFER UNE
NIR fpM4+A ylavloy F6uAW <.A
L!
n --... L2 L3 5TANE
22
u
r?
C:
C
i.
ti.+
0
o?
0
y r4
CC O
.Ci
• u
CA
•?,, O
v, O
a?
-0 0
° .0
ea ?
a?
a
c
Ct ea
c ?
-o >
On a
CL L",
O
C. ?
4.+ .t
O ?
? y
iU
u o
G, O
'O td
0
M
vi
U
cY
r
r
L
U
O
U
r
r
ti
r
U
3
v
z
C,
M
Q
C?,
O
0
CL
N
M
Q;
v:
N
ti
r
n.
J
05
r
U
y
r
U
v
z
M,
Q
I!T
0
?n
r,
v
s
y
r
r
u
G
v
r
U
N
z
M
M
Q
23
•
•
.6
c
c
0
V
tr)
i!
"a

on
u
o .?
o a?
?v
c ??
Cd o
? o
w C7
o ..o
r- ct
r-
3
Y
aS
Y
W
M 3
cn
0
0
0
a?
c
0
U
4.
O
N
s..
U
3
0

M
Q
E
cC
O
Y
fl,
24
• Appendix 4. In-stream structures and bank grading designs proposed for this site.
A.4.1. Typical bank grading and revegetation plan.
Construe! a bankf ill bench
and re-shape banks on a 1:1 -T~
or 2:1 slope. V/
Bankfiill eleNation CUT/—
.,.-
` Existing basil-
---- Proposed bank
Plant Rooted Trees, 2-6 ft tall
Plant Live Stakes and/or native shrubs
Tait Herbaceous Vegetation
•
ID

hrstall fence if li%e
stock are present at
the site for lons term
riparian protection
25
Appendix 4. Continued u
A.4.2. Typical cross-vane showing plan and cross-section vie y,nro"y°U. i
NOTE: There should be no gaps between the rocks in the cro f 3:
J pG
vane. Rock size should range from 2 cu ft. to 4 cu ft.
771, ,
PLAN VIE`'',
20-300
20-300
Hig stiVel
Arm slope range 4 -
l2 )ercent
• Scour hole ,F
1/3 bottom width
C
26
Appendix 4. Continued.
A.4.3. Typical rock vane structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE: There should
be no gaps between the rocks in the rock vane structure. The rock vane should have a 4 % to
12% slope from the top of bankfull or inner berm bench to streambed. Rock size should range
from 2 cu ft. to 4 cu ft. Arm length will vary depending on size of stream.
PLAN VIEW
our
)le
0
•
27

Appendix 4. Continued.
A.4.4. Typical root wad structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE:
Footer logs should be >8" diameter and installed below the streambed. Root wads
should be 8-14 ft long and >10" diameter. Large boulders should be placed in gaps
between root wads. Fill materials from the site should be placed behind the root wads
and boulders, covered with an erosion coy rol mat and seeded and trees plant I on
top of the bench. I ' A k ! ?1 "

•

PLAN VIEW
•
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
28
Appendix 4. Continued.
A.4.5. Log Vane Structure showing plan and profile views
•
•
I
Btii wd in hates at
hanktull
PLAN VIEW
4
4
Bankfuli I atR-,47 o small streams 400
PROFILE VIEW
•
29
•
j o
d ' °o
• w
5
o
O w
a; O
a a
w '
i
rt ;?
i
04
U U F A
?tl
r _a
r
.42
Q.
00
w° 30
OCP AP DOCUMENT PAYMENT GENERAL INFORMATION
DPG
NEXT FUNCTION: ACTION: _ HISTORY: _ 08/30/2004 13:06:19
BROWSE:
PAY ENTITY 17PT VEND/EMP NBR: 566000372 40
VEND/EMP SHORT NAME: DENR DOCUMENT NBR: 082304
DOCUMENT DATE : 08/23/2004 PAYMENT NBR: 001 PRTL PYMT NBR: 000
IND AMOUNT
SALES TAX/VAT
SALES TAX 2
SALES TAX 3
FREIGHT
ADDITIONAL COST
VAT INCLUSIVE N
EXPENSE IND
GL EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/25/2004
EXTRACT DATE
ACCRUAL CANC DATE:
GROSS INVOICE 475.00
PAYMENT AMOUNT 475.00
AMOUNT PAID 475.00
PAYMENT TERMS NET PAY IMMEDIATELY
PAYMENT DATE 08/25/2004
PAYMENT ROUTE CD
FACTOR NUMBER
REASON CODE/DESC
CURRENCY CODE
DISCOUNT TYPE NOT TAKEN
DISCOUNT TAKEN
PAYMENT STATUS PAID
PAYMENT REF NBR 0000001827
PAYMENT TYPE ELECTRONIC
HANDLING CODE
ONE INVC PER PYMT: YES
BANK ACC T PYMT CD: IGO

WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
SEP () ?? 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
.00
041608

® North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Steve Lund, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
FROM: Joe Mickey, NCWRC
DATE: August 23, 2004
• SUBJECT: Lemmond/Deberry Mitigation Site, unnamed tributary to Goose Creek, Union
County
We are pleased to submit the Lemmond/Deberry stream mitigation enhancement plan for your
review. Also enclosed is a copy of the proposed conservation easement boundary survey for this
site. This plan is being submitted as partial fulfillment of the off-site stream mitigation
agreement between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and North Carolina
Department of Transportation for the TIP R-2123 project in Mecklenburg County. This plan
meets the requirements for the Priority I mitigation category.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service will need to coordinate any comments on mussel impacts that
they might have to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Comments on the content of the plan
should be sent to me at P. O. Box 387, Elkin, NC 28676 or by email to [e-mail] .
Once the plan is approved by the NC Department of Water Quality and US Army Corps of
Engineers, we will begin the process of putting the project out for construction bids.
Thanks for your time in reviewing this plan.
WE7ZANDS1401 GROUP
SEP 0'3 2004
WATER QUA41TyS
ECT/pN
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
i ?i ?v1s..?s?•?.? ?.? 'R'''te ?1 °?? .
ra it. 4 /&-aaC.-.3 7 ?
/t3? /o.srlo?f*er
ice Use Only: Form Version May 2002
u ACE Action ID No. DNNIQ No. 041608
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project; please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
i. Processing
1. Chec*? all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
Q'Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
0'401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 441 Certification
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 located 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 top of page 2 for farther details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: E?i.??..?.?.? 4- Mailing Address: '708 G do a .r G rr,e? L !Ovic??
Telephone Number: - e1YS"4- 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 o«mer/applicant.)
Name: x-- : c.
Company Affiliation: AV L : !? ?????+G.soc:e?c.re s Co?c.e?: s s.•o.y
Mailing Address: 0.0-
A-7 Qo? .,3 ?r'7
lci? c-- eZ S6 /
• ti dt? 5 d?O ?VE't 5 / 4.4Z4S
Telephone Number: ?a,6 /,SJ'.' -/ Sy 2 Fax Number: 346 /5'J 7-15-Vc '
E-mail Address: ioL° ?{I?:c.lc .Sc.«w., .
Page 5 of 12
? AP 4d /6" qdm t-%Ip" faw
cc Use Only:
USAGE Action ID No.
0
1. Processing
Form Version May 2002
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project; please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
M 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:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
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 located 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 top of page 2 for ffiirther details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
•
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Mailing Addresf: 70 6
Telephone Number: > 3 " y.,?.2b 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 ovmer/applicant.)
Company Affiliation: N ?ly t??r /? E /k'?e,?c.rc < <' Kest is 4J
Mailing Address: PQ. E
C1rcr.? Mc rZ& I -
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
DNNIQ No.
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
*. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, "and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
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 purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format,
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 are
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: ,./4e/6&14.00-i
r
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): 7''J/°R " ai13 A L ? G?-
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Lc?x.rao..??d - 08 - ZZ.1-024,
4. Location _.....
County: U Pki i o r4.3 Nearest Town: 1 ? of e ? wG-:
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): -S&c_ c.. Hfa.L.w.4 La / f&
r?a?? 7&64,e Ile -6 Go/A?t". ^;.Ai- M:/f ev ? e401C?
/..L /_tl ,. i.w [W%rwnctO G. Liww 3 r-V Of?l?Qi arJ L
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): "A
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres)Q. +tt.c.&,a4 C &4r%e 4L- i ass 14 v!o a4,e ? em.s??.•+?':
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): C.?b©S Cyr r ?e 4,
8. River Basin: YC?C "- ')
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:
•
Page 6 of 12
• 10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
r? ?1C ? t?.?s.lrA i-r[.^e-_4-
-c +-- & Aal e? I A fw-me. 1
I O d..s ?y
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: S a m /Al A '-
lA.?r'ov?.
01
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits 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.
/?lPA.Aa
V. Future Project Plans
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate 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
delineation 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
40 mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and nrovide iustification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
i
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
eY'w c0-1
Type of Impact*

4trb a.v Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100 year Floodplain**
es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
/b - .a
Type of Wetland***

.?..k+` 0 tzv
.00 C) -
sw e_ F• . 6
6 a
ar+a,

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not lututed to: mechanized cieanuLg, g1cUUlb', Lill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at feria. M.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: ?- 3 errs
Total area of wetland impact proposed: < 0.3 ea. l.t.h...e?e 14M?l w 4-
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 Im ct Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated np-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary,) to the nearest
do-west r-am named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., W\NVI t '11,2rolwxo;ll,
\l'Rl\.lilal)ULteSLCO111, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 8 of 12
• 4. Individually list 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 Wate
(if applicable) ) Type of Waterbody
fake, pond; estuary, sound
(
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not umnen Too: uu, CAUaVauvu, W. -6UL&
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation A..-14
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., damlembankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
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 hour impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
• Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
•
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2,000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type 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. Examples of 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 creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same 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 application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant 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
lh?;: /A12o.ei;r. state. ne.ushiewetl adds/strnwi de. htini.
1. Provide 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
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
?dL.J1_
4 &- le- a- T` &.-G ltd A P
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please 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 hitn //h'? ei?r crate nc.us!?a rn!inde?.ht.m.. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information: "A
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes Q/ No ?
Xv C, AO r
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?''
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 ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant'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 identifiable on the accompanying 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
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirem nts), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No El' If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each 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
Miti lion
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone l extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
L_J
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
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 NCAC 213.0242 or.0260.
es-'e-4- 14 Wit/ 4,e
io lca.c.,P l.? 4.. ?? w s?? ?r uce..?sC1 cJ +e C1i sa i?,cxo...y
XL Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (moth existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
/V D4
XH. 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 capacity of the subject facility.
•
XM. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No L?r
X-M Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow 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).
Ge7o,r.?i ?.na?.?r?? ?s "e {s?.. Ls 4c. F[t? S
Page 12 of 12
•
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
AGENT AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT
n
U
This agreement made and entered into by and between the NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION ("Commission") and Susan and Edmund Deberrv ("Owner"
or owner's agent). The Owner hereby grants the Commission permission to act as the
Owners' agent to obtain all needed permits from all units of government including, but not
limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina to
accomplish a stream restoration project on the Owner's property.
The Commission agrees to obtain and pay any permit processing fees required for the
Commission's and North Carolina Department of Transportation's Stream Mitigation
Program.
Signed:
f
(Property er's Signature or designate)
708 Goose Creek Drive
(Address)
Indian Trail NC 28079
(Town, state, zip code)
[phone]
(Phone number)
Date: 6 - z z - 0 V
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Representative
is
Joe Mickey / Stream Restoration Coordinator / June 11, 2004
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ® 1721 Mail Service Center ' Raleigh, NC 27699-
1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 ' Fax: [phone]
•
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
AGENT AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT

This agreement made and entered into by and between the NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION ("Commission") and Gary and Carolyn Lemmond ("Owner"
or owner's agent). The Owner hereby grants the Commission permission to act as the
Owners' agent to obtain all needed permits from all units of government including, but not
limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina to
accomplish a stream restoration project on the Owner's property.
The Commission agrees to obtain and pay any permit processing fees required for the
Commission's and North Carolina Department of Transportation's Stream Mitigation
Program.
Signed:
(Prope Owner's Signature or designate)
706 Goose Creek Drive
(Address)
Indian Trail NC 28079
(Town, state, zip code)
[phone]
(Phone number)
Date: 6h d
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Representative
• Joe Mickey / Stream Restoration Coordinator / June 11, 2004
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ® 1721 Mail Service Center ' Raleigh, NC 27699-
1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 19 Fax: [phone]
?I
Lemmond/Deberry Mitigation Site
Unnamed Tributary to Goose Creek, Union County
Restoration Plan
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STREAM MITIGATION PROGRAM
Transportation Improvement Project R-2123 AC, BB, CC
0
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr.
Staci S. Hining
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Raleigh
August 2004
n
U
• The Goose Creek watershed in Mecklenburg and Union counties represents one of
two remaining North Carolina habitats of the federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter
mussel Lasmigona decorates. As a result of concern for this species, the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) have
designated the entire Rocky River drainage, which includes Goose Creek, as a priority
area for conservation and protection. Because of this concern, when the NC Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) proposed construction of the I-485 corridor, US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE), NCDWQ and USFWS permit conditions required that NCDOT
mitigate for project impacts by restoring degraded habitat in the Goose Creek watershed.
The NCDOT then entered into a stream mitigation agreement in 1998 with the NCWRC
to do the required stream mitigation. This plan is submitted as partial fulfillment of the
off-site stream mitigation agreement between NCDOT and NCWRC for project R-2123
AC, BB, CC (I-485 outer loop). Under this agreement a total of 3194 linear feet of
stream mitigation is required by the USACE (permit 199504596) and NCDWQ (permit
3049). This Priority I plan (USACE et al. 2003) documents existing conditions,
objectives of the project and the proposed approach to stream restoration along 419 linear
feet of an unnamed, intermittent tributary to Goose Creek known as the
Lemmond/Deberry site, Union County (Figure 1).
Methods
• Baseline conditions for the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek were determined
through field investigations during February and March 2004. Representative cross-
sections and longitudinal profile were measured using standard stream survey techniques
(Harrleson et al. 1994; Mickey and Hining 2003). Laser beacon survey equipment was
used to collect cross-section and longitudinal data. Substrate size distribution was
determined using the modified Wolman Pebble Count method (Rosgen 1996).
Morphological data was entered into the RIVERMorph (2003) program for analysis. The
stream was classified using the Rosgen (1996) Level II classification system. Established
stream mitigation restoration/enhancement guidelines were utilized for this project
(USACE et al. 2003; Doll et al. 2003).
Area topographical maps were used to determine stream drainage area and land use.
Soil type was determined from NRCS soil maps (USDA 1992). Regional curve data was
determined from Piedmont North Carolina stream data (Clinton et al. 1999; Harman et al.
1999; Doll et al. 2002).
Existing Conditions
Morphology
The unnamed, intermittent tributary has a drainage area of 0.1 mil. Land along this
stream consists of agricultural fields, small wood lots and residential lots. Chewacla silt
0
loam (ChA) soils are located along the stream channel (USDA 1992). These soils are
very deep, nearly level (0 - 2% slopes), and are somewhat poorly drained. Cid
channerysilt loam (GmB) soils are located on 1% - 5% slopes. These soils are found on
moderately well drained, nearly level and gently sloping ridges and depressions at the
head of intermittent drainageways (USDA 1992).
The unnamed tributary flows through a moderately sloping valley, classified as valley
type VIII (Rosgen 1996). Valley type VIII is identified by the presence of river terraces
and depositional floodplain landforms. From station 0+00 to 1+98 the stream flows
through two residential yards. From stations 1+98 to 6+17 (confluence with Goose
Creek) the stream flows through a mature bottomland hardwood forest interspersed with
Goose Creek floodway channels and shallow vernal pool habitat. The unnamed
tributary's floodplain is mainly confined to the stream channel walls due to down-cutting
and over-widening of the channel. Trees in the buffer zone consist mainly of ironwood
Carpinus carohniana, black walnut Juglans nigra, sweetgum Liquidambar styrac flua,
sycamore Plantanus occidentalis, boxelder Acer negundo, pine Pinus spp., yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera, black cherry Prunus serotina, and several oak species Quercus
spp. One invasive exotic species, Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense, dominates portions
of the riparian zone and impedes colonization of beneficial native species.
The longitudinal profile survey began at the downstream end of the culvert pipe under
Goose Creek Drive and proceeded downstream for 617 ft to the confluence with Goose
Creek. The longitudinal profile represents the 419 ft of the unnamed tributary that will be
• placed in a conservation easement and lost to Priority I restoration (Figure 2). This
stream segment, which appears to have been channelized in the past, has a sinuosity of
1.03 (ratio defined as stream length/valley length). Water surface slope is 1% (0.01).
Bankfull was determined using field indicators, primarily a scour line and using regional
curve information for rural piedmont streams (Harman et al. 1999). Bankfull was
difficult to determine because of the vertical, eroding stream banks. Channel dimensions
were determined with the use of three cross-sections (Figure 3). Fine gravel (Dso = 4.24
mm) is the bed material in the riffle (Figure 4). Very coarse sand (Dso = 1.22) is the bar
material (Figure 5). Averaged substrate data from three cross-sections (Figures 3.1 - 3.3)
indicates the stream channel is an entrenched F 4/5 stream type. However, at the lower
cross-section (Figure 3.3) the stream can be classified as a G 4/5 stream type. In both the
F and G stream segments there is a large amount of depositional material primarily
composed of an unconsolidated, heterogeneous mixture of small gravel and sand. A
pebble count in this area resulted in a Dso of 0.3 mm (coarse sand). Bank erosion and
sediment rates are typically high as indicated by the pebble count result of 7% clay, 21%
sand, and 72% small gravel. Past channelization activities has accelerated bank erosion
and down-cutting. These types of activities are common in unstable F and G channels.
Riparian vegetation plays a marginal role in streambank stability at this site. At many
locations, the banks are vertical and contain little in the way of bank stabilizing
vegetation.
Stable reference reach streams are difficult to find in the Goose Creek watershed,
• therefore, reference data was used from Sal's Branch in Umstead State Park, Wake
2
County (Appendix 1). This stream has a drainage area of 0.4 mil and is classified as an E
stream type. Dimensionless ratios taken from this reference reach were used in the
design of this Priority I stream restoration project.
Mussels
Critical habitat for the federally and state endangered Carolina heelsplitter is located
in Goose Creek downstream of the NC 218 bridge. This project is located approximately
0.2 mi below the NC 218 bridge in the designated critical habitat area. Mussel species
have not been observed in this small tributary. However, above and below the
confluence of the unnamed tributary, five mussel species were found during July 2004 in
Goose Creek (Savidge 2004). These species are the eastern eliptio Elliptio complanata
(state significantly rare), variable spike Elliptio icterina, eastern creekshell Villosa
constricta, and Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughniana (state/federal species of concern)
and the introduced Asian clam Corbicula fluminea, . The Carolina heelsplitter was not
found at this location.
Conservation Easement
For piedmont streams, a NCDWQ permit condition requires that the stream project
have a 50 ft riparian corridor, both banks, placed in a conservation easement (CE) before
construction can take place. The CE survey has been completed for this project and
negotiations are ongoing to close this transaction with two landowners and the North
Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The 2.294 acres placed in the CE will
provide permanent protection for the restored stream channel (Appendix 2). A copy of
the final CE survey and signed CE will be supplied to NCDWQ and USACE upon
completion of the as-built survey.
Site Improvements
The objectives of this project are to eliminate 419 ft of existing stream channel and
construct 511 ft of new channel, creating an E 4/5 channel type (Figure 6). The new
channel will re-connect the stream to its existing floodplain and increase sinuosity from
1.03 to an average of 1.6 (RiverMorph 2003). New channel construction will allow for
establishment of riparian vegetation along the streambanks and enhancement of vernal
pool habitat.
Priority I Restoration
The Priority I restoration is proposed in an existing bottomland forest (Appendix 3).
This approach allows for the new channel to be constructed in the dry and stabilized
before the existing stream is diverted into it. The Sal's Branch reference reach was
chosen due to similarities in drainage areas, proposed stream tyre, and cross-sectional
area. The design riffle will have a cross-sectional area of 4.5 ft (Figure 7. 1, Appendix 1)
and the design pool will have a cross-sectional area of 10.4 ft2 (Figure 7.2, Appendix 1).
40 Design pool-to-pool spacing will average 22 ft, maximum pool depth will be 1.82 ft,
3
maximum bankfull riffle depth will be 1.08 ft, and average riffle slope will be 0.2 %
• (0.02) (Figure 8. 1, Appendix 1). Meander wavelength will average 23 ft (Figure 8.2).
Proposed channel dimension and profile parameters are designed to ensure channel
competency and sediment transport. Shear stress was calculated using Shields curve to
insure that flows in the proposed new channel could move the D5o pavement particle size
of 4.24 mm. The estimated bankfull shear stress of 0.09 lb/ft2 is able to move, on
average, a particle of 6.22 mm at a minimum mean depth 0.82 ft (RIVERMorph 2003,
Appendix 1).
Grading to create the new channel will accommodate the channel plan form, cross-
sectional and profile design dimensions (Figure 7, Appendix 3). Construction of the new
channel will improve channel-floodplain connectivity, complement the physical function
of the channel during flood events, and enhance riparian habitat along the new channel.
Excavated materials from the new channel will be stockpiled and used to fill portions
of the old channel. There will not be enough onsite excavated soil to completely fill the
old channel; therefore, several vernal pools will be created in the old channel. In addition
to these vernal pools, several low depressions will be created or enhanced along the new
channel floodplain as spring-time vernal pools. Location of these pools will be
determined during construction of the new channel. In some areas the floodplain
elevation will be lowered to form a depressional area or a low berm will be constructed
along the new channel to create the vernal pool.
• Stream structures planned for this Priority I project include those that enhance in-
stream habitat and stability. Rock vanes, log vanes, and root wad structures (Appendix 3)
will be used to reduce the near bank stress and direct flows towards the center of the
stream and maintain riffle grade. These structures will also improve in-stream aquatic
habitat and provide long-term bank stability. In the last 75 ft of new channel, a step-pool
complex (Appendix 3.5) will be constructed to slowly drop the new channel thalweg and
connect it at the confluence with Goose Creek.
Flexible design will be used for the placement of log and/or rock vanes, rock weirs,
and step-pool structures. Flexible design allows for the placement of structures at
appropriate locations during construction. Root wads will be used on the outside of
meanders (pools) and rock vanes and rock weirs will be used to maintain stream grade
and create in-stream habitat. Log vanes will be used in conjunction with root wads and
as individual log vane structures. In-stream structures will be constructed according to
standard guidelines (Appendix 3). Footer rocks will be placed approximately 2 ft below
the normal stream bottom. Rock, averaging approximately 250 - 500 pounds (2 to 4 ft)
in size will be used to construct the structures. Rock for vanes, weirs, and step-pools will
be obtained from a local quarry. Root wads and logs will be collected from trees
removed for construction access or new channel construction. Structures will be built by
a track-hoe with a thumb working from the top of the bank.
•
4
Riparian Improvements
• New channel construction will reduce undercutting and allow riparian vegetation to
become established, resulting in increased bank stability (Appendix 3.1). After the new
streambank has been graded it will be reseeded with brown top millet or winter wheat/rye
(I lb per 1000 W.) and with a NCWRC native all-purpose grass/wildflower seed mix at
the rate of 10 lb per acre (Table 1). Woody vegetation, including live stakes and rooted
trees, will be planted along all disturbed areas. Understory native woody species such as
tag alder Alnus serrulata, silky willow Salix sericea, silky dogwood Cornus amomum,
and elderberry Sambucus canadensis will be planted along sloped streambanks. On the
upper banks native trees such as red maple Acer rubrum, yellow popular Liriodendron
tulipifera, black cherry Prunus serotina, black walnut Juglans nigra, white oak Quercus
alba, and red oak Quercus rubra that provide shade, bank stability and cover and food for
wildlife will be planted. Woody plantings will be at the rate of 320 stems per acre as per
DWQ guidelines (USACE et al. 2003). The exotic invasive species, Chinese privet, will
be cut and stumps treated with a solution of glyphosate (North Carolina Botanical Garden
2001). Woody debris (downed trees, logs, branches) created from onsite construction
will be placed in appropriate areas along the project corridor and inside the CE. Debris
piles will be stacked in irregular patterns throughout the site as wildlife nesting, shelter
and feeding areas.
Mussels
It is unlikely that this unnamed intermittent tributary contains mussels. A meeting
with USFWS personnel on June 9, 2004 indicated that once they review this site plan, the
USFWS will probably have no concerns with construction at this site (M. Buncick and J.
Fridell, USFWS, personal communication). A formal notice of concurrence will be
issued once the USFWS has reviewed the site plan. If mussels are found during
construction, work will be halted and the area searched for additional specimens. An
attempt will be made to identify the mussels and they will be relocated out of the project
area.
Erosion Control
During construction, equipment will only access the stream when absolutely
necessary. For this project, it is anticipated that less than 0.5 acre of soil will be disturbed
at any one time. All track hoe work can be accomplished from the top of the bank. All
construction materials including rock, root wads, logs, and erosion control materials will
be stockpiled at a central location at the site. To limit disturbance of soils, all equipment
will travel along identified travel corridors. If necessary, stabilized construction
entrances will be used to allow construction equipment non-erosive access to and from
the site. This area will allow soil to be shed from equipment wheels prior to entering the
paved roadway.
Disturbance of soils will be limited to only what work can be accomplished and
• stabilized on a daily basis. Stockpiled soils or disturbed areas on steep slopes will have
erosion control fencing installed as needed. Once the banks are sloped, they will be
• fertilized, limed and hand seeded. The surface of the sloped bank will be covered with
excelsior erosion control matting and anchored in place with wooden survey stakes and
landscape staples. Disturbed areas on level ground will be seeded and mulched with
straw. Other sediment controls, such as silt fence, will be used in areas where disturbed
soils have access to flowing water. Riparian woodland vegetation adjacent to the
construction work area will be identified by flagging and protected from inadvertent
construction impacts. Trees that need to be removed will be identified prior to
construction.
Spill Containment
All equipment supplied by the contractor must be in good working order and will not
be leaking any fluids that could contaminate the stream or property. In case of an
accidental spill of hazardous materials (hydraulic fluids, gas, oil) two Attack Pac
emergency spill kits will be on site during construction. Any spills of hazardous materials
will be cleaned up immediately with contaminated soils disposed of according to state
regulations.
Cultural Resources
During several site visits no remnants (pottery pieces, flint chips, arrowheads)
indicating past Native American activity have been found. On July 22, 2004, the North
. Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) indicated that they had no record
of historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, the NCDCR had
no comment on the project as proposed. If, during construction, any items determined to
be of historical significance are found, work will be halted and the NCDNR notified.
Monitoring
Once the project is complete an as-built survey will be conducted. Future monitoring
surveys can then be compared to the as-built survey to determine if the new channel is
stable or moving towards an unstable condition. Channel components monitored at this
site will include cross-sections, longitudinal profile, pebble counts, and vegetation
survival counts/plots. Monitoring will be conducted for five years after construction and
will follow the "Stream Mitigation Guidelines" for monitoring developed by the USACE,
NCDWQ, NCWRC and US Environmental Protection Agency (USACE 2003).
Biological monitoring is not required at this site.
Conclusion
Creation of a new meandering channel, installation of in-stream habitat structures,
and an improved riparian corridor will reduce channel erosion and the amount of
sediment being deposited into Goose Creek from this site. The Priority I project will
create a stream that resembles a more natural stream channel environment. Water quality
r?
6
. will be improved through reduced sedimentation. Aquatic and wildlife habitat will be
improved with the return of a functioning riparian corridor.
References
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 Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference. Bozeman,
Montana, ed. D. S. Olson and J. P. Potyondy. 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 geometric relationships for urban streams
throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of American Water
Resources Association, Vol. 38 (3):3:641-651.
Harman, A. H., 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 Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference. Bozeman,
Montana, ed. D. S. Olson and J. P. Potyondy. 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.
Mickey, J. H. and S. S. Hining. 2003. Greene mitigation site, Goose Creek,
Mecklenburg County, enhancement plan. Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation stream mitigation program. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
North Carolina Botanical garden. 2001. Controlling invasive exotics in your yard, trees,
shrubs, herbs, vines. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
RIVERMorph Stream Restoration Software. 2003. RIVERMorph Applications.
Louisville, Kentucky.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books. Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
•
7
Savidge, T. W. 2004. Freshwater mussel survey for Kathleen Haigler mitigation
• property, TIPS R-2123 and R -2420B, Union County, North Carolina. The Catena
Group, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 2004.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 1992. Soil survey of Union County, North Carolina.
USACE (United States Corps of Engineers), Wilmington District. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream
mitigation guidelines. Wilmington, North Carolina.

•
8
y
0
U
0
N
00
«3
?i
c?
x
U
a?
0
0
a?
cd
0
V
pN
0
a?
a?
4..
0
0
ca
U
O
`~ O
i?] O
wti
•

•
6
cw
as
i
x
-rs
c?
ai
a?
a?
e
0
N
u
0
0
0
C
a?
ce
as
40,
°:
4..
0
d
Zo
N
^Ci
r-,
00
a?
N O
v
x ?
0
w?
U m 0

• 4
0
v
a
0

C)
a
o
a ,--.

o
o
a
a

U

v ?
o U?
4 0 r

v o
a
v
a ao o
0) ffl cw
0) o
07
a 61
4 UORWM 3
10
•
•
•
FIGURE 3. 1. Cross-section 3+05, riffle.
11
FIGURE 3. Three cross-sections, Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed tributary to Goose
Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004 (bankfull measurements in feet).
•
•
o Ground Points e. Bankfull v Water Surface
indicators Points
Wbkf = 5-1 Dbkf _ _9 Abkf = 4_7
100
99
?_ 98
io
++
to _ .•-•----. .......
t1t
W 97
New Channel
96 Location
95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Horizontal Distance (ft)
• FIGURE 3.2. Cross-section 3+57, riffle.
FIGURE 3. Continued.
12
•
•
FIGuRE 3. Continued.
o Ground Points o Bankfull f Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4.8 Dbkf = i Abkf = 4.7
100
98 -
96-
-
0
f.
is
N New Channel
9
W Location
92
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Horizontal Distance 40
0 FIGURE 3.3. Cross-section 5+32, riffle.
13
r?
u
•
•
Cd
x
Q
(LI
U
N
m
0
O
c
ce
T3
N
«3
O
4]
N
N
e
a
0
M
O
U
N
v?
O C)
V C)
O ti
N ?
N ?
? Q
?U
? o
t?
t7 'Cc
w -?
t}
O..
0
0
0
0
0
CD
0
co
0
o
U
CL
0
a
0 C3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Cc
O M 00 ti to ko v Co N
J21J1J 4UIOJ2d
14
•
•
0
Cd
U
a?
0
(3
O
i->
Cd
NC
E
cd
?i
N
i-?
i?
N
N
N
a
M
Q
cd
44
w
?o
? N
? O
wv
N

E
0
a
>
s
:3
CL co
a
C!7 a
C
0
r= 0
E
E E ?
J -1

O
O
O

O
O

T
T

N
_
{1?

N

C?

toy
CL
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o cn co ti o ko v m cv
JOUTA lu,93J9d
1J
FIGURE 6. Plan view of the Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed tributary to Goose Creek,
Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004.
•
Goose Creek _%.-
Cross section 5+32
Bunco) ri11 i1(kl
';', ,' 0i \ C;()::3 I )i'(:.'. Si:
Existina channel New channel
'
?13C(tR'i)od tii:Sll
Potential vernal pool
Cross-sections creation or enhancement
3+57
sites
3+05
Start of project
,f
3 Goose Creek Drive
FIGURE 7. Design riffle and pool cross-sections, Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed
• tributary to Goose Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004 (measurements
in feet).
16
•

•
o Ground Points a BanMII v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.1 Dbkf = .7 Abkf = 4.5
106--
too-
0
W
95
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)
FIGURE 7.1. Design riffle cross-section.
o Ground Points o Bankfull f Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.1 Dbkf = 1.7 Abkf = 10.4
105
iK too
a
is
Qs
W
95
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)
FIGURE 7.2. Design pool cross-section.IGURE 8. Typical design longitudinal profile and
pattern for one meander wavelength, Lemmond/Deberry site, unnamed tributary to Goose
Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004.
17
•
0
•
10
104--
103-- j Bankfull
102
101
O
10
d? 9s
W
96
97
/ ThaWeg
9
95
0 10 20 30 40 5D
Distance (ft)
FiGuRE 8.1. Design longitudinal profile.
FIGURE 8.2. Design pattern for one meander wavelength.
18
TABLE 1. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's native seed mix used for
stream restoration and enhancement projects. 2001.
Percent of
mix (%) Common Name Botanical name
10.00 Rice Cut Grass Leersia oryzoides
10.00 Va Wild rye Elymus virginicus
10.00 Woolgrass Scirpus cypemus
5.00 Sensetive Fern Onoclea sensibillis
5.00 Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens
5.00 Hop Sedge Carex lupilina
5.00 Soft Rush Juncus effusus
5.00 Softstem Bulrush Scirpus validus
5.00 Deertongue Panicum clandestinum
5.00 Lesser Bur-reed Sparganium americanum
5.00 Eastern Gamagrass Tripascum actyloides
5.00 Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
2.50 Many Leaved Bulrush Scirpus polyphyllus
2.50 Nodding Bur-marigold Bidens cernua
2.50 Squarestem Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens
2.50 Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium fistulosa
2.50 Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata
2.50 Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
2.50 Silky Dogwood Comus amonluin
2.50 Winterberry Ilex verticillata
2.50 Spicebush Lindera benzoin
2.50 Maple-Leaved viburnum Viburnum acerifolium
Total 100.00
E
19
Appendix 1. Natural channel design data from Sal's Branch reference reach, the
existing unnamed tributary and the proposed new channel, Lemmond/Deberry site,
• Union County, July 2004.
•
•
Reference Exisiting Design
Survev Crew Doll/Jelenevsky Mickey/Hining
Sun-ev Date 6/1/2001 3/412004
Stream Type E F4 E4
Drainage Area (mi-) 0.40 0.10 0.10
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 10.70 10.42 6.10
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbki) 1.30 0.70 0.74
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmax) 1.90 1.23 1.08
Width; Depth Ratio 8.23 14.89 8.23
Max Riffle Depth Ratio (Dmax Dbkf) 1.46 1.76 1.46
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf) 13.80 4.54 4.54
Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 4.40 5.64 5.62
Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) 60.67 26.42 26.42
Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa) 100.00 8.00 57.00
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpaAVbkf) 9.35 0.77 9.34
Min Meander Length (Lm) 35.00 410.00 20.00
Max Meander Length (Lm) 43.00 410.00 25.00
Min Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) 3.27 39.35 3.28
Max Meander Length Ratio (Lm Wbkf) 4.02 39.35 4.10
Min Radius of Curvature (Re) 11.00 28.00 4.00
Max Radius of Curvature (Re) 21.00 183.00 6.00
Min Radius of Cunvature Ratio (Re Wbkf) 1.03 2.69 0.66
Max Radius of Curvature Ratio (RcWbkf) 1.96 17.56 0.98
Min Belt Width (Wblt) 20.00 154.00 12.00
Max Belt Width (WI-)It) 62.00 154.00 24.00
Min Meander Width Ratio (Wblt-Wbkt) 1.87 14.78 1.97
Max Meander Width Ratio (Wblt(Wbkf) 5.79 14.78 3.93
Sinuosity (K) 2.00 1.03 .6 average
Valley Slope 0.01 0.01 0.01
Avg. Slope (measured) 0.01 0.01 0.003
Min Riffle Slope (Srif) 0.02 0.01 n/a
Average Riffle Slope (Srif) 0.05 0.02
Max Riffle Slope (Srit) 0.04 0.18 n/a
Min Riffle Slope Ave Slope (Sriff Save) 3.20 0.81 n/a
Average Riffle Slope (Srif Save) 0.00 4.03 5.67
Max Rile Slope Ave Slope (Sniff Save) 7.20 14.52 nla
Min Riffle Length Lritfle 3.00 4.00 n/a
Average Riffle Length Lriffle 30.00 11.00
Max Riffle Length Lriffle 28.00 59.00 n/a
Min Riffle Length-BanUill Width (Lrif Wbkf) 0.28 0.38 n/a
Average Riffle Length Length Bankfirll Width (Lrif Wbkf) 0.00 2.88 E
E

Max Riffle Length Bankfull Width (Lrif Wbkt)
+-2.62
5.66 na
20

Appendix 1. Continued.
•
is
•
Reference Exisitin Design
Pool Slope (Spool) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pool Slope Ratio (Spool; Sang) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Min Pool Depth (Dpool) 2.80 1.14 0.50
Average Pool Depth (Dpool) 1.56 0.70
Max Pool Depth (Dpool) 3.20 2.01 1.82
Min Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool/Dbkf) 2.15 1.63 0.68
Average Pool Depth Ratio (D pool'Dbkf) 0.00 2.23 0.95
Max Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool/Dbkf) 2.46 2.87 2.46
Pool Area (A . ool) 24.00 10.4
Pool Area Ratio (Apool/Abkf) 1.74 0.74
Min Pool Length (Lpool) 21.00 4.00 n/a
Average Pool Length (L l) 24.00 11.00
Max Pool Length (Lpool) 35.00 118.00 n/a
Min Pool Length Ratio (L pool Wbkf) 1.96 0.38 n/a
Average Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/Wbkf) 0.00 2.30 1.80
Max Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/Wbkf) 3.27 11.32 n/a
Pool Width (W pool) 10.70 6.10
Pool Width Ratio (Wpool/Wbkf) 1.00 1.00
Min Pool Pool Spacing (-) 51.00 15.00 n/a
Average Pool/Pool Spacing (p-p) 55.00 22.00
Max Pool Pool Spacing O- .) 66.00 122.00 n/a
Min PoolSpacing Ratio ( p/Wbkf) 4.77 1.44 n/a
Average Pool Spacing Ratio (p- /Wbkf) 0.00 5.28 3.61
Max Pool Spacing Ratio (. Wbkt) 6.17 11.71 n/a
Materials:
1. Particle Size Distribution of Channel
d16 0.88 0.88
d35 2.70 2.70
d50 4.24 4.24
d84 11.00 11.00
d95 22.60 22.60
2. Particle Size Distribution of Bar
d16 0.37 0.37
d35 0.70 0.70
d50 10.00 1.22 1.22
d84 30.00 4.67 4.67
d95 6.99 6.99
Largest Size at Toe of Bar 13.00 13.00
Bankfull Shear Stress 0.45 0.09
MON-able article size 20.00 6.20
21
•

•
Appendix 2. Lemmond/Deberry proposed conservation easement map, unnamed
tributary to Goose Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, July 2004.
7SA ?aNSTaaaIa:720wr APPROX. "C.4rz4.wj% OF
PBw"'ft-+7 k.USeL.C T • 4 Sr"ES INtT-CStAa Ry
` crsa, to<wrsa?Aa AaE/aJ LuRG- "I Y 2f o
` Ta ME affnwrzw+EO o s r/'.
^?..` 4sg 7ME'SE TO Sf+oaT
r{(rs NOW OR TORMERLY
?' T,o 94E a? AX# OB 222SASS7 JJJ
1D3 Pc SD7 /
?HAASwtEt• '? •
ws•wKa RROLTrtE.r a Rya y
SsLANA _ ? LZME FaalWaS Ofd "? ,? E
1 pa,.,.ss aA"L 4 cLr•AAL.?c ? GOOSE CREElt „ .w?
X dp,CAwr. PisraA_e5 AMApc' ii
Bfi T(.>•FE? pi0fi4 LS Lt7i43
. t rAna w r . 11, yJaJ/PY
LaE Oo T4Ft
L<r Y/L/aY ?
O
? AR?as o
? o
NOW OR FORMERLY 1
D.K CARRWER 1
AND YAFE BUFORD C. HEIRS
TAX/ 08-222-016A It
08 239 PC 496 y?
EILAwa srRw iq` N
LZIAF 66r1A;,F X,
TME6E 'TLrC PotA»S
i
A
/,w- fit
,,?S i` TAaa
yZy,a1 cif ?i d CARY T.
1 f?f^ G1iPfY? ?? ? ?? ??
EIPO >fpyy?.?`
15.6Y! iXala d \
3FFSET TOP OF BANK
TAXIIM-222^038"?-
/ V al"3-
/? '?- pRE? 1$
CENTERLINE ??-
aTCN
1 1.59 ACRES
i
eta WK
Fowur ? LA
NGf fawaa Y?Aefiy
cr /
EfP
?.. 42 L3 STAKE
r
SHED
601
TAX0 08-222-037
EOMU O L DEBER[tY. I .
LOT S. BLOCK
1 CAB A. FILE a-A \
t ?
1 oP ?
_ RIVE
GOOSE 60. IVO cP
AIw

i-
t22-036
Low k Wi
LEM,YONO
PC, 9,
49-
UL
F 4-A
T
NOD PDAR4 Y/+
2D' OFFSET
N
TAX# O8-
ALLEN P
DR 758
K
o
x N e6••Jpg1 ?, ,
PONT OF E
Fa &
TAX/ 08-222-034
ALLEN W. RA9B
DB 756 PD 318
LOT 9. BLOCK i
CAB_ A. FIE 4-A
EIP /
coA'ar4ucz:op _ ?
AecEas ??
CowEEZOOR
Fofroms a.srLALe• ??,
714VAW isAo,S YN6Lq
22
u
r?
C:
C
i.
ti.+
0
o?
0
y r4
CC O
.Ci
• u
CA
•?,, O
v, O
a?
-0 0
° .0
ea ?
a?
a
c
Ct ea
c ?
-o >
On a
CL L",
O
C. ?
4.+ .t
O ?
? y
iU
u o
G, O
'O td
0
M
vi
U
cY
r
r
L
U
O
U
r
r
ti
r
U
3
v
z
C,
M
Q
C?,
O
0
CL
N
M
Q;
v:
N
ti
r
n.
J
05
r
U
y
r
U
v
z
M,
Q
I!T
0
?n
r,
v
s
y
r
r
u
G
v
r
U
N
z
M
M
Q
23
•
•
'C
c
0
V
M
d

o .x
o ?
?V
o ?
cd CA
o
o
-0 0
4U. C.7
o ..o
a? Y
o ?
A
W r.
M 3
Q -?
x
0
0
a?
U
4,
O
'T1
C
N
N
3
a ?
LrI
M
J
24
• Appendix 4. In-stream structures and bank grading designs proposed for this site.
A.4.1. Typical bank grading and revegetation plan.
Consintct a ban-full bench
and re-shape banks on a 1:1
or 2:1 slope.
- ,
Bankfitll elevation "
Existing bank-
---- bank
•
•
Plant Rooted Trees, 2-6 ft tall
Plant Live Stakes and/or native shrubs

lint Herbaceous Vegetation
histall fence if Ine
stock are present at
the site for Ions teen
riparian protection
f
n7
MIT "'i
S
k?
,y? F y S E ?,P
25

Appendix 4. Continued w
A.4.2. Typical cross-vane showing plan and cross-section ? ?e?
NOTE: There should be no gaps between the rocks in the cross-
.
vane. Rock size should range from 2 cu ft. to 4 cu ft. ;..

PLAN VIEW

ref
Arm slope range 4 -
•
1/3 bottom width
• Bankfiill bench J
26
• Appendix 4. Continued.
A.4.3. Typical rock vane structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE: There should
be no gaps between the rocks in the rock vane structure. The rock vane should have a 4 % to
12% slope from the top of bankfull or inner berm bench to streambed. Rock size should range
from 2 cu ft. to 4 cu ft. Arm length will vary depending on size of stream.
PLAN VIEW
our
)le
•
•
27

Appendix 4. Continued.
A.4.4. Typical root wad structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE:
Footer logs should be >8" diameter and installed below the streambed. Root wads
should be 8-14 ft long and >10" diameter. Large boulders should be placed in gaps
between root wads. Fill materials from the site should be placed behind the root wads
and boulders, covered with an erosion coy roi mat and seeded and trees plaT on
top of the bench. o Ail ,, k "
ti
£'t
A3?
0

PLAN VIEW
•
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
28
Appendix 4. Continued.
A.4.5. Log Vane Structure showing plan and profile views
•
•
PLAN VIEW
4
4
BankfUll I a o small streams i 0O
PROFILE VIEW
•
29
•
•

a?
U
? O
R OL2? U
o
U cli
• v
? sue,
0
dd
FQ
H
as
x
w
0
0
a
d.
W
H
3
5
w
a
w
O
a
r
0
v
_U
Q
w