20020575 Ver 1_Complete File_20020415

1? l J ( .. 1.• 4::. (. _ S__..

('.(.

KN North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tim Smith, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator Original Signed
Habitat Conservation Program by J. R. Linville
DATE: April 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of 404 Application by Headwaters Ltd., Trout Enhancement Structures,
Anthony Creek, Caldwell County
The applicant is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are
familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Headwaters Ltd. proposes to install wedge dams and other timber structures in the channel to
create artificial pools and improve trout habitat. A generic hand drawn schematic was provided
in the application. This section of stream is known to support excellent wild trout populations,
including brown and rainbow plus an occasional brook. Downstream reaches provide an
outstanding rainbow trout fishery that is managed under wild trout regulations as USFS
Gamelands.
Bob Brown, Fish Biologist, Joe Mickey, Stream Restoration Coordinator visited the site with me
on April 11, 2002. The stream appears to be widened in some areas. Therefore, the channel
could benefit from improved thalweg depth and habitat structure. Natural boulder materials were
abundant along the channel floodplain. Based on our observations, we believe that the project
can be accomplished using these boulders in order to provide a more natural stream. Milled
wooden timbers are not preferred, as these can cause stream instability. Timbers may not be fully
functional, as they may not conform to natural site conditions. The placement of boulders should
conform better. Boulders may also be cheaper and easier to install. Habitat improvements
utilizing w-weirs or j-hooks, similar to those developed by Mr. Dave Rosgen of Wildland
Hydrology in Pagosa Springs, Colorado have been shown to improve stream habitat and stability.
These structures are self-scouring and they do not interfere with natural flow regimes. The US
Natural Resources and Conservation Service (MRCS) and the NC Division of Water Quality have
developed similar stream restoration guidance.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
Headwaters, Anthony Creek 2 April 15, 2002
Generally, we do not object to trout enhancement structures providing they improve aquatic
habitats and do not destabilize streambanks. We are concerned about the generic design and the
potential risk of streambank instability. The submittal does not include bioengineering
calculations supporting the design, placement, and stability of the proposed wooden structures.
Thus, the information provided is not sufficient for an adequate bioengineering review. We
recommend that the applicant provide additional information about the project, including an
evaluation of channel conditions and dimensions. The additional information should include a
plan view for the entire reach, specific structure designs, and exact locations for instream and
bank activities. The location of these devices should be determined based on stream stabilization
needs and desired habitat improvements. Plans should include state-of-the art bioengineering
geomorphic evaluations as well as structure installation techniques. Native vegetation should be
incorporated for additional habitat benefits. In our view, the installation of trout enhancement
structures must not cause harm to the stability of stream ecosystem.
If the project is approved after further permit review, we recommend that any instream work and
land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone be prohibited during the trout spawning
seasons of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout. Additionally,
we recommend that a photographic record should be developed and maintained for the area
(including areas immediately upstream and downstream) in order to document and evaluate any
unanticipated ecosystem impacts. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024). New equipment or little used
equipment should be used to minimize potential introduction of petroleum contaminants to the
aquatic environment.
Due to the small length of stream involved for proposed aquatic habitat improvements, the
applicant may be able to "customize" the installation of habitat improvement structures by
coordinating structure placement at the site with Mr. Bob Brown (828-437-3977). Flagging the
stream reaches and specifying the size and shape of structures should be relatively easy.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are available to meet with the
applicant to discuss the project. We also understand that a 401 Certification must be obtained for
this activity. Site flagging and rock structure details should also facilitate the 401 Certification
review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Mike Parker, DWQ - Asheville
Mark Cantrell, USFWS W „ .. ___._• ?-- ?""?
,deb-, Ce?;:Yl
r

JNP
V
Mr. John Dorney
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Dorney:
October 14, 2002?SL

l
RE: Request for refund of Certification fee. Your August 24 letter.
I purposely delayed answering your letter in order to give myself time to settle down, be
objective, and look at the situation from your standpoint. Perhaps you could do the same
and look at what has transpired, from my standpoint.
Upon submission of my application, you refused to "review and process" it until I paid
the $475 fee. Once reviewed, your people refused to accept an integral part of the
proposal, primarily log cover structures, based upon their opinion that "log structures
create unstable conditions", irregardless of how installed. Their solution was to use
boulder dams, J-hooks, etc., which under existing conditions, are inappropriate from a
hydrologic standpoint (low streambanks), and do not provide the same quality fish cover.
Your people then told Tim Smith, Corp Representative that, they "had seen structures
such as the ones I proposed, washed out". They also told him that they had contacted
NRCS and that they also had seen such structures washed out, and recommended against
them, both statements a complete fabrication as far as I've been able to determine. A
similar statement about "washing out" was made to me earlier, and I asked them to give
me an example, because, to my knowledge, no one else is using the same installation
techniques. My question was ignored. I then asked Mr. Smith who had made the
statements to him. He did not specify, but gave me Mr. St. John's number to call. When l
asked Mr. St. John about the reference to NRCS and examples of "washing out", he
brushed me off with a statement to the effect "Oh well. You know how comments can be
misinterpreted". Those statements are misrepresentation, not misinterpretation, and have
far more serious implications!
Put yourself in my place and see how the above sounds to you coming from a
government Agency you are trying to deal with.
The above rhetoric aside, is it reasonable to require money up front, subsequently review
a proposal, turn it down, and then refuse to refund the money? The least you could do, in
all fairness, would be to make a quick initial review, notify the person of basic problems,
and then collect the fee only if he is willing to negotiate further.
In regard to time spent on this proposal, whatever time your people have spent on it is far
less than the time and expense that I've put into it, and I don't get paid.
r?
Mr. Dorney, I spent a lengthy career working with many government agencies, and I
can't ever remember being dealt with in such an arbitrary manner, or being given so little
opportunity to discuss items of contention with Agency personnel. With a little more
tolerance for techniques other than Rosgen's restoration methods, and a chance for open
minded discussion, I feel that an equitable solution would have been possible.
Sincerely,
L?)n,91
MONTE E. SEEHORN
5292 Clarks Bridge Rd.
Gainesville, GA 30506
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: mseehomgflash.net
OFWATF9
?O
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
j ={ Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
t Division of Water Quality
4&
September 12, 2002
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Monte E. Seahorn
5292 Clarks Ridge Road
Gainsville, GA 30506
Re: Headwaters, LTD
In Stream Fish Habitat Structures
Caldwell County
DWQ # 020575
Dear Mr. Seahorn:
The Division of Water Quality has revieweedu st in our previous correspondence was not provided. This info matposnasion
was not complete since the information q
needed by DWQ in order for us to decide whether this project is approvable. that You have proposed adding structures that would directly impact the stream bed and bank of a strie, amon of is currently
above the
ul t d by providing trout feed
umthe berspurpose
and size of these t out will be regsupport
considered stable. It ch streamunderstanding
. The nthat
normal carrying acity of the hese
the
as C Tr.
Sta directly into the stream. such, it nethe Water Quality Standardty olat onseappl cable totwatiersoclassf iedraded
that the proposed activities will not result
As you requested, Mr. Todd St. John and Mr. Bob Zarzecki of this Office and Mr. Mike Parker of the Division's Asheville you had
similar str
installed
ctures Regional Office conducted a site visit to a
in that system. These i Staff also reviewed other documentation that to uhe
ones proposed to assess their performance
provided to Mr. Parker in conjunction with that visit. Based on that review it was determined that additional information is
nPCessary to asses the impact of the proposed project on water quality.
1)
2)
3)
4)
The plans and typical details submitted with the application do not include distances, depths, areas, specifications, shown tolerances, material specifications, scale
a Please t provide tt typical thatxnclputde spec ficat og sdl wou d be in
figure 44 does include some specifications).
helpful to include material as well as orientation and relative sizes, depths, and distances as they relate to the existing
channel.
The fact that these activities are proposed for a stream that is currently stable would result in changes in the of t
stream
and hydrology and sediment transport in the
within hthe channel that hangeithe channel's d'mens ons or p ofi e a d/or
particular concern are proposed structures
that increase depth near the banks. Factors that would influence the stream's response to these chnges t supply,re channel
slope, floodway slope, sinuosity, channel morphology, bed and bank material, vegetation, sedimen nick lan points, bed rock out crops and other structures. At a minimum, this that includes the channels would require the development of a site
ogi al features such as he location both
(preferably a survey) at a detailed scale
banks and existing land contours. The proposed location of each type of structure or channel alteration should also be
shown on the site plan.
hydrologic, shear stress analysis, sediment transport and/or scour analysis opriate me hod of analysis the bed and
b dependent
bank materials as well as vegetation and channel morphology. The most app mate upon the type of structure or channel the location of the structure in relation a atdion and obhe exist nrg bed and bank featur stogy an
existing vegetation, as well as
Please provide the proposed trout feeding rates and any other pertinent information about the feed itself so that the
direct impact and indirect impact of the addition of the feed can be assessed.
Please feel free to call Mr. Todd St. John of this Office at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions. It is also
above Aionprilis20recei01
recommended that you review the Internal Technical Gide for Stram Work in North
web site: htt ://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlan
place this project on hold due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)). If this Office has not rer
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Page 2 OT Z
response within 30 days your project shall be considered withdrawn per your request to the USACE dated August 19,
2002 in which you requested to withdraw your permit application for this project.
Sincerely,
cc: Mike Parker, DWQ Regional Office
Tium Smith, USACE Asheville Regional Office
Bob Zarzecki
Todd St. John
File
Central Files
DWQ# 020575
t1 R. Do y
ater Quality Certificati Program
O?O? W AT FRIG

O Niiiw?0111414W `c.
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 12, 2002
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Monte E. Seahorn?
5292 Clarks Ridge Road
5
Gainsville, GA 30506 Re: Headwaters, LTD ADA I
In Stream Fish Habitat Structures
Caldwell County
DWQ # 020575
proposed adding structures that would directly impact the stream bed and bank of a stream that is currently
considered stable. It is the understanding that the purpose of these structures is to support a population of trout above the
normal carrying capacity of the stream. The numbers and size of these trout will be regulated by providing trout feed
directly into the stream. As such, it is necessary that you establish that these waters of the State will not be degraded and
that the proposed activities will not result in the Water Quality Standard violations applicable to waters classified as C Tr.
As you requested, Mr. Todd St. John and Mr. Bob Zarzecki of this Office and Mr. Mike Parker of the Division's Asheville
Regional Office conducted a site visit to a portion of the Linville River where you had installed similar structures to the
ones proposed to assess their performance in that system. These Staff also reviewed other documentation that you
provided to Mr. Parker in conjunction with that visit. Based on that review it was determined that additional information is
necessary to asses the impact of the proposed project on water quality.
1) The plans and typical details submitted with the application do not include distances, depths, areas, specifications,
tolerances, material specifications, scale relative to the existing stream, etc. (except that the "wedge dam" shown in
figure 44 does include some specifications). Please provide typical details that include specifications. It would be
helpful to include material as well as orientation and relative sizes, depths, and distances as they relate to the existing
channel.
2) The fact that these activities are proposed for a stream that is currently stable would result in changes in the
hydrology and sediment transport in the stream that could result in destabilization of the stream bed and banks. Of
particular concern are proposed structures within the channel that changed the channel's dimensions or profile
and/or that increase depth near the banks. Factors that would influence the stream's response to these changes are
channel slope, floodway slope, sinuosity, channel morphology, bed and bank material, vegetation, sediment supply,
nick points, bed rock out crops and other structures. At a minimum/this would require the development of a scaled-site
plan (preferably a survey) that includes the channel's morphological features such as the location both banks and
existing land contours.,.T?e proposed location of each type of structure or channel alteration should also be shown on
the site plan. l
3) A hydrologic,&hear stress analysis, sediment transport and/or scour analysis m.* be necessary based on the bed
and ban aterials as well as vegetation and channel morphology. The most appropriate method of analysis is
dep dent upon the type of structure or channel alteration proposed, the bed and bank material, the channel
orphology and existing vegetation, as well as the location of the structure in relation to the existing bed and bank
features.
a 4) Please provide the proposed trout feeding rates and any other pertinent information about the feed itself so that the
?e direct impact and indirect impact of the addition of the feed can be assessed.
ca
7 Please feel free to call Mr. Todd St. John of this Office at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions. It is also
recommended that you review the Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, April 2001 available at our
web site: http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/restore.htm1. Until the above requested information is received, I will
place this project on hold due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)). If this Office has not received any
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Dear You Mr. have Seahorn:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal fora 401 Certification for the subject pro- c .Your application
was not complete since the information request in our previous correspondence was not provided. his information is
needed by DWQ in order for us to decide whether this project is approvable.
Da!-3 oz-
Triage Check List e:?? : - '
,To: ?RRO Ste,e !f'?eil rrojec: Name }?P.1t 1.(Wd 2YS? L
* - O Z?75 -
II7'.J Ken G.,e, -
, =_ =r
Dv10 -;=_c N_r
?WaRO De f rah Ste; _ County ?GUQL
?WRO Joanne SL-s
-?N'SR.O Jenniia F
OARO Mike Fa,;ker

Frain: ? ?Gt6 <Ckt ¢ Van bP WLL ?Te!ephone (919) 733- 17e)
- -
I
The fie aGa- _: is beinc fr. nz6 to you for yc_. evah.a c .. P.._.e call if y_.: need
assistance. -
400
? Stream ce_a-T ib 05,27
? We''-'a nc ___==. inn adc5.=nce to b._=line s_ ace v:a`_rs on USGW topo r..aps
? BitTer R:aes (Tdss, Tar ?-iGra. C?=.v`=_. Ra^:ie-an) .
? Pond fill -
?Miticaftrn F--tlcs
? Ditching
D.kr =_ : _ T. Wes- d r- ycr, ores a.a..a. e and viable?
? Che:k c: zMngs tr a -rGy -
u- csss?Yrri?, pre-pi!<5on mse'-i-_s?
? Is the a, p4a
?Cumu! Finp?crx=-s
Comme-_ (i ` y---
r?n a ?ytpvt?;? _- es 7? _
--
_ :.
Edgemont, Wilson Creek 3 April 15, 2002
May copy Alan as they work in this area
Alan Walker, NRCS
Alan Walker, Resource Conservationist
NRCS
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786-3217
Alan Walker-828/456-6341 x 5, 828/452-7031 FAX, 1-800-677-6913, mailbox 3420-Alan
Edgemont, Wilson Creek 2 April 15, 2002
bank activities. The location of these devices should be determined based on stream stabilization
needs and desired habitat improvements. Plans should include state-of-the art bioengineering
geomorphic evaluations as well as structure installation techniques. Native vegetation should be
incorporated for additional habitat benefits. In our view, the installation of trout enhancement
structures must not cause harm to the stability of stream ecosystem.
If the project is approved after further permit review, we recommend that any instream work and
land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone be prohibited during the trout spawning
seasons of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout. Additionally,
we recommend that a photographic record should be developed and maintained for the area
(including areas immediately upstream and downstream) in order to document and evaluate any
unanticipated ecosystem impacts. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024). New equipment or little used
equipment should be used to minimize potential introduction of petroleum contaminants to the
aquatic environment.
The applicant may be able to "customize" the installation of habitat improvement structures by
coordinating structure placement at the site with Mr. Bob Brown (828437-3977). Flagging the
stream reaches and specifying the size and shape of structures should be relatively easy.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are available to meet with the
applicant to discuss the project. We also understand that a 401 Certification must be obtained for
this activity. Site flagging and rock structure details should also facilitate the 401 Certification
review process.
''hank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
tegarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Mike Parker, DWQ - Asheville
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tim Smith, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of 404 Application for Edgemont, Ltd., Trout Enhancement Structures,
Wilson Creek, Caldwell County
The applicant is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are
familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Edgemont Ltd. proposes to install a gabion dam, cover logs, and point bars in channel to create
pools and improve trout habitat. A generic hand drawn schematic was provided in the
application. This section of stream is known to support excellent wild trout populations,
including brown and rainbow. Downstream reaches provide an outstanding rainbow trout fishery
that is managed under wild trout regulations as USFS Gamelands.
Habitat improvements utilizing w-weirs or j-hooks, similar to those developed by Mr. Dave
Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology in Pagosa Springs, Colorado have been shown to improve stream
habitat and stability. These structures are self-scouring and they do not interfere with natural
flow regimes. The US Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) and the NC Division
of Water Quality have developed similar stream restoration guidance.
Generally, we do not object to trout enhancement structures providing they improve aquatic
habitats and do not destabilize streambanks. We are concerned about the generic design and the
potential risk of streambank instability. The submittal does not include bioengineering
calculations supporting the design, placement, and stability of the proposed wooden structures.
Thus, the information provided is not sufficient for an adequate bioengineering review. We
recommend that the applicant provide additional information about the project, including an
evaluation of channel conditions and dimensions. The additional information should include a
plan view for the entire reach, specific structure designs, and exact locations for instream and
OImage I1U2X139U PUrol9
P
r }

I-
I 1
• I rw
r 112,

.. i I ( 44,
3 6/20/2002 7:04 AM
Triage Check List
Date: n'
To: ?RRO Steve Vachell Project Name fddlritou y
?FRO Ken Avwifte owa=,oiectNumar(f bP2b?P74
?WaRO Deborah Sawyer County__C4Lb-W"LL-
?WiR0 Joanne Steenhuis
-?WSRO -Jennifer Frye
LCARO Mike Par',cer u'
A221RO Pete
From: 0 1? IL?i¢Ck l VA?1 DK W ???- Telephone (919)'733-
The (0
file aCache-d 's b<_ing forAardcd to you for your evaiua5c. Please call if you need
assistance.
/_?.•.f
?Veam Ierwth irnpa.:ad :/?-LJ
? Stream detamb-zfrm
? Wetland de`en-iurz i and d1s'ance to blue-Iine surface waters on USGW topo maps
? MinimizatiorVavoca xz "saps
08affer Rules (Nw--e•Teranlco, C?a.v'ca, Rand!=_,-,=_n)
? Pond fill lJ J
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the str=am a-ij awm'and mitication sites available and viable?
? Check dr-nirxs fet a..^irsy _
? Is the appr=albon exx;i v ft pre-application me=_Gngs?
? Cumulative impact cxmn- s ; - _aw
Comments 1Q
_ _ . - -- --------!mac------ - ------ ?-- --- -- ? ?•
'fit: ?•- G1J - - - - ,•5ar?r?,.:,-.----
ANIM
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment ??
and Natural Resources ?
Asheville Regional Office 4
Michael Easley, Governor N C D EN R
William G G. Rosa, Jr., Secretary Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director Nos,,,, CAROLINA DERARTMENT OF
Division of Water Quality ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY SECTION
May 30, 2002
Mr. R. R. Rollings
c/o Viking Imports
1806 Central Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
Subject: 401 Certification Application Review
Edgemont, Ltd.
DWQ Project No. 02-0576
Caldwell County
Dear Mr. Rollings :
Staff of the Division of Water Quality have reviewed the application and sketches of the
proposed stream work to be performed in Wilson Creek which is classified Class B-trout ORW
waters. Your application was not complete since insufficient information was provided to show
that the proposed stream work will minimize adverse impacts to State surface waters.
The Division maintains that the installation of large in stream structures without
consideration of stream morphology, hydraulics, sediment transport and flooding issues could
result in the destabilization of a stream, in most situations. The placement of large structures in a
stream can result in unanticipated scour, bank erosion or even flooding. In order for the Division
to provide a Certification for the subject project the following information may be necessary to
show that the proposed project will minimize adverse impacts to surface waters and will not result
in the degradation of surface waters. The following information is needed by the Division of
Water Quality in order for us to decide whether this project can be approved:
a. A scour analysis should be completed to determine the effect that the filling, island
construction and cover logs will have on the streambed and banks.
b. A detailed site plan must be provided showing the location of these structures relative to
existing pool and/or riffles.
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Actton Employer- 50% Recycled\1 10% Post Consumer Paper
MMUKANUUM
'O: John Domey Regional Contact: Michael R. Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor: Fo rest Westall
Date: 2?37?
;OBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Edgemartt U4 County Caldwetl
,rojent Number 02 0$76 0ounty2
Reovd From APP Region Asheville
Received Date 411$102 R0cvd By Region
Project Type stream enhancement
ertificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
ermit Wetland Wetland' Wettand Stream Class Acres Feet ?¦
ype Type Impact Score' Index Prim Supp. Basin Raq. Req,
FTH OY mN ?- 11-is TRORW 30,83]. F- 500.00 500.00
F-oY 01, itination Wetland
MilIoatlonTyps Type Acres Feet
Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? ®Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y ON
Mitigation required? O Y ON Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
rovided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) " Longitude (ddmmss)
omments:
equasted additional information on 5/30/02 Need stream info on design and stream stability
Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
JJ HKI1T LUKEJ,GIVUKJ i1j-1OzOLf14ODO MVV 17 UL 14.1( NU .UUJ f .V4
Oa -OY,7e
August 14,2002 REV E 1 V.."
Mr. Tim Smith
U.S. Army Corp of fingineers AU G 19 2002
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, N.C. 28801-5006 CESAW-CO-RA
Dear Tim:
In regard to our August 12 telephone conversation concerning the proposed Edgemont
strewn habitat improvement projec,-t, the following modifications to the original proposal
are acceptable.
The first proposod bar below the bridge will not be constructed, as requested.
Cover logs will not be installed at the lowermost bar site, as requested.
Sincerely.
cnte E. 9eehorn
5292 Clarks Bridge Rd.
Gainesville, GA 30506
Tel: [phone] ?',?,?
e-mail: [e-mail]
ii
IEMORANUUM
O: John Domey Regional Contact: Michael R. Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Forr st Westall
Date: Z -o y
OBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Edgemortt Ltd County cal&*dl
rojact Number 02 0$70 Countyl
Recvd Prom APP Region ASWLVdle
Received Date 40/02 ReCYQ By Region
Project Type stream enhancement
artificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
ormit Wetland Watlortd Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet ?¦
Ype Type Impact $core Index Pnm, aupv. 804M Req, Req.
;TB I O Y ® N F__ I -38-34 F -B - TRORw 30,83 L 500.00 500.00 F-
13 er??
t t O Wetland
MtllgetlonTypo TYPO Acres Feat
-- F-
:69, R
11 ep
Natiand Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ®N Did you request more Info? ®Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y ON
Mitigation required? O Y ON Recommendation: O lasue ® Issue/Cond O Deny
•ovided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) M3,100 Longitude (ddmmss) 814W
omments:
equasted additional information on 5130102. Need stream info on design and stream stability
dgemont Ltd_ has requested approval to modifyapproAmately 500 ft. of Wilson Creek by
3apening the channel and creating point bars to improve trout habitat. Below the existing gabbion
3m the plan is to divert the bradied stream into one channel. The material taken from the existing-
ain_ahannel will be placed in the old channel to bankfull. Also Mr. Saahorn has moci fled the plan
i remove the bar just below the bridge and to remove the proposed cover logs at the lower most
to
acommend issuance of 401 Certification No. 3348 with the following conditions- All instream work
call be performed during low water conditions, Fly r*pment used should be free from leaks of oils
1Cilubricants, etc ; the established bars should be stabilized to prevent erosion and they must
,mit't' with the turbidity standard of 10 NTU's for trout waters. Advise them that this is ORW
stars and that' are responsible for resource damage.
Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
In regard to your Internal Technical Guide, the only section in it that appears to apply to the
proposed enhancement projects are sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 on pages 9 and 10, and Appendix G.
What I'm proposing certainly isn't 2.3.3 Stream Restoration/Relocation. No change or relocation
is proposed for the streambanks or riparian area. The bars I'm proposing do not change overall
flood capacity or cross sectional dimensions within the bankfull capacity, since no material is
added to the channel.
You state in your previous letter that "installation of large in stream structures without
consideration of stream morphology, hydraulics, sediment transport, and flooding issues could
result in the destabilization of a stream, in most cases." That can certainly be a true statement.
Based upon that statement, how can you possibly recommend designs such as cross-vanes and j-
hooks, as shown in Appendix G, consisting of large boulders introduced into the channel (thus
significantly reducing channel flood capacity) over bar construction that uses only material in the
channel and does not change flood capacity at all? Furthermore, a large boulder structure such as
the cross-vane has the same basic function as a log wedge dam, but takes up far more channel
capacity than the wedge dam, and creates less desirable habitat, especially on smaller streams
such as Anthony Cr.
Michael, I'm not magic, and neither is Rosgen. When it comes to 100+ year floods, there is no
guarantee that any structure will remain intact. A few years ago, Rosgen installed 26 habitat
improvement structures in the Big East Fk. of the Pigeon River near Cruso, N.C. The second year
every structure washed out. Your own people (DNR) implemented a bank restoration project near
Franklin year before last, utilizing Rosgen techniques. I looked at the project last year and as far
as I'm concerned it was a complete failure. Most of the banks were bare and eroding, and where
rootwads had been installed improperly, banks were blown out 34 feet deep a year later. I've
never experienced failures to the degree of either of these projects. I don't normally point forgers,
but frankly I'm getting tired of having Rosgen techniques pushed as the only methods suitable for
both bank restoration and fish habitat improvement. Hopefully, I learned a few things about
stream enhancement and fish populations in 40 years of working with the Forest Service (most as
Regional Fishery Biologist covering 14 states), and State Game and Fish Agencies in the
Southern Appalachians, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. You may not accept my Handbook
on habitat improvement, but it has probably been utilized to a greater degree than any other "how
to" manual in the U.S.
I'm puzzled about one thing. When I took you to each proposed structure location and explained
in detail what I planned to do, why didn't you express your concerns at the time? It would have
been much easier to discuss details at that time. You saw the situation at each site. I don't
understand what more information you need to make a decision.
Sincerely,
MONTE E. SEEHORN
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Certified Fishery Scientist
5292 Clarks Bridge Rd.
Gainesville, GA 30506
Tel. [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
July 28, 2002
Mr. Michael R. Parker
EnvirormterrW Specialist
State ofN.C., Dept. of Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place AUG - 17;102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Dear Mr. Parker:
I have no idea what "incomplete information (15 A NCAC 2h.0505 (a) (4)" refers to, but assume
it has something to do with not accepting anything that isn't "cookbooked" out of Dave Rosgen's
courses and publications. I'm certainly not criticizing Dave or his publications and educational
courses. In fact I've attended short courses by both Dave and Luna Leopold, and have a great deal
of respect and admiration for both gentlemen and their teachings. However, as expert as these two
gentlemen are in their field, neither are the final word in regard to fish habitat enhancement, and
I'll venture to guess that neither would try to claim that honor. Both would tell you that a
modicum of common sense must be used when applying any general criteria or models to specific
ground conditions.
Bob Brown's admonition to me that bars established less than 5-7 bankfull widths apart, will be
"washed out" shortly is a good example of taking criteria developed in a different geologic
system and blindly applying it to Appalachian streams. What field experience does he have to
back such statements? How many stream enhancement projects on N.C. trout streams, similar to
the specific proposal that I described in detail to both of you, have you observed and followed "on
the ground"? I try to review and evaluate stream habitat methods and projects wherever possible,
in an effort to stay up to date, and I'm not aware of any other projects in N.C. or surrounding
states similar to what I propose. The bar and cover log structures that I have installed over the
past few years have weathered a number of high waters and are still functioning as intended. If
you can show me examples of similar work that failed, I would be happy to travel at my own
expense to see just what is wrong with my design. In the meantime, I suggest that Bob and
anyone else trying to cookbook Rosgen ( or any other manual) without field verification, read
closely the discussion on meander geometry on page 2-5 in Rosgen's "Applied River
Morphology". Pay particular attention to the statement "These empirical relationships of channel
dimensions with stream patterns are typically derived from analyses of meandering alluvial
streams." From there it goes on to discuss criteria that Bob is trying to use. "Meandering alluvial"
hardly describes Wilson or Anthony Cr.
Michael, you infer a lack of confidence in my ability to "determine proper riffle-pool spacing,
and to evaluate their effects on the streams natural ability to assimilate these structures into the
existing channel morphology" (whatever that means), and then use the gabion dam on Wilson Cr.
as an example of poor habitat improvement, as if I had something to do with it. I don't guess you
remember me stating to you that I didn't like gabions, and that I had nothing to do with its
installation. In regard to that structure, I don't think that habitat improvement was the primary
motivation for whoever installed it. If you are referring to Rosgen's meander geometry to
determine riffle-pool spacing for bars, I refer you back to my comments in the previous
paragraph. If you are talking about the wedge dams, I only show a possibility for two, at separate
locations. All these structures are proposed in extensive riffle areas with few, if any, pools.
Oe °" 'r9 r ?y Michael F. Easley
O? ?G Governor
r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Z-1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p C Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
April 17, 2002 Fic r
NC DEPT. OF EtR'IROD;Me,:T
AND NAl URAL HGSC)URCES "'tS
F,EOCa.c OiFICE
MEMORANDUM MOORESVILLE RFC-I,-NM,. OFFICE
PM1m , -.
TO: n
or
APR 2 2 2002 1MAY 0 1 2002 1
FROM: John Domey P""
RE: 401 Certification Review WATER QUALITYS?CT?JN WAIF ° ECT?N
Attn: Pete Colwell
Please review the enclosed 401 Certification application. Please call me if you or your staff have any
questions, or need assistance in these reviews.
P CO E NEW STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FORM
1. eadwaters Ltd.
020575
Caldwell County Central Office Received 04/15/02, clock expires 06/14/02
Need RO comments by 05/31/02
2. Edgemont
020576
Caldwell County Central Office Received 04/15/02, clock expires 06/14/02
Need RO comments by 05/31/02
The other enclosed material is for our general information and use as appropriate.
Enclosures @ F'U I " I
tJrleit ?, , -
?,,,?ASHEYILL? RFGICiiNL(iFN(I__
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mell Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27899-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604.2260 (Location)
1tMUKANUUM
'O: John Domey Regional Contact: Michael R. Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Forrest Westall
Date: A J? LO Z?
iUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Faeifity Name Headwattrs Ltd
roject Number 01 Q$75
Racvd From APP
Received DO& 4/15/02 Racvd By Region
ProjoctTYPe' Strom Imoroveme"t
srtifjcates Stream
Count CaldwtU
Countyl
Region Asbevilie
nry)k Wotland WettandW60and Stream Close Acres Feat
ype' Type Impact Score Index Prim, swvp Beets Raq, Raq
13 [- O Y ® N r- 11-98 (I) F -E I '° 30831.1 400.00
Stream Impacts (ft.)
¦¦
ligation Wetland
Wgown'rype Type Acres Feet
f - ?-
Netland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more Info? ®Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y ON
Mitigation required? O Y ON Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
ovided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Drnments:
aquastad additional info on May 29 00 There was no stream design data art
Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 7
involved in the majority of stream improvement projects on Southeastern National
Forests, and to my knowledge, not one has created scouring or flooding problems.
As for the pebble count, it will tell you nothing that isn't described in my description
above. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Take a look at Figure 47 on
page 23 of my Handbook. This is basically the same type and size stream as Anthony Cr.
I would hope the proposed wedge dam would look very similar after 13 years.
Mr. Parker, if you will contact me, I will schedule another trip to view and discuss this
and the Edgemont project on the ground. I've made two trips already, so I would
appreciate it if we could also round up any other groups or individuals that need to be
involved. For starters, I suggest either June 20 (2nd preference) or 21 (1" preference).
Sincerely,
'7
MONTE E. S EHORN
Certified Fishery Scientist
Certified wildlife Biologist
5292 Clarks Bridge Rd.
Gainesville, GA 30506
Tel. [phone]
e-mail - [e-mail]
June 5, 2002 r (? (?
Mr. Michael R. Parker i JUN I f?
State of N.C. ?D?i
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources;;,
Water Quality Section a QRri;`'
59 Woodfin Pl.
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Re: Your May 29 Letter Concerning the Headwaters (Anthony Cr.) Project.
Dear Mr. Parker:
Your reference to "large instream structures" is inappropriate. The size of logs planned
for this project will run 10-16 inches in diameter, with the main logs of the wedge dam
buried half or more into the substrate, resulting in a 6-10 inch drop at the apex (Page 22
in the Manual with this package). In Rosgen's terminology ("Applied River
Morphology", page 8-16), these wedge dams are "low stage dams", more appropriately
termed a "plunge or ledge", since they do not impound water and are "less than 1 /3 of the
bankfull stage" (Applied River Morphology, page 8-16).
Your insinuation that no consideration was given to stream morphology, hydraulics, etc.
is also inappropriate. I clearly describe the conditions in which wedge dams are
appropriate on page 22 of the Stream Improvement Handbook (this page of the
;handbook was included with the Application). If you would like Rosgen's classification,
it is a moderately entrenched B3 channel with no pools in the vicinity of the proposed
wedge dam sites. The sites selected were just below a break in gradient as described in
my Handbook.
In regard to the bar and cover log combination, there is no loss in channel flood capacity,
other than the insignificant cross section of the cover structure. The substrate is simply
rearranged, with no other material introduced. The bar is constructed only with the
material excavated from the channel, leaving flood capacity undiminished. You certainly
can't say the same for vanes, j-hooks, boulders, etc. All these require adding large
material into the channel, thus reducing overall flood capacity, and in the case of boulder
placement, more potential for bank erosion than with properly placed log structures.
The overhead cover provided with logs is far superior to the open pools created with
vanes, j-hooks, w-wiers or similar structures. Overhead bank covers are best, however the
undercut logs on the wedge dams also provide refuge during high waters that displace
fish downstream from open pools without cover. Rock vanes etc. may serve some
purpose, but they are anything but optimum fish habitat. The cost for such structures
exceeds the benefits accrued.
I don't know what your scour analysis includes, but the only scouring that will occur with
the structures proposed, is at the site of the structure. During the past 40 years I've been
State of North Carolina 30
Department of Environment ???
and Natural Resources ? ?
Asheville Regional Office
Michael Easley, Governor N C D EN R
William G G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director NORTH CAROLINA D-ITMENr OF
Division of Water Quality ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RM50URCES
WATER QUALITY SECTION
May 29, 2002
Mr. Monte E. Seahorn
5292 Clarks Bridge Road
Gainsville, Georgia 30506
Subject: 401 Certification Application Review
Headwaters, Ltd.
DWQ Project No. 02-0575
Caldwell County
Dear Mr. Seahorn:
Staff of the Division of Water Quality have reviewed the application and sketches of the
proposed stream work to be performed in Anthony Creek which is classified Class C-trout waters.
Your application was not complete since insufficient information was provided to show that the
proposed stream work will minimize adverse impacts to State surface waters.
The Division maintains that the installation of large in stream structures without
consideration of stream morphology, hydraulics, sediment transport and flooding issues could
result in the destabilization of a stream, in most situations. The placement of large structures in a
stream can result in unanticipated scour, bank erosion or even flooding. In order for the Division
to provide a Certification for the subject project the following information may be necessary to
show that the proposed project will minimize adverse impacts to surface waters and will not result
in the degradation of surface waters. The following information is needed by the Division of
Water Quality in order for us to decide whether this project can be approved:
a. A scour analysis should be completed to determine the effect that log wedge dams and
cover logs will have on the streambed and banks.
b. A detailed site plan must be provided showing the location of these structures relative to
existing pool and/or riffles.
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAfmutive Action Employer - 5VI. Recycled\I 10% Post Consumer Paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
F
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOUROE9
WATER QUALITY SECTION
July 3, 2002
Mr. Monte E. Seahorn
5292 Clarks Bridge Road
Gainsville, Georgia 30506
Dear Mr. Seahom:
Subject: 401 Certification Application Review
Headwaters, Ltd.
DWQ Project No. 02-0575
Edgemont, Ltd.
DWQ Project No. 02-0576
Caldwell County
Thank you for your response to my letter dated May 29, 2002 and for meeting us in
Caldwell County to visit the sites on Anthony Creek and Wilson Creek. I have reviewed your
"Stream Habitat Improvement Handbook" as well as other publications concerning fish habitat
structures. DWQ staff are aware that these structures provide some excellent fish habitat;
however, failure to construct these structures within the proper riffle-pool spacing and to evaluate
their effects on the streams natural ability to assimilate these structures into the existing channel
morphology, by providing a stable dimension, pattern and profile, could result in stream instability.
As an example, the gabion dam on Wilson Creek. This structure was installed to provide good
fish habitat, but because of the way this dam was installed, it has become a sediment trap,
completely filled with sediment and now is directing the flow of water to the right bank, looking
upstream, resulting in bank erosion of Wilson Creek.
Until information is provided that can assure the Division that instantiation of these
instream structures will not result in the instability of Anthony Creek and/or Wilson Creek, both of
these projects will have to be placed on hold, due to incomplete information (15 A NCAC 2H
.0505 (a) (4). For your use, I am enclosing a copy of the Division's "Internal Technical Guide for
Stream Work in North Carolina" which describes the information that is necessary for staff to
complete a thorough review of the project.
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodrin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Afrnrnative Action Employer- 50% Recycled\110% Post Consumer Paper
Headwaters, Anthony Creek 3 April 15, 2002
May copy Alan as they work in this area
Alan Walker, NRCS
Alan Walker, Resource Conservationist
NRCS
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786-3217
Alan Walker-828/456-6341 x 5, 828/452-7031 FAX, 1-800-677-6913, mailbox 3420-Alan
Headwaters, Anthony Creek
April 15, 2002
Generally, we do not object to trout enhancement structures providing they improve aquatic
habitats and do not destabilize streambanks. We are concerned about the generic design and the
potential risk of streambank instability. The submittal does not include bioengineering
calculations supporting the design, placement, and stability of the proposed wooden structures.
Thus, the information provided is not sufficient for an adequate bioengineering review. We
recommend that the applicant provide additional information about the project, including an
evaluation of channel conditions and dimensions. The additional information should include a
plan view for the entire reach, specific structure designs, and exact locations for instream and
bank activities. The location of these devices should be determined based on stream stabilization
needs and desired habitat improvements. Plans should include state-of-the art bioengineering
geomorphic evaluations as well as structure installation techniques. Native vegetation should be
incorporated for additional habitat benefits. In our view, the installation of trout enhancement
structures must not cause harm to the stability of stream ecosystem.
If the project is approved after further permit review, we recommend that any instream work and
land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone be prohibited during the trout spawning
seasons of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout. Additionally,
we recommend that a photographic record should be developed and maintained for the area
(including areas immediately upstream and downstream) in order to document and evaluate any
unanticipated ecosystem impacts. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B.0024). New equipment or little used
equipment should be used to minimize potential introduction of petroleum contaminants to the
aquatic environment.
Due to the small length of stream involved for proposed aquatic habitat improvements, the
applicant may be able to "customize" the installation of habitat improvement structures by
coordinating structure placement at the site with Mr. Bob Brown (828-437-3977). Flagging the
stream reaches and specifying the size and shape of structures should be relatively easy.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are available to meet with the
applicant to discuss the project. We also understand that a 401 Certification must be obtained for
this activity. Site flagging and rock structure details should also facilitate the 401 Certification
review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Mike Parker, DWQ - Asheville
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
lb
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tim Smith, Permit Coordina
Asheville Office, U.S. Army
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coorc
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of 404 Application by Headwaters Ltd., Trout Enhancement Structures,
Anthony Creek, Caldwell County
The applicant is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are
familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stet. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Headwaters Ltd. proposes to install wedge dams and other timber structures in the channel to
create artificial pools and improve trout habitat. A generic hand drawn schematic was provided
in the application. This section of stream is known to support excellent wild trout populations,
including brown and rainbow plus an occasional brook. Downstream reaches provide an
outstanding rainbow trout fishery that is managed under wild trout regulations as USFS
Gamelands.
Bob Brown, Fish Biologist, Joe Mickey, Stream Restoration Coordinator visited the site with me
on April 11, 2002. The stream appears to be widened in some areas. Therefore, the channel
could benefit from improved thalweg depth and habitat structure. Natural boulder materials were
abundant along the channel floodplain. Based on our observations, we believe that the project
can be accomplished using these boulders in order to provide a more natural stream. Milled
wooden timbers are not preferred, as these can cause stream instability. Timbers may not be fully
functional, as they may not conform to natural site conditions. The placement of boulders should
conform better. Boulders may also be cheaper and easier to install. Habitat improvements
utilizing w-weirs or j-hooks, similar to those developed by Mr. Dave Rosgen of Wildland
Hydrology in Pagosa Springs, Colorado have been shown to improve stream habitat and stability.
These structures are self-scouring and they do not interfere with natural flow regimes. The US
Natural Resources and Conservation Service (MRCS) and the NC Division of Water Quality have
developed similar stream restoration guidance.

m
e
h
iF t.,
?z,

o,?n )3ar__ afire . ?oYe .._?+9 _ CanS??NCfr'on
A eY- Sur?w1cc
u? ?afe
G
OO e e ?i'G3xCt/ioral?' f__s?s/rare-Pi?'f leefre -,0es??er;n9_
d Q ? i -?XG9.VA?s9 __?ATCt'Ygl
Q OC A
6 r
r ?6pG ?°a ?.a r ;
v?U
e eaJr { r' I? I L I
OV?YAFa yi?W hT,mbclnk ?i .S.kdraTG froTr??1e
p%? bar G.ove-r loj Comkrl,14,1'arns are normal/ insfIlled
in lrvsle Shv?fe,w 1Sec?,,,/ons o{?S?rt?»?s COnT4rn:r?? ?+ low _.
[ai yerSi ?Y 01? l/s,61Ta J?` /rl??s,..
1 ?e_blr 14 ConS(_Yue?ed xiY19.I 0)7/ - ?_1?1a7CYiw1.rounove'l _
fY_vr?? _f ?it ±erds-ne-arl Area }ltus_YLT417vl?irt9 ] Ae S'ctme overR.ll .?loodcap/Y..avatlq,dle Jnr?or Cpn57?-uc7?ivr.
HEADWATERS LTD. - STREAM HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL
Project Objective - The objective is to create a more diverse and productive habitat for trout and
associated aquatic communities.
Current Conditions - Headwaters Ltd is a sportsman group or Club, and landowner of the
approximately 600 foot reach of Anthony Cr. proposed for improvement. Anthony Cr. is fairly
small (10-15 feet wide) and shallow at this location, containing only two quality pools in the total
length of approximately 1200 feet owned by the Club. Although the stream carries a fairly heavy
sediment load, originating from the gravel road paralleling it, Anthony Cr. supports a high
population of fingerling rainbow trout. The problem is a lack of deeper water to provide suitable
habitat as they reach larger size.
Action Proposed to Improve Habitat - The objective is to increase diversity of habitat by
increasing the total amount of pool area and cover for fish through the installation of point bars
with cover logs, and wedge dams or channel constrictors. A backhoe with a hydraulic "thumb",
utilizing "environmentally friendly" hydraulic fluid (5000 ppm tolerance for rainbow trout), will
be used to implement the project.
In constructing the point bars, only material removed from the deepened area of the channel will
be utilized, thus retaining the same overall flood channel capacity. Bars will average less than six
inches in height, and will be lower than the annual flood plain.
The same general criteria described for point bar construction will apply to installation of channel
constrictors. These structures are viable alternatives to point bar and cover log installation in
small to moderate size streams, and maximize cover provided since they provide overhead cover
on both sides.
Wedge dams are best suited for steeper gradients (over 2%), but can create quality pools and
cover through scouring action. The goal when installing these structures is to minimize
infringement on flood channel capacity by keeping the apex, or lowest point, no higher than 6
inches above the original channel.
Long Term Effects - There will be long term positive effects of the project from several aspects.
Habitat diversity will be significantly increased, resulting in a far more diverse aquatic
community. The pools will add a community of invertebrates that are scarce under current
conditions, and will provide the habitat needed to increase survival of trout from immature to
mature stages (more catchable sized fish for the sportsmen). Cover logs and other structures will
provide fright cover for fish, and give them haven during scouring floods.
Aesthetics will also be improved by a more diverse panorama of alternating pools and riffles as
opposed to the existing homogenous riffle habitat. The meandering channel and breaks in
gradient created by the bars should be far more pleasing to the eye than the current straight stream
edges and continuous gradient.
MONTE E. SEEHORN
Certified Fishery Scientist
Certified Wildlife Biologist
APPENDIX A
VI. 2 Stream Impacts
The purpose of this project is to improve stream conditions and diversity as described in the
attached narrative. In order to reach this goal, it will be necessary to shift and re-position a certain
amount of the existing substrate (deepened area) to an adjacent site within the channel. This
activity will have a direct impact upon the riffle community organisms at the site to be deepened.
Although the smaller organisms will experience a certain amount of mortality, the majority will
be displaced to downstream areas. The riffle community, at this point, will rapidly be replaced by
a group of organisms more suited to pool conditions. Riffle communities will continue to be an
important, and possibly still major, portion of the reach of Anthony Cr. encompassed by this
project. The goal is to incorporate components of pool, glide, and runs into the extensive riffle
areas that dominate presently, thus greatly increasing habitat and community diversity.
Existing instream fines will be temporarily suspended in the water column during bar
construction, resulting in a short term increase in downstream turbidity, and minor deposition of
fines. The extent of both impacts will be insignificant, and will result in no measurable changes to
downstream communities. Turbidity will be very localized, with downstream transparency or
clarity reduced less than would occur in a 1-2 inch rain.
The only other possible impact foreseen is a miniscule amount of sediment entering the stream
from disturbance while digging log abutments into the streambank. Again, the volume of
sediment that would potentially enter the stream is so limited that downstream impacts, if any,
would be too small to measure.
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
This project will be implemented utilizing a backhoe with a hydraulic thumb, making it
significantly more efficient at this type work than machines without such an accessory. This will
result in a significant reduction of time necessary to complete the project (estimated 15%-20%
less time spent in channel disturbing activity). Project personnel will also work as long hours as
possible each day in order to further reduce duration time on the project. The estimated duration
for the project is 34 days given good weather conditions and no equipment breakdown.
Considering the potential for leakage or breaks in the backhoe hydraulic system, the regular
hydraulic fluid has been replaced with "environmentally friendly" hydraulic fluid, which has a
tolerance level of 5000 ppm for rainbow trout.
Where possible, when digging channels for abutment logs (any logs entering the bank), the
backhoe will be stationed on the streambank pulling the material away from the stream. Where
streambanks are high, and an excessive amount of digging would be required by digging from
the bank, the backhoe will be placed in the stream and a short channel excavated, resulting in less
disturbance to the surface of the streambank.
When replacing the excavated soil and rock in the abutment channels, the coarser material will be
placed on the surface as a means of reducing erosion during flood stages.
Any surface disturbance on streambanks will be seeded and mulched immediately after
construction ceases. Bank disturbance will, for all practical purposes, be limited to the channels
excavated for the abutment logs.
Channel Constrictor
Purpose - Serves as a modified deflector designed to
create overhead cover similar to that provided by undercut
banks.
Design - Install channel constrictors alone or in pairs.
Each structure consists of a main channel log and two brace
logs (figures 39 to 41). Place the main log at a slight angle
to flow. Pin the two brace logs to it at a 45-degree angle.
The main log can be from 10 to 30 feet long and should be
as large as can be handled. A rough, crooked log often
creates ideal cover. The intent is to provide an undercut for
the entire length of the main log (both logs if structures are
paired). On smaller logs, where overhang is not created
through sheer size, cut a slab from the underside of the log
to provide additional space (see "Cover Log").
Put at least two fill logs behind the main channel log
(figure 39). Rock fill placed against the channel log tends to
slough as the bottom scours, filling and reducing fish hold-
ing area.
Reduce channel width by 70 to 80 percent between the
two main logs (where two structures are paired opposite).
Allow slightly less distance between the lower ends than the
upper ends. Where banks are unstable, it is critical to keep
structure profiles as low as possible.
Placement - Channel constrictors provide best results
when placed in long, straight, low-gradient stretches of
stream.
Advantage - Constrictors provide more extensive over-
head cover than do conventional deflectors.
Disadvantage - Considerable experience is needed to
install these structures properly. In most cases, failure has
resulted from being too conservative when constricting the
stream channel, and placement in reaches with excessive
gradient.
Cost - One pair of structures per day is a reasonable goal.
Wedge Dam
Purpose - Create pools or deeper water through scouring
action in shallow sections of stream. In continuous, steep
gradients, the short, upstream break in gradient also pro-
vides resting area, often holding more fish than does the
deeper pool below. The quiet water above the structure and
the edges of the pool below also act as a trap for organic
material used as food by stream. invertebrates.
Design - The two main logs in the dam face upstream at a
45-degree angle to streamflow with the two brace logs pinned
to the main logs at about a 90-degree angle (figures 44 to
47). Butts of the two main logs extend into the streambank 3
to 6 feet, depending upon stability of the bank (deeper in
unstable soils). A 6- to 12-inch drop along the top of the log
from the bank to the apex is desirable; this is usually achieved
through log taper and by digging the trench deeper at the
apex than at the bank. Dig the main logs into the stream
bottom as deeply as possible. Logs should be as large as
possible; select logs at least 10 to 12 inches in diameter for
small streams (less than 10 feet wide) and 14 to 16 inches in
larger streams.
Once the logs are in place, staple hogwire or other heavy
wire, such as chain link fencing, to the upper side of the
log. Then place fiberglass cloth or hardware cloth on top.
The cloth or small mesh wire seals the structure, and the
heavy wire provides strength to hold the fill material in
place. Put a layer of large flat rocks on the wire. Next, add a
layer of gravel and then another layer of large rock on the
gravel. If preferred, nail 4- to 6-foot boards to the upper
side of the dam log in lieu of wire. Fill the cribs at the bank
with a mixture of large rock, gravel, and dirt. Spillway
height should be 6 to 12 inches.
Placement - Wedge dams are generally limited to steep-
gradient streams less than 30 feet wide. Well-defined stream-
banks are another requirement. Ideal locations ire at a break
in gradient with a steeper section immediately upstream.
Advantage - Wedge dams almost always create a fair to
excellent scour pool, even in heavy rubble. Small dams
create more dramatic and noticeable changes than do other
types of structures.
Disadvantages - Dams cost more and require more main-
tenance than do other structures. The most common failure
is washing underneath; nonetheless, the wedge dam is less
prone to this type of failure than is the K dam.
Cost - One- structure per crew day can be installed in
streams 10 to 15 feet wide.
,`-
J?F
v a 1 /
I? _ ?----.Chann[? C,nrlr'r'f'or of Y?esic c?ar1
{Atli
610, Char„ ?e1
SIOII 'VJ(:??[ ,ln N1
u ?_I 12ar b..
1
I,t'l! C,v,, /,IS'

Cver
r,
v < of"

August 19, 2002
AUG22
Mr. Tim Smith
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, N.C. 28801-5006
Dear Tim:
As a result of my discussion with you this afternoon, I am withdrawing applications for
permits on the Edgemont and Headwaters stream proposals. It is obvious that Mr. Parker
and Mr. Brown are opposed to any form of stream improvement that includes logs as a
component of the improvement, and are not willing to even consider their use. Neither
wedge dams, channel constrictors, or cover logs proposed in this project were acceptable
to them, although all are widely used throughout this country and abroad.
I was somewhat amazed when you told me that they had based their opposition to the
cover logs based upon observing several incidences of cover logs installed as depicted in
my sketches, "washing out". Frankly, I'm not aware of anyone else using that exact
design to install cover logs in similar western N.C. streams. If they can show me such
examples, I will most assuredly take heed. If not, I have serious questions in regard to
their professionalism.
In either case, I intend to request a hearing with the head of the Department of Water
Quality and Wildlife Resources Commission to discuss this situation. I have a large
library of pictures of successful stream habitat work (such as those you and Mr. Parker
reviewed on the website) that I have completed similar to what I was proposing. In
addition, I have completed similar work on the Linville River in previous years that they
can review on the ground. Hopefully, I can make my point and submit another proposal
later.
Sincerely
MONNTT'E E. SEEHOR
5292 Clarks Bridge Rd.
Gainesville, GA 30506
Tel: [phone]
e-mail: mseehornaflash netnet
cc: Mr. Michael Horan
Mr. Michael Parker
1 r120e C`=ck Lisp --

l o: 1, "0 Sieve i rLL-n:eH
a -I
?IN0 D= -sra`,
C2, 1:,e Si-.°ui7'S
-I JV,'s 0 _le-rift a?- r-r f

-75
Coun:y?-DWfLL-

1(,a- Te'ephone (_ i91 733- 17e)6
Fron: f)Lt/l2eC?? plan t4 ? /-
The ii:=3 e_ =C s c.'C =P Al cw-^_ to CU Call IT v::--, need
assis,=lC B.
-
Mr-, i77.
I I BLff,-. ^.1 _?... ?-anfe =.1)
=-pra=abC' rSx?i VrTt:, ^r?a ^ :C•c=or. „ e=_-_s?
C UM

Dale. ?• 1? • O2
To: ?RRO Steve hfrLrieil
?FRO Ken A.v?e
?WaP.O Deborah Sav}.
?WiRO Joanne St_mntx.
-?WSt'0 JennilerF;ye
t.] 1 O m ii e Pa e,
?A1RO P2fe CcwJn
FILE
:U"OPY
Triage Check List
Project Name taw eso ??tt
D W Q P, ,;oct ND 2+?7r7
County- -CMA? W fkk -
From: ?tlA UC/ 4 flan [6t0/'G(e-
Telephone (919)'733- 1766
The Tile a-, ac i= S G°_:nc ior'???? to you for yc'_r eVaiCau Pie-=se call if you need
aSSiSianCe.
S tre c i i i l= rGtJl Irr2'.'"si=-? '?(w ??
? StraaM Cc?=TlII-,-37G1
? Wedan C =_; sin and casance to CiLe-line su c?e V:aters on USGW topo maps
i=? iI? Cora
? Minim
? Buffer Rimes (Nam, Ta-Faam5 o, Cam-,tic=_, Ra, e-.an)
? Pond ail
? M i t C 2'U C n P -at;c -
? Ditchinc
El A; e the __ a-a:f x )4--fan::! mrc n s-es avai.`a`ie and viable?
? Chedc c =-erncs i a=-?az-w -
? Is the a__?? pre-a?pii:ation me_:-;es?
? Cumu:c_!e pmlpat" C3rA=a-3
Comment--
-V- -
April 10, 2002
Mr. Michael Horan
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1650
Dear Michael:
?t>
t?
APR 5 2V 6
W?MIT QUALITY?SECTION
Here is my check for $475 to cover the fee for the Headwaters Ltd. stream habitat
improvement project. I've also included the seven copies of the application again.
I am a part owner of the Headwaters Ltd. Club, and am authorized to sign the application.
Appreciate your efforts on this matter.
Sincerely,
C ? ?Ix ?-
MONTE E. SEEHORN
5292 Clarks Bridge Rd.
Gainesville Ga. 30506
FILE COPY
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
FS)f i g?6 oOnZo
4
APR 2 2002
WATEit QUALITY SECTIi9N:
L E COPY L

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This fdrm is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE).
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Perm app htm.
The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/regtour.htin , or contact one of the field
offices listed on page 3 of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.
The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http:2o.enr.state nc us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for General Certifications is not required, provided
that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet should
contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on page 4 of this application).
Page I of I
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's
twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4) the applicant should contact the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (DCM). DCM will determine whether or not the project is within a designated
Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency. In such
cases, DCM will require a CAMA Permit and will coordinate the 404/401 Permits.
The applicant may also choose to coordinate with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure
that the proposed project will have no impact upon any endangered or -threatened species or critical
habitat as regulated by the Endangered Species Act, and the State Historic Preservation Office, North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources to ensure that the proposed project will have no impact upon
any properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Compliance with
these regulations is required to be eligible for any Department of the Army permit. The addresses for
both agencies are listed on page 3 of this application.
USACE Permits - Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office. Upon receipt of an application, the
USACE will determine if the application is complete as soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This
PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant to address information needs for all USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as information required for State authorizations,
certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the information requested on this form will result in a
complete application for any of the USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the
minimum amount of information that must be provided for a complete PCN for each USACE
Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed. Reg. 12893 (March 9, 2000), available at
http://www.saw.usace.anny mil/wetlands/nwpfinalFedRe,g pdf. Processing times vary by permit and
begin once the application has been determined to be complete. Please contact the appropriate
regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/fees.html. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.
Page 2 of 2
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Covera
e
g
Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Alexander Caldwell Haywood McDowell S
i

US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Aven
Alleghany
Catawba
Henderson
Mecklenburg wa
n
Transylvania
ue
Room 208 Ashe
Avery Cherokee
Cla Iredell
J
k Mitchell Union

Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Buncombe y
Cleveland ac
son
Lincoln Polk
Row Watauga

Telephone: [phone]
Burke
Gaston
Macon an
Rutherford Yancey
Fax: [phone] Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Franklin Nash Surry
US Army Corps Of Engineers Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Suite 120
Raleigh
NC 27615 Davidson Guilford Person Warren
,
Telephone: [phone] Davie
Durham Halifax
Johnston Randolph
Rockingham Wilkes
Wilson
Fax: [phone] Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones Pitt
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir Tyrrell
Post Office Box 1000
Washington
NC 27889-1000 Camden
' Gates Martin Washington
,
Telephone: [phone] Carteret
Chowan Green
Hertford Pamlico
Pasquotank Wayne
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans •Croatan National Forest Only
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276994617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Page 3 of 3
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center Beaufort Chowan Hertford
P
ank

Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
T
l
h Bertie

Brunswick Craven

Currituck Hyde

New Hanover Pender
ender
Per
uim
n

e
ep
one: [phone]
F
Camden
Dare
Onslow q
a
s
Tyrrell
ax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] ' Burke Sunry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Haywood McDowell Yancey
APPLICATION FORM BEGINS ON PAGE 5. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT PAGES 1 - 4.
Page 4 of 4
Office Use Only:
USACE Action ID No.
Processing
Form Version October 2001
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1.
II.
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
M Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
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: El
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here:
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant I ormation
Name:
G 1" ryl/i? ?e ?
Mailing Address: 2 C err ?° r
i elepnone Number: 7711 e d I' 37O Fax Number:
E-mail Address: t11 S-ee orn 0 , 'ti, , AC ?
DWQ No.
2. Agent 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 5
III. 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:
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
,4,.,
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: ?a 14 e Nearest Town:
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): e?C u r .
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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. Describe a 'sting land use or condition of the site at the time of this
7. Property size (acres):_,/?-,
ACI-A
8. Nearest body of water (streanV fiver/sound/ocean/lake):
9. River Basin:
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 6 of 6
10. Describe the purpose of the prop sed work: / ro vc, ,' ,S ?jG,?
en 02-! -/-1 0I.V
S?' Ile
t+ L,lr
11. List the t/{ rp- of equipment to be used to cons c the project: a? 4,e ?,
T/ /? /, f / 1 C cI N 6
1 U kn r C // d? r?1'rl h? ?I C ?? N/ d lj i 1 /Ya
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: f j , ,-/r,,C - X
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
co truction schedules.
16n
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and/p? wide ju stificationP she exclusion of this work from the current application:
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State /Se e 1 9 e„Ix
f )
4
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
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. l) Wmust be shown on a
etland 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 7
I . Wetland Impacts
.,?. a«., w,u,u1stance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on map) facrecl
--? ....•f,,,..,.? u.?rw u• w1pauts mciuae, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing? grading, fill,
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 httD://www.femartov.
**• List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater m
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) , forested wetland, beaver pond,
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (5?e ,4,?/,
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name* * of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) 1 (linear feet) Before Impact rrtp??e ...e :?
C
GG AnAen

???„ u„puu, separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-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
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.Qov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com
www.maaguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 8 of 8
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Site Number I Type of Impact*
idicate on man)
Impact Name of Waterbody
farn-.0 (if applicable)
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
are not
to:
4. Pond Creation
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): 0 uplands E] stream [] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., darn/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) ??? f??/?? ,,?? )
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 N//+
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 9
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
http://Uo.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.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)
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.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http:2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.btrn. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
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 10
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes [:] No 0
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 F1
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 n No El
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only) ???/? px?
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
(Neese), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify
Yes [] No F] If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If ibuffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone
* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
• Zo 1 t d
ne ex en s out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 11
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preserv
ation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only) N/4
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only) IglA
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.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
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
XIV. 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).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
us Wea 0 ?
?,, i man
n
? J
1... .v^?;' ..Y• G?yt Own
Glob,
Step:
pay,
d`et
r" arr M `?; t ' ?? +`
1219
Bki -4.
a __ ` ly Cgr l rf 1 Nom; zl7 g
r,
!,:?,?' ??v ?' ! l-? s ?? ? ,o iktclwr Krgb „?' ? ..I ? ? ? 'r, r..- .??? ?•r?s .fit i:.•" ,. Q'f
_ ,?n ?ys 1 , ?? 31f"?
t •.d l.?r, ?',.' J j ettetill, dt
3` r J+ F
BE
yg'?et n ?? ray! a
1337 ?z
ROUND VTN
3 _
1263 ski
_ 1C37
f,sh? 17M tom: \-
:Mry
It
b
1406
A,
`U \
t? 7
l
,op
,

,
J
U
X93
\ ,1/ \ ?\ l?eadvia ??•-f 1. fq!
74
w
, L
w ?ti ) - J 3142
l
J d
p
W
O
lj r
(4' i

t
z ?
y ry
T t

In -_ Ba r
and Cayr ` _Loj Cons-'rucI'vn
'atG? Su,??act
G
G C
6 d? gi
?i 66 0
G v
6 ? G
GvGU
vU
Cover Lo S I*P.>ff
Ove?'A,eR vi e W

c._ _ _ _ _ l._ .l AA- J.---- 1
%ri r 4»o?
, Comb;rta-Alarrs
Gover 10
are norm *J1
4 _Wiart sh* lovw secb'ons o{?.??r?erl,r?s C pnT4rn:?a? o ?'ow _
1? of hslko? i- 40W.P. - --. - --
1 h* berg' i!_-copr4veT6- NTi over T6 yi?ldT ",a I ) -a"ve4?
A? i-Ae __a a &"a area?_?Rws ?Ae- Same overa-11.
Hood ca acT?y ava?Ia,d1e ror Co»s7-ucf":or,
p
StreamL4rnk -, Su, 4r--a--e froP'Je
AfY1 9 Pc pe r1 y1 A
Wedge Dam
Purpose - Create pools or deeper water through scouring
action in shallow sections of stream. In continuous, steep
gradients, the short, upstream break in gradient also pro-
vides resting area, often holding more fish than does the
deeper pool below. The quiet water above the structure and
the edges of the pool below also act as a trap for organic
material used as food by stream invertebrates.
Design - The two main logs in the dam face upstream at a
45-degree angle to streamflow with the two brace logs pinned
to the main logs at about a 90-degree angle (figures 44 to
47). Butts of the two main logs extend into the streambank 3
to 6 feet, depending upon stability of the bank (deeper in
unstable soils). A 6- to 12-inch drop along the top of the log
from the bank to the apex is desirable; this is usually achieved
through log taper and by digging the trench deeper at the
apex than at the bank. Dig the main logs into the stream
bottom as deeply as possible. Logs should be as large as
possible; select logs at least 10 to 12 inches in diameter for
small streams (less than 10 feet wide) and 14 to 16 inches in
larger streams.
Once the logs are in place, staple hogwire or other heavy
wire, such as chain link fencing, to the upper side of the
log. Then place fiberglass cloth or hardware cloth on top.
The cloth or small mesh wire seals the structure, and the
heavy wire provides strength to hold the fill material in
place. Put a layer of large flat rocks on the wire. Next, add a
layer of gravel and then another layer of large rock on the
gravel. If preferred, nail 4- to 6-foot boards to the upper
side of the dam log in lieu of wire. Fill the cribs at the bank
with a mixture of large rock, gravel, and dirt. Spillway
height should be 6 to 12 inches.
Placement - Wedge dams are generally limited to steep-
gradient streams less than 30 feet wide. Well-defined stream-
banks are another requirement. Ideal locations are at a break
in gradient with a steeper section immediately upstream.
Advantage - Wedge dams almost always create a fair to
excellent scour pool, even in heavy rubble. Small dams
create more dramatic and noticeable changes than do other
types of structures.
Disadvantages - Dams cost more and require more main-
tenance than do other structures. The most common failure
is washing underneath; nonetheless, the wedge dam is less
prone to this type of failure than is the K dam.
Cost - One, structure per crew day can be installed in
streams 10 to 15 feet wide.
F/ 6e" '71a S's oa fop o{a
hog V//-e -6O/h attach
!A/4 staples .
'gah'fulafe 0/alyi
o l? e L types of
wife can also
be vse

Figure 44.-Wedge dam.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
RMA A W
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY SECTION
May 29, 2002
Mr. Monte E. Seahorn
5292 Clarks Bridge Road
Gainsville, Georgia 30506
Dear Mr. Seahorn:
Subject: 401 Certification Application Review
Headwaters, Ltd.
DWQ Project No. 02-0575
Caldwell County
Staff of the Division of Water Quality have reviewed the application and sketches of the
proposed stream work to be performed in Anthony Creek which is classified Class C-trout waters.
Your application was not complete since insufficient information was provided to show that the
proposed stream work will minimize adverse impacts to State surface waters.
The Division maintains that the installation of large in stream structures without
consideration of stream morphology, hydraulics, sediment transport and flooding issues could
result in the destabilization of a stream, in most situations. The placement of large structures in a
stream can result in unanticipated scour, bank erosion or even flooding. In order for the Division
to provide a Certification for the subject project the following information may be necessary to
show that the proposed project will minimize adverse impacts to surface waters and will not result
in the degradation of surface waters. The following information is needed by the Division of
Water Quality in order for us to decide whether this project can be approved:
a. A scour analysis should be completed to determine the effect that log wedge dams and
cover logs will have on the streambed and banks.
b. A detailed site plan must be provided showing the location of these structures relative to
existing pool and/or riffles.
Mr. Monte Seahorn
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled\110% Post Consumer Paper
May 29, 2002
Page Two
c. Scour pools and habitat structures can be accomplished by using rock j-hooks, cross
vanes and w-wiers. It is recommended that you use rock boulders instead of the log
structures.
d. A pebble count can be used for a preliminary analysis of the stream's sediment transport
capability or bedload. This information can be useful in assessing any potential instability
that any in stream structure would cause.
e. Appendix B in the Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, April 2001,
can be used to provide information that can establish the current stability of the stream as
well as its morphological classification. This information is necessary to show that the type
of work described in the application is appropriate for the existing stream.
Until the information listed above is received, your project is being placed on hold due to
incomplete information (!5A NCAC 2H .0507 (a) (4). If you have questions, please call me at
828-251-6208.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Parker
Environmental Specialist
xc: Tim Smith-COE
Dave Penrose
Jim Reid
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled\110% Post Consumer Paper
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Michael R. Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Forrest Westall
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Headwaters Ltd
Project Number 02 0575
Recvd From APP
Received Date 4/15/02 Recvd By Region
Project Type Stream improvement
County Caldwell
County2
Region Asheville
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req. ME
13 rF-- O Y .O N r 11-38-(t) r C TR 30,831. ? 400.00 400.00
CTB f Q Y ©N r_F_F_F_.30,831. F-F F_
r-
r r
I -?OY ON ??-I-?-??? ??
Mitigation
MitigationType
Wetland
Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y t0 N Did you request more info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y O N
Is Mitigation required? p Y O N Recommendation: Q Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
Requested additional info, on May 29, 2002 There was no stream design data, ect,
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Channel Constrictor
Purpose - Serves as a modified deflector designed to
create overhead cover similar to that provided by undercut
banks.
Design - Install channel constrictors alone or in pairs.
Each structure consists of a main channel log and two brace
logs (figures 39 to 41). Place the main log at a slight angle
to flow. Pin the two brace logs to it at a 45-degree angle.
The main log can be from 10 to 30 feet long and should be
as large as can be handled. A' rough, crooked log often
creates ideal cover. The intent is to provide an undercut for
the entire length of the main log (both logs if structures are
paired). On smaller logs, where overhang is not created
through sheer size, cut a slab from the underside of the log
to provide additional space (see "Cover Log").
Put at least two fill logs behind the main channel log
(figure 39). Rock fill placed against the channel log tends to
slough as the bottom scours, filling and reducing fish hold-
ing area.
Reduce channel width by 70 to 80 percent between the
two main logs (where two structures are paired opposite).
Allow slightly less distance between the lower ends than the
upper ends. Where banks are unstable, it is critical to keep
structure profiles as low as possible.
Placement - Channel constrictors provide best results
when placed in long, straight, low-gradient stretches of
stream.
Advantage - Constrictors provide more extensive over-
head cover than do conventional deflectors.
Disadvantage - Considerable experience is needed to
install these structures properly. In most cases, failure has
resulted from being too conservative when constricting the
stream channel, and placement in reaches with excessive
gradient.
Cost - One pair of structures per day is a reasonable goal.
installed (4- to 6-inches deep).1
Figure 39.-Channel constrictor.
deep).
eV%
Figure 41.-After channel constrictor
installed (18- to 20-inches
APPENDIX A
VI. 2 Stream Impacts
The purpose of this project is to improve stream conditions and diversity as described in the
attached narrative. In order to reach this goal, it will be necessary to shift and re-position a certain
amount of the existing substrate (deepened area) to an adjacent site within the channel. This
activity will have a direct impact upon the riffle community organisms at the site to be deepened.
Although the smaller organisms will experience a certain amount of mortality, the majority will
be displaced to downstream areas. The riffle community, at this point, will rapidly be replaced by
a group of organisms more suited to pool conditions. Riffle communities will continue to be an
important, and possibly still major, portion of the reach of Anthony Cr. encompassed by this
project. The goal is to incorporate components of pool, glide, and runs into the extensive riffle
areas that dominate presently, thus greatly increasing habitat and community diversity.
Existing instream fines will be temporarily suspended in the water column during bar
construction, resulting in a short term increase in downstream turbidity, and minor deposition of
fines. The extent of both impacts will be insignificant, and will result in no measurable changes to
downstream communities. Turbidity will be very localized, with downstream transparency or
clarity reduced less than would occur in a 1-2 inch rain.
The only other possible impact foreseen is a miniscule amount of sediment entering the stream
from disturbance while digging log abutments into the streambank. Again, the volume of
sediment that would potentially enter the stream is so limited that downstream impacts, if any,
would be too small to measure.
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
This project will be implemented utilizing a backhoe with a hydraulic thumb, making it
significantly more efficient at this type work than machines without such an accessory. This will
result in a significant reduction of time necessary to complete the project (estimated 15%-20%
less time spent in channel disturbing activity). Project personnel will also work as long hours as
possible each day in order to further reduce duration time on the project. The estimated duration
for the project is 3-4 days given good weather conditions and no equipment breakdown.
Considering the potential for leakage or breaks in the backhoe hydraulic system, the regular
hydraulic fluid has been replaced with "environmentally friendly" hydraulic fluid, which has a
tolerance level of 5000 ppm for rainbow trout.
Where possible, when digging channels for abutment logs (any logs entering the bank), the
backhoe will be stationed on the streambank pulling the material away from the stream. Where
streambanks are high, and an excessive amount of digging would be required by digging from
the bank, the backhoe will be placed in the stream and a short channel excavated, resulting in less
disturbance to the surface of the streambank.
When replacing the excavated soil and rock in the abutment channels, the coarser material will be
placed on the surface as a means of reducing erosion during flood stages.
Any surface disturbance on streambanks will be seeded and mulched immediately after
construction ceases. Bank disturbance will, for all practical purposes, be limited to the channels
excavated for the abutment logs.
HEADWATERS LTD. - STREAM HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL
Project Obiective - The objective is to create a more diverse and productive habitat for trout and
associated aquatic communities in Anthony Cr.
Current Conditions - Headwaters Ltd is a sportsman group or Club, and landowner of the
approximately 600 foot reach of Anthony Cr. proposed for improvement. Anthony Cr. is fairly
small (10-15 feet wide) and shallow at this location, containing only two quality pools in the total
length of approximately 1200 feet owned by the Club. Although the stream carries a fairly heavy
sediment load, originating from the gravel road paralleling it, Anthony Cr. supports a high
population of fingerling rainbow trout. The problem is a lack of deeper water to provide suitable
habitat as they reach larger size.
Action Proposed to Improve Habitat - The objective is to increase diversity of habitat by
increasing the total amount of pool area and cover for fish through the installation of point bars
with cover logs, and wedge dams or channel constrictors. A backhoe with a hydraulic "thumb",
utilizing "environmentally friendly" hydraulic fluid (5000 ppm tolerance for rainbow trout), will
be used to implement the project.
In constructing the point bars, only material removed from the deepened area of the channel will
be utilized, thus retaining the same overall flood channel capacity. Bars will average less than six
inches in height, and will be lower than the annual flood plain.
The same general criteria described for point bar construction will apply to installation of channel
constrictors. These structures are viable alternatives to point bar and cover log installation in
small to moderate size streams, and maximize cover provided since they provide overhead cover
on both sides.
Wedge dams are best suited for steeper gradients (over 2%), but can create quality pools and
cover through scouring action. The goal when installing these structures is to minimize
infringement on flood channel capacity by keeping the apex, or lowest point, no higher than 6
inches above the original channel.
Long Term Effects - There will be long term positive effects of the project from several aspects.
Habitat diversity will be significantly increased, resulting in a far more diverse aquatic
community. The pools will add a community of invertebrates that are scarce under current
conditions, and will provide the habitat needed to increase survival of trout from immature to
mature stages (more catchable sized fish for the sportsmen). Cover logs and other structures will
provide fright cover for fish, and give them haven during scouring floods.
Aesthetics will also be improved by a more diverse panorama of alternating pools and riffles as
opposed to the existing homogenous riffle habitat. The meandering channel and breaks in
gradient created by the bars should be far more pleasing to the eye than the current straight stream
edges and continuous gradient.
MONTE E. SEEHORN
Certified Fishery Scientist
Certified Wildlife Biologist