20080238 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080204

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
RESTORATION PLAN
THREEMILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
AVERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06125-A)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
IN THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UN[T 06010108
Prepared for:
~`
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 1 H 103
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
Prepared by: _
_.. -
i ~ , i And
Axiom Envirmmentai. Inc.
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
l 101 Haynes Street, Suite 107 2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Willow Springs, North Carolina 27592
Contact: Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax) 919-341-3839 (fax)
September 2007
0~ X238
D ~~~
FEB D
4 2008
DENR - ~VArER QUAUI~'
WEl'LANDS AND ~DRMWATER BR~VCH

RESTORATION PLAN
' THREEMILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
AVERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06125-A)
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' Restoration Systems, LLC is developing stream and wetland restoration plans for the Threemile Creek
Restoration Site (Site) designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) restoration
goals. The Site is located in southwestern Avery County within 14-digit Hydrologic Unit and Targeted
Local Watershed 06010108010020 approximately 5.2 miles northeast of Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
The Site encompasses approximately 26.7 acres, consisting of 12,384 linear feet of existing stream
channels and riparian buffer along Threemile Creek, 12 unnamed tributaries to Threemile Creek, and Fork
' Creek, 2.5 acres of drained hydric soils, and 2.3 acres of disturbed wetlands. Approximately 6446 linear
feet of stream restoration, 638 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level I), 875 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level II), 6744 linear feet of stream preservation, 2.5 acres of riverine wetland restoration,
' and 2.3 acres of riverine wetland enhancement are being proposed at the Site.
Site drainage features provide water quality functions to an approximately 5.1-square mile watershed at
' the Site outfall. The watershed is characterized by approximately 60 percent timber land, with the
remainder comprised of agricultural land and sparse residential development. Agricultural land is
characterized by strawberry production, Fraser fir Christmas tree farms, and ornamental nurseries.
Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream watershed land surface. The Site
consists of Threemile Creek, 12 unnamed tributaries to Threemile Creek, Fork Creek, and adjacent
floodplains, slopes, drained hydric soils, and forested wetlands.
Restoration of Site streams and wetlands will result in positive benefits for water quality and biological
diversity in the Threemile Creek watershed. Restoration of onsite streams and wetlands will achieve the
following goals:
' 1. Remove nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with agricultural practices including
a) cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and
adjacent to the Site and b) provide a forested riparian buffer to treat surface runoff.
' 2. Reduce sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank
erosion associated with vegetation maintenance and plowing adjacent to Site streams and
wetlands and b) planting a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams and wetlands.
3. Reestablish stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promote floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
' floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, dredged, straightened, and entrenched tributaries,
thereby reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; c) restoration of
depressional floodplain wetlands and floodwater storage capacity within the Site, and d)
revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters.
5. Improve aquatic habitat with bed variability and the use of in-stream structures upstream of a
reach identified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as supporting naturally
reproducing rainbow trout populations.
6. Provide a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area that is developed for agricultural
production.
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page i
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

These goals will be achieved by:
Restoring approximately 6446 linear feet of stream channel through construction of stable Ce-
' and E-type channels (Priority I), thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Enhancing (Level I) approximately 638 linear feet of stream channel by stabilizing banks and
supplemental planting with native forest vegetation.
• Enhancing (Level II) approximately 875 linear feet of stream channel by supplemental planting
with native forest vegetation.
• Preserving approximately 67441inear feet of stream channel along a stable, forested reach.
' • Restoring approximately 2.5 acres of riverine wetlands by reconstructing Site tributaries within
the floodplain, filling ditched channels, rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native
forest vegetation.
• Enhancing approximately 2.3 acres of cleared riverine wetlands by planting with native forest
vegetation.
• Planting a native forested riparian buffer adjacent to restored streams and within Site floodplains
and wetlands.
• Protecting the Site in
er
etuit
with a conservation easement
p
p
y
.
This project complies with interagency guidelines outlined in Information Regarding Stream Restoration
with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain -Draft (USAGE et al 2007), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE
et al 2003), Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), and Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). Specifically Site selection, restoration goals, and monitoring
procedures/objectives comply with project design considerations outlined by interagency guidance.
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the Site. The
plan includes 1) details of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and forest studies; 3)
' restoration plans; and 4) monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval of this plan, engineering
construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented as outlined. Proposed restoration activities
may be modified during the civil design stage due to constraints such as access issues, sediment-erosion
' control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints), or other design considerations

Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page ii
Threemife Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ............................................................ ...1
1.1 Directions to the Site ................................................................................................................ ... 3
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation .................................... ... 3
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ..................................................................................... ...4
2.1 Drainage Area ........................................................................................................................... ...4
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality ................ ..................
.......................................... ...4
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ............................................................................................ ...4
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ......................................................................... ... 5
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 6
2.6 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................7
2.7 Interagency Guidance ..................................................................................................................7
2.7.1 Site Selection ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.7.2 Project Design Considerations ............................................................................................8
2.7.3 Site Monitoring ...................................................................................................................8
2.8 Potential Constraints ....................................................................................................................9
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundaries .................................................................................. 9
2.8.2 Project Access .....................................................................................................................9
2.8.3 Utilities ................................................................................................................................9
2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................... 9
2.8.5 Trout Moratorium ............................................................................................................... 9
3.0 SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ............................................................................ 10
3.1 Channel Classification ............................................................................................................... t0
3.2 Discharge .......................
............................................................................................................
10
3.3 Channel Morphology ................................................................................................................. 10
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................................... 13
3.4.1 Stream Power .................................................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Shear Stress ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.43 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ...................................................... 15
3.5 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................................. 15
3.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 17
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS ............................................................................................................. 18
4.1 Stone Mountain Reference Reach ............................................................................................. 18
4.1.1 Watershed Characterization .............................................................................................. 18
4.1.2 Channel Classification ...................................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Discharge .......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4 Channel Morphology ........................................................................................................ 18
4.2 Cranberry Creek Reference Reach ............................................................................................ 19
4.2.1 Watershed Characterization .............................................................................................. 19
4.2.2 Channel Classification ...................................................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Discharge .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.4 Channel Morphology ........................................................................................................ 19
4.3 Reference Forest Ecosystem ...................................................................................................... 20
5.0 SI TE WETLAND (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ........................................................................... 21
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 21
5.2 Hydrological Characterization ................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Soil Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 21
5.4 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................... 22
__
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page i
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

6.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN ....................................................................................................... 23
' 6.1 Project Goals ............................................................................................................................. 23
6.2 Restoration Plan ......................................................................................................................... 23
6.2.1 Stream Restoration ............................................................................................................ 24
6.2.2 Stream Enhancement (Level I and II) ............................................................................... 26
' 6.2.3 Stream Preservation .......................................................................................................... 26
6.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ................................................................................................................... 26
6.4 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement ..................................................................................... 27
' 6.5 Floodplain Soil Scarification ..................................................................................................... 28
6.6 Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................................... 28
6.6.1 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................................... 28
' 5.6.2 Nuisance Species Management ......................................................................................... 29
7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 31
7.1 Stream Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 31
7.2
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring ...............................................................................................................
Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 31
31
7.4 Contingency ............................................................................................................................... 32

' 7.4.1
7.4.2 Stream Contingency ..........................................................................................................
Hydrologic Contingency ................................................................................................... 32
33
7.4.3 Vegetation Contingency ................................................................................................... 33
7.5 Reporting Schedule ................................................................................................................... 33
' 8.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 34
TABLES
Table 1. Project Mitigation Objectives ........................................................................................................1
Table 2. Drainage Areas ..............................................................................................................................4
' Table 3. Soils Mapped within the Site ......................................................................................................... 5
Table 4. Drainage Area Land Use ................................................................................................................ 5
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Avery County .............................................................................. 6
Table 6. Recorded Archaeological Sites ......................................................................................................8
Table 7. Morphological Stream Characteristics Table ............................................................................... l 1
Table 8. Stream Power (S~) and Shear Stress (i) Values ........................................................................... 16
Table 9. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ........................................................................... 17
Table 9. Reference Forest Ecosystem ........................................................................................................ 20
' Table 10. Planting Plan .............................................................................................................................. 30
' APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Existing Stream Data
Appendix C. Bankfull Verification Data
Appendix D. Site Photographs
' Appendix E. Approved Categorical Exclusion Document

_ _.
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page ii
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site and Reference Location ........................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 2. USGS Cataloging Unit Map ..................................................... ...................................Appendix A
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area ............................................... ...................................Appendix A
Figure 4. Existing Conditions .................................................................. ...................................Appendix A
Figure SA. Stone Mountain Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile . ...................................Appendix A
Figure SB. Cranberry Creek Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile ...................................Appendix A
Figures 6A-C. Restoration Plan ............................................................... ...................................Appendix A
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile ................................ ...................................Appendix A
Figures 8A-B. Typical Structure Details .................................................. ...................................Appendix A
Figure 9. Planting Plan ............................................................................. ...................................Appendix A
Detailed Restoration Plan
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table of Contents page iii

RESTORATION PLAN
THREEMILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
AVERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16- D06125-A)

1
1

1

1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
Restoration Systems, LLC is developing stream and wetland restoration plans for the Threemile Creek
Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) restoration goals. The Site is located in southwestern Avery County approximately 5.2
miles northeast of Spruce Pine, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Threemile Creek Restoration Site encompasses approximately 26.7 acres of land that is used for
agricultural purposes. Approximately 12,384 linear feet of existing stream channels associated with
Threemile Creek, 12 unnamed tributaries to Threemile Creek, and Fork Creek, 2.5 acres of historic
floodplain/riverine wetlands, and 2.3 acres of existing cleared riverine wetlands exhibit mitigation
potential. Agricultural practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation and
relocation, dredging, and straightening of onsite streams have resulted in degraded water quality, unstable
channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced storage capacity
and floodwater attenuation. Table 1 identifies and locates specific stream and wetland mitigation
objectives in contrast to existing conditions.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Objectives
Restoration Existing Designed

Segment/ Station Mitigation Priority Linear Linear
Comment
Reach ID* Ran e
g T e
~ A roach
PP Foota e/
g Foota e/
g
Acrea a Acrea a**
Restoration of a straightened
Th
il 1+25-37+30 Restoration 1 3552 3557 channel on new location.
reem
e
Creek 37+30- Restoration of dimension and
Enhancement I 2 505 505 profile in the existing channel
42+35 location.
Fork Creek 0+00-1+58 Enhancement II NA 158 158 Removal of invasive species
and su lemental lantin .
Tributary 1 0+00-3+84 Restoration 1 172 384 Restoration of a straightened
channel on new location.
Restoration of dimension and
0+00-1+33 Enhancement I 2 133 133 profile in the existing channel
Tributary 2 location.
NA Enhancement II NA 351 351 Removal of invasive species
and su lemental lantin .
Restoration of a ditched and
Tributary 3 0+00-3+40 Restoration 1 252 340 disturbed channel on new
location.
NA Preservation NA 1808 1808 Preservation of existin reach
Tributary Restoration of a ditched and
Restoration 1 136 216 disturbed channel on new
Tributary 4 40+00-2+28 location.
Removal of invasive species
NA Enhancement II NA 366 366 and su lemental lantin .
Restoration of a ditched and
Tributary 5 0+00-2+44 Restoration 1 150 232 disturbed channel on new
location.
Detailed Restoration Plan _ _ _ _ _ _ _ page 1
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Tributary 5
NA
Preservation
NA
931
931 Preservation of stable, forested
Continued stream reaches.
Restoration of a ditched and
0+00-2+03 Restoration 1 124 191 disturbed channel on new
Tributary 6a location.
NA Preservation NA 681 681 Preservation of stable, forested
stream reaches.
Restoration of a ditched and
0+00-i+49 Restoration 1 125 149 disturbed channel on new
Tributary 6b location.
NA Preservation NA 323 323 Preservation of stable, forested
stream reaches.
Restoration of a ditched and
Tributary 7 0+00-2+75 Restoration 1 146 259 disturbed channel on new
location.
Restoration of a ditched and
0+00-7+66 Restoration 1 519 766 disturbed channel on new
Tributa
8 location.
ry Filling a ditched springhead
242 Restoration 1 242 242 systems and braiding
restoration channel.
Tributary 9 0+00-0+43 NA NA 0 43 Tie spring head to design
channel.
Tributary 10 0+00-0+39 NA NA 0 39 Tie spring head to design
channel.
Restoration of a ditched and
0+00-i+10 Restoration 1 72 110 disturbed channel on new
Tributary 11 location.
NA Preservation NA 49 49 Preservation of stable, forested
stream reaches.
Tributary 12 0+00-1+36 NA NA 136 136 Tie spring head to design
channel.
Preservation NA Preservation NA 2952 2952 Preservation of stable, forested
Tributaries stream reaches.
Reconstructing site tributaries,
filling ditched channels and
Riparian/ -- Restoration -- - 2.5 ditches, rehydrating floodplain
Riverine soils, and planting with native
Wetlands forest ve etation.
-- Enhancement -- __ 2 3 Planting with native forest
ve etation.
'~ Locations of each tributary and restoration type are depicted on Figures 6A-6C (Restoration Plan) '
** Proposed design linear footage excludes crossings or areas outside of easement; therefore, is slightly shorter than
stationing depicts.
Priority Approach 1-Convert incised stream to stable stream at historic floodplain elevation ,
Priority Approach 2 -Convert incised stream to stable stream and reestablish floodplain at present location
1
1
Detailed Restoration Plan - _ _ _ _ page 2
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

t

1
1

1

1

1.1 Directions to the Site
- From Asheville or Raleigh, take I-40 to Marion; take NC 226 north through Linville Falls; go left
on NC 194; site is ~-4.5 miles on left
- Or, From Asheville take 19/23 North to 19E through Spruce Pine to NC 194
- Take a right on NC 194 and travel approximately 1.5 miles
- The Site is on the right
- Latitude, Longitude of Site: 35.9827°N, 81.9843°W (NAD83/WGS84)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation
The Site is located within the French Broad River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 06010108010020 North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin number 04-03-06 (Figure 2, Appendix A) (NCWRP 2005).
_ _ __ _.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 3
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
Threemile Creek has a watershed encompassing approximately 5.1 square miles at the Site outfall (Table
2 and Figure 3, Appendix A). The watershed is characterized by approximately 60 percent timber land,
with the remainder comprised of agricultural land and sparse residential development. Agricultural land
is characterized by livestock production, Fraser fir Christmas tree farms, and ornamental nurseries.
Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream watershed land surface. Onsite
elevations range from a high of 3120 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on slopes to a low
of approximately 2830 feet NGVD at the Site outlet (USGS Linville Falls, North Carolina 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle).
Table 2. Drama a Areas
Reach Draina a Area
Acrea e S uare Miles
Tribu 1 30 0.05
Tribu 2 20 0.03
Tribu 3 30 0.05
Tribu 4 10 0.02
Tributa 5 20 0.03
Tributa 6 15 0.02
Tribu 7 115 p,2
Tributaries 8-12 35 0.05
Preservation Tributaries 35 0.05
Fork Creek 1150 l,g
Threemile Creek at Site outfall) 3252 5.1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/WaterQua1ity
Within the Site, Threemile Creek and its tributaries have been assigned Stream Index Number 7-2-25-
(0.7) and a Best Usage Classification of WS-1V Tr (NCDWQ 2007). Streams with a designation WS-IV
are protected as water supplies, which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. These
waters are suitable for all Class C uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The designation Tr (Trout
Waters) includes areas protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
Threemile Creek and its tributaries are not listed on the NCDWQ final 2004 or draft 2006 303(d) lists;
however, the receiving water of the North Toe River (Stream Index Number 7-2-[27.7]b) is listed on the
draft 2006 303(d) list for impaired biological integrity and turbidity (NCDWQ 2006a, 2006b).
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and
Mountains ecoregion of North Carolina within USGS Cataloging Unit 06010108 of the French Broad
River Basin. Regional physiography is characterized by low to high mountains, gently rounded to steep
slopes, narrow valleys, and high gradient streams with bedrock and boulder substrates (Griffith 2002).
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Soil Survey of Avery County, North Carolina (USDA
1955) are described in Table 3.
Detailed Restoration Plan _ _ _ _._ __ _ page 4
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1

Table 3. Soils Ma ed within the Site
Soil Series Hydric
Status Family Description
This series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively
Typic drained, moderately rapid permeable soils of gently to steeply
Chandler Nonhydric Dystrudepts sloping ridges and side slopes. Slopes are generally between
2 and 95 percent. Bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
This series consists of somewhat poorly drained, moderately
Cullowhee Nonhydric Fluvaquentic rapid permeable soils on floodplains. Slopes are generally
Dystrudepts between 0 and 3 percent. These soils are very deep, with
bedrock occurrin at a de th of more than 80 inches.
This series consists of poorly drained and very poorly drained,
Nikwasi Class A Cumulic moderately rapid permeable soils on floodplains. Slopes are
Humaquepts generally between 0 and 3 percent. Bedrock occurs at a depth
of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of deep, somewhat excessively drained,
Micaville Nonhydric Typic moderately rapid permeable soils of ridges and side slopes.
Dystrudept Slopes are generally between 8 and 95 percent. Bedrock
occurs at a de th of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately
Saunook Nonhydric Humic permeable soils on benches, fans, and toe slopes in coves.
Hapludults Slopes are generally between 2 and 60 percent. Bedrock
occurs at a de th of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately
Thunder Nonhydric Humic rapid permeable soils on colluvial toe slopes, in drainageways,
Hapludults and in coves. Slopes are generally between 2 and 80 percent.
Bedrock occurs at a de th of more than 60 inches.
' Two distinct land features occur within the Site boundaries: floodplain and side slope. Floodplains are
underlain by soils of the Cullowhee, Saunook, and Nikwasi soil series. Side slopes are underlain by soils
of the Saunook-Thunder complex and Chandler-Micaville complex.
' Natural Resource Conservation Service mapping (USDA 1955) indicates that hydric soils within the Site
are Nikwasi loam, which occurs centrally within the Site. Detailed soil mapping conducted by a licensed
soil scientist on May 30, 2007 indicates that hydric soils also occur along the upper and lower reaches of
the Site, as depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A). Landscape alterations associated with current land use
practices including ditching of the floodplain and rerouting of streams to the floodplain edge have
resulted in a loss of hydrology to onsite hydric soils.
' 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Land use within the Site watershed is dominated by forest, agricultural land, and sparse
industrial/residential development (Table 4). Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the
upstream watershed land surface.
Table 4. Draina a Area Land Use

Land Use Acrea a Percenta e
Forest Land 2552 78.5
A ricultural Land 630 19.4
Industrial/Residentia( Develo ment 70 2.1
Total 3252 100
__ _ _ __
Detailed Restoration Plan page 5
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Onsite land use is characterized by agricultural land utilized for Christmas tree and ornamental landscape
nursery plant production, timber harvest, and livestock grazing (Figure 4, Appendix A). Riparian
vegetation adjacent to Site streams is primarily sparse and disturbed due to plowing and regular
maintenance. In addition, the Site hydric soils may have historically been characterized as palustrine
forested wetlands. Soils within these areas have been disturbed due to agricultural activities including
regular plowing and vegetation maintenance, hoof shear from livestock, and the removal of groundwater
hydrology inputs from the rerouting and straightening of Site tributaries.
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on the most recently updated (OS-10-07) county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at httn://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html nine federally protected species are listed in Avery County. Table 5 lists
these species and indicates if suitable habitat exists within the Site. An approved Categorical Exclusion
Document is provided in Appendix E.
Table 5. Federally Protected Species fnr Avery Cn~roty
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Present
Within Site Biological Conclusion
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Th~s/tAened yes N/A
Carolina northern flying
s uirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus Endangered No No Effect
Vir inia bi -eared bat
g g Corynorhinus townsendii
vir inianus
Endangered
No
No Effect
S race-fir moss s ider Micohexura montiva a Endan eyed No No Effect
Blue Ride oldenrod Solida o s ithamaea Threatened No No Effect
Heller's blazin star Liatris helleri Threatened No No Effect
Roan Mountain bluet Hedyotis purpurea var.
montana Endangered No No Effect
S readin avens Geum radiatum Endan ered No No Effect
Rock nome lichen
RL'...1..-....__J G mnoderma lineare Endan ered No No Effect
~••••.•••s~•~u - a ~~•~ ~•• ud~so~ m cxuncuon mrougnour au or a sigmucant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A} = a species that is threatened due
to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are not biologically endangered or threatened and
are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Bog Turtle
Suitable habitat does occur within the Site for the bog turtle; however, the portion of the site where this
habitat occurs is not slated for construction activities. Furthermore, this species' status is threatened due
to similarity of appearance (T (S/A)) with another rare species and is not subject to Section 7 consultation
in North Carolina.
Virginia big-eared bat
The Virginia big-eared bat can forage in riparian areas, but usually nests or roosts in caves. No caves are
located within the Site nor in areas adjacent to the Site. While it is appropriate to realize that bats of more
than one species probably forage in or near the Site, it is a fact that nesting opportunities are not available
for bats that require caves, or which utilize certain trees with exfoliating bark. Bitternut and shag-bark
hickory are not found within the Site. Based on these factors it can be concluded that the project will
have No Effect on the Virginia big-eared bat.
Most of the other listed species for Avery County depend upon high elevation (over 3300 feet) and/or
rocky cliff habitats, which do not exist within the Site. This includes the Carolina northern flying
squirrel, spruce-fir moss spider, Heller's blazing star, Blue Ridge goldenrod, Roan Mountain bluet,
Detailed Restoration Plan _ _ _ page 6
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

spreading avens and rock gnome lichen. The Site is largely contained within a fluvial floodplain at or
below 3000 feet in elevation; therefore, no suitable habitat exists for these species. Based on the absence
of suitable habitat it is reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on these species.
' North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on March 7, 2006 and no
known documents occur within the Site. Bog turtles were documented to occur approximately 1 mile
northeast of the Site near the town of Pyatte and approximately 1 mile downstream/southwest of the Site
near Mullin Hill. In addition, a Significant Natural Heritage Area, Mullin Hill Bog, and a Natural
Community, Southern Appalachian Bog, are documented to occur approximately 1 mile southwest of the
Site near Mullin Hill.
' One designated unit of Critical Habitat for spruce-fir moss spider is located in Avery County; however,
this habitat occurs above 5400 feet in elevation and the project will not affect this Designated Critical
Habitat.
' 2.6 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are
made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation
with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Concurrence has been received from
' SHPO for this project and is provided in Appendix E.
A thorough review of state and local data was performed prior to initiating field investigations. This
review included the examination of archaeological records at the North Carolina Office of Stat
' Archeology (OSA), architectural records at the Survey and Planning Branch of the North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, and historic documents, maps, and publications held at the State
Library of North Carolina. All three repositories are located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Data collected
during the background research provided information necessary to understand the historic context of any
resources identified during the survey. The data also enabled an assessment of existing cultural resources
within the project area.
' Archaeological surveys were completed at the Site on April 17-18, 2007 by Legacy Research Associates,
inc. to locate, document, and conduct National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility evaluations
for archaeological resources that may be affected by this project.
' Archaeological investigations consisted of pedestrian surveys, informant interviews, and subsurface
shovel testing within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE). Surveys resulted in the recording of
' three archaeological sites: 1) site 31 AV 120 located within the APE, 2) site 31 AV 119 adjoining the APE,
and 3) site 31AV 121 ** located outside the APE. Table 6 summarizes each of the sites; no further work is
recommended for any of the sites; however the boundary of site 31AV119 adjoins the project APE and
should not be used as a temporary staging area during construction. In site 31AV119 should be flagged
' as an avoidance area during construction implementation to ensure its integrity throughout project
implementation. If the site cannot be avoided, further archaeological work will be necessary.
2.7 Interagency Guidance
This project complies with interagency guidelines outlined in Information Regarding Stream Restoration
with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain -Draft (USAGE et al 2007), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE
et al 2003), Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), and Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). Specifically Site selection, restoration goals, and monitoring
procedures/objectives comply with project design considerations outlined by interagency guidance.

Detailed Restoration Plan page 7
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 6. Recorded Archaeological Sites
Site
Number Component(s) Description NRHP Eligibility
Recommendation project Recommnedation
No further work; however, the
Prehistoric,
Long-term Eligible under boundary of the site adjoins the project
31AV119 Middle Archaic to
habitation Criterion D for APE and should not be used as a
Early Woodland information potential temporary staging area during
construction
31AV120 Unknown
Prehistoric Lithic isolated
find Not eligible No further work
Eligible under

31AV121** Historic earl
y
"'

Cemetery Criterion B for

association with the
No further work, located outside
19
centu
ry lives of past project APE
si nificant ersons
xr[r - iVanonal xegister of ttistonc Places
2.7.1 Site Selection
Site selection considerations including 8-digit Cataloging Unit; 14-digit Hydrologic Unit; physiographic
region; wildlife habitat uplift; biological, chemical, and physical integrity; and flow regime were
considered during Site selection and design. In addition, the Site is located in a Targeted Local
Watershed (06010108010020), awater supply watershed, and, based on a meeting with North Carolina
Wildlife Resources (NCWRC) representatives, is upstream from a reach of Threemile Creek that supports
naturally reproducing populations of rainbow trout.
Based on recent guidance from USAGE and NCDWQ (USAGE et al 2007), the primary Site selection
metric is flow regime and/or the historic presence of a stream prior to ditching or other impacts. This
guidance suggests a minimum drainage basin of 50 acres, the presence of a defined valley with latitudinal
and longitudinal slope, and soils conducive of natural stream formation.
Stream restoration reaches are characterized by drainage areas ranging from 0.02 to 5.1 square miles (10
to 3264 acres) which are situated in steeply sloped alluvial/colluvial floodplains. Although some Site
tributaries are characterized by drainage areas smaller than 50 acres, mountain streams such as Site
tributaries frequently originate at spring heads which are perennial. Onsite tributaries support
characteristics (benthic macroinvertabrates, defined valleys, substrate different from the adjacent
landscape, and hydrologic flow) indicative of a perennial flow regime.
2.7.2 Project Design Considerations
Site evaluations and goals focus on functional lift associated with project implementation. Agency
guidance indicates that in the Mountain and Piedmont regions deforestation, stream channelization, and/or
damage to the riparian buffer are most often targeted as potential restoration sites. Decreasing sinuosity
and bank destabilization are primary indicators of increased sediment input and unnatural sediment
transport, leading to degradation of water quality and habitat (USAGE 2007). In addition elevated water
temperatures and lack of well-developed structures and pools have a direct effect on resident and
downstream trout populations.
2.7.3 Site Monitoring
In Mountain and Piedmont settings it is widely accepted that restoring pre-impacted pattern, dimension,
and profile to impacted stream reaches and replacing structure will result in improved stability, water
quality, and habitat (USAGE 2007). In these systems, measuring physical properties of pattern,
Detailed Restoration Plan page 8
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

' dimension, and profile is typically appropriate for estimating function. Stream monitoring and success
criteria associated with this project conform to these fundamental tenets.
2.8 Potential Constraints
' The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities on the
Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities and
restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, and the potential for
' hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding Site constraints was acquired and reviewed. In
addition, any Site conditions that have the potential to restrict the restoration. design and implementation
were documented during the field investigation.
' No evidence of natural or man-made conditions was identified with the potential to impede the proposed
restoration activities (see attached Categorical Exclusion Document in Appendix E).
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundaries
' The Site is located within one parcel owned by the Spry family. A permanent conservation easement
totaling 26.68 acres will encompass Site restoration activities.
2.8.2 Project Access
The Site is located immediately adjacent to Highway 194. A transportation plan, including the location of
access routes and staging areas will be designed to minimize disturbance to the maximum extent feasible.
The number of transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long
' distances through the Site interior.
2.8.3 Utilities
Site restoration activities will not disturb any utilities.
2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
A detailed HEC-RAS analysis is being conducted for this project to ensure that the project will not affect
' adjacent properties and will result in "no rise" to existing flood elevations. Currently the Site is not
included in detailed FEMA studies of flood elevations; therefore, preparation of CLOMAR/LOMAR is
not a requirement for this project. However, updated FEMA mapping is expected to be released later this
year which may include the Site. Coordination with FEMA will be conducted, if necessary, prior to
initiating Site construction activities. The HEC-RAS is discussed in more detail in Section 6.3 (HEC-
RAS Analysis).
' 2.8.5 Trout Moratorium
Site reviews with NCWRC representative Bob Brown indicate that downstream reaches of Threemile
' Creek contain naturally reproducing populations of rainbow trout. Therefore a trout moratorium
extending from January 1 to April 15 will be adhered to for this project. No ground disturbing activities
will occur during the moratorium period unless coordination with NCWRC representatives occurs and
compliance is received.

1
1
Detailed Restoration Plan page 9
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1

3.0 SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Streams targeted for restoration include Threemile Creek, unnamed tributaries 1-12 to Threemile Creek,
and Fork Creek, which have been dredged, straightened, rerouted, or otherwise impacted within the Site.
Current Site conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient
and sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain
pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). In addition, the lack of deep-rooted
riparian vegetation, and continued clearing and dredging of Site steams have exacerbated erosion adjacent
to Site channels. Site restoration activities will restore riffle-pool morphology, aid in energy dissipation,
increase aquatic habitat, stabilize channel banks, and greatly reduce sediment loss from channel banks.
3.1 Channel Classification
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996a). This classification stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics.
Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-depth ratio, sinuosity,
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable Ce-type
(moderately entrenched, high to moderate width-depth ratio) and E-type (moderately entrenched, low
width-depth ratio) streams. Each stream type is modified by a number 1 through 6 (e. g., ES), denoting a
stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5)
sand, or 6) silt/clay. Locations of existing stream reaches and cross-sections are depicted in Figure 4
(Appendix A). Stream geometry measurements under existing conditions are summarized in the
Morphological Stream Characteristics Table (Table 7) and Appendix B.
Bed and bank erosion typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution from a stable E-type channel
into a G-type (gully) channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension of the G-type
channel into an F-type (widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue to widen laterally until
the channel is wide enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel at a lower elevation so that the
original floodplain is no longer subject to regular flooding. Existing stream characteristics are
summarized below.
3.2 Discharge
Threemile Creek has an approximately 5.1-square mile watershed at the Site outfall and a bankfull
discharge of 90 cubic feet per second. Site tributaries drainage areas range from 0.02 to 0.2-square mile
with bankfull discharges ranging from 1.6 to 8.4 cubic feet per second, respectively.
3.3 Channel Morphology
Site streams have been impacted by land clearing, erosive flows, plowing, and manipulation of channels
including straightening and rerouting. Plowing, deforestation, and hoof shear near stable streams
typically leads to channel adjustments including increases in bank erosion, width/depth ratio, stream
gradient, and sediment supply. In addition, these impacts may lead to decreases in channel sinuosity,
meander-width-ratios, and sediment transport capacity (Rosgen 1996b). Onsite streams are expected to
continue to erode and deposit sediment into receiving streams until a stable stream pattern has been
carved from the adjacent floodplain.
Dimension: Site streams have been dredged and straightened and are classified as unstable Ce-
type and E-type reaches. Cross-sectional areas of Site streams are approximately 2 to 4 times larger than
predicted for this study. For example, the upstream reach of the Main Channel currently has across-
sectional area of 79.8 to 141.5 square feet compared to the 36.5 square feet predicted by this study.
Channel incision is indicated by bank-height ratios ranging from 1.5 to 2.5. The channels are currently
characterized by eroding banks as the channels attempt to enlarge to a stable cross-sectional area as
described in the evolutionary process outlined above.
Detailed Restoration Plan _ - page 10
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 7. Morphological Stream Characteristics Table
Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Variables REFERENCE-STONEM REFERENCE•CRANBERR
Stream Type C63 E4
Drainage Area (mi') 7.46 0.70
BanMdl Discharge (ds) 75.3 28.7

Dimensbn Variables
Bankfdl CrossSedional Area (Ana) 46.0 20.2
Existing Cross-SectionalArea(A„~,~ 45.9-46.1 19.9-20.4
Bankfull Width
(Wna) Mean: 30.1 Mean: 12.5
Range: 27.2 - 33.0 Range: 11.8.13.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (qa)
Mean:
1.6
Mean:
1.6
Range: 1.4 -1.7 Range: 1.5 -17
Bankfut Maximum Depth (D,,,,,) Mean: 2.4 Mean: 1.9
Range: 2.2 - 2.6 Range:
Pod Width W
( °~) Mean: 24.4 Mean: 15.7
Range: 23.8.25.0 Range:
Maximum Pod Depth (Dr,d) Mean: 2.7 Mean: 2.7
Range: 2.6.2,7 Range:
WidfhofFloodproneArea(We,) Mean: 100.0 Mean: 75.0
Range: Range:

Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Rafw
(Wro~ae) Mean: 3.4 Mean: 6.0
Range: 3.0-3.7 Range: 5.7.6.4
Width 1 De th Ratio
P MrcalDna) Mean: 20.0 Mean: 7.8
Range: 16.1.23.8 Range: 7.0.8.5
Max. D,al Dca Ratio Meen: 1.6 Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.5-1.6 Range: 1.1.1.3
Low Bank Height / Max, qa Ratio Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.0
Range: 1.0.1.6 Range:
Maximum Pod Depth 1 BanMoll Mean: 1.7 Mean: 1.7
Mean Depth (Dr,ulDsa) Range: 1.6.1.9 Range: 1.6 -1.8
Pod Width 1 Bankfull Mean: 0.8 Mean: 1.3
Width (WpadlWya) Range: 0.7-0,9 Range: 1.2-1.3
Pod Area 1 Bankfull Mean: 0.9 Mean: 1.4
Cross Sectional Area Range: 0.9 -1.0 Range: 1.4 -1.5
Fasting Main Channel

Upstream of Fork Creek pROPOSED
Ce4 Ce4
2.70 2.70
56.3 56.3

Dimension Variables
36.5 36.5
79.8 -141.5 36.5
Mean: 20.7 Mean: 22.6
Range: 17.4.23.0 Range: 2D.9.24.2
Mean: 1.8 Mean: 1.6
Range: 1.6.2.1 Range: 1.5.1.8
Mean: 2.3 Mean: 2.1
Range: 1.9 - 2.9 Range: 2.0 - 2.3
Mean: 29.4
No tkstindive repetitive
a0em of riffles and
d Range: 22.0.36.2
p
po
s
due to staightening activties
Mean:
2.7
Range: 1.9.3.5
Mean: 77.3 Mean: 75.0
Range: 32.0-100.0 Range: 50.0-100.0

Dknensbn Ratios
Mean: 3.9 Mean: 3.3
Range: 1.5-5.7 Range: 2.2-4.4
Mean: 11.9 Mean: 14,0
Range: 8.2 -14.5 Range: 12.0-16.0
Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.2.1.4 Range: 1.0 -1.4
Mean: T.1 Mean: 1.0
Range: 1.9 - 2.5 Range: 1.0 - t.3
Mean: 1.7
Range: 1.2.2.2
No distinctive repetitive Mean: 1.3
pattem d riffles and pools
due to staightening acdNlies Range: 1.0 -1.6
Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.0 -1.8
Fasting Main Channel

Downstream of Fork Creek pROPOSED
E4 Ce4
4.70 4.70
84.4 84.4

Dimensbn Variables
53.0 53.0
91.0.95.5 53.0
Mean: 20.7 Mean: 27.2
Range: 18.7.22.6 Range: 25.2-29.1
Mean: 2.6 Mean: 1.9
Range: 2.3.2.8 Range: 1.8.2.1
Mean: 3.3 Mean: 2.5
Range: 3.2 - 3.3 Range: 2.3 - 2.7
Mean: 35.4
No distinctive repetitive
tte
of
iffl
d
l Range: 27.2 - 43.5
pa
m
r
es an
poo
s
due to staightening activities
Mean:
3.2
Range: 2.3 - 4.2
Mean: 15D.0 Mean: 150.0
Range: Range: 80.0-200.0

Dimension Ratios
Mean: 7.3 Mean: 5.5
Range: 6.6.8.0 Range: 2.9-7.4
Mean: 8.2 Mean: 14.0
Range: 6.6 - 9.7 Range: 12.0 -16.0
Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.2 -1.4 Range: 1.D -1.4
Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.D
Range: Range: 1.D-1.3
Mean: 1.7
Range: 1.2.2.2
No distinctive repeti0ve Mean: 1.3
pattem of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities Range: 1.0.1.6
Mean: 1,4
Range: 1.0.1.8
6dstingChannel

Fork Creek pROPOSED
ES Ce4
1.70 1.70
40.2 40.2

Dimension Variables
26.8 26.8
24.5 - 28.5 26.8
Mean: 12.5 Mean: 19.4
Range: 12.0 -13.0 Range: 17.9 - 20.7
Mean: 1.9 Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.8 - 2.0 Range: 1.3 -1.5
Mean: 3.6 Mean: 1.8
Range: 3.3.3.9 Range: 1.7-2.0
Mean: 25.2
No distinctive repetiive
tt
d
iffl
d
d Range: 19.4 - 31.0
pa
em
r
es an
pa
s
due to staightening activities
Mean:
2.4
Range: 1.7.3.1
Mean: 100.0 Mean: t00.D
Range: Range: 75.0 -125.0

Dimension Ratios
Mean: 8.0 Mean: 5.2
Range: 7.7 - 8.3 Range: 3.9 - 6.4
Mean: 6.fi Mean: 14.0
Range: 6.1- 7.1 Range: 12.0 -18.0
Mean: 1.9 Mean: 1.2
Range: 1.7 - 2.2 Range: 1.0-1.4
Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.0
Range: 1.0 -1.1 Range: 1.0.1.3
Mean: 1.7
Range: 1.2.2.2
No distinctive repetitive Mean: 1.3
padem of riffles and pools
due to ~aighteriing activities Range: 1.0 -1.6
Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.0 -1.8
Tributaries PROPOSED
E415 E4
0.10 0.10
5.1 5.1

Dimension Variables
4.0 4.0
10.2-14.6 4.0
Mean:
Range: 5.3
4.4-6.1' Mean:
Range: 5.7
4.9-6.3
Mean:
Range: 0.8
0.7 - 0.9 Mean:
Range: 0.7
0.6 - 0.8
Mean:
Range: 1.4
1.3.1.4 Mean:
Range: 0.8
0.7-1.0

No distinctive repetitive
tt
d nfile
d
d Mean:
Range: 7.4
5.7 - 9.1
pa
em
s an
po
s
due to staightening activities
~n
Range:
1.2
0,8 -1.5
Mean:
Range: 13.0
8.0 -18.0 Mean:
Range: 15.0
8.0 - 20.0

Dimension Ratios
Mean:
Range: 2.4
1.8.3.0 Mean:
Range: 2,6
1.4.3.5
Mean:
Range: 7.1
4.9 - 9.3 Mean:
Range: 6.0
6.0 -10.0
Mean:
Range: 1.7
1.4 - 2.0 Mean:
Range: 1.2
1.0 -1.4
Mean:
Range: 1.8
1.5-2.2 Mean:
Range: 1.0
1.0.1.3
Mean:
Range: 1.7
1.2.2.2
No distinctive repetitive
pattem d riffles and pods
due to staightening adiaties Mean:

Range: 1.3

1.0 -1.6
Mean:
Range: 1.4
1.0 -1.8

Variables REFERENCE• STONE MTli REFERENCE- CRANBERR
Pattern Variables
Med: 104.3 Med: 54.8
Pod to Pool Sparing (L~,)
Range: 65.2 -166.7 Range: 37.0 - 82.6
Meander Length (Lm} Med: 199.4 Med: 103.8
Range: 101.7.273.2 Range: 76.6 -131.0
Belt Width (W n~) Med: 46.8 Med: 23.3
Range: 40.0.55.0 Range: 16.0-27.6
Radius of Curvature (R~) Med: 94.5 Med: 47.0
Range: 62.4 - 312.1 Range: 30.5 - 65.7
Sinuosity (Sin) 1.20 1.04

Pattern Raters
Pad to Pod Sparing! Med: 3.5 Med: 4.4
Bankfull Width (Lo plWba) Range: 2.2 - 5.5 Range: 3.0 - 6.6
Meander Length! Med: 6.6 Med: 8.3
Banldiirll Width (L,,,Mrya) Range: 3.4 - 9.1 Range: 6.1-10.5
Meander Width Rath Med: 1.6 Med: 1.8
(Wban~ca) Range: 1.3-1.8 Range: 1.3-2.2
Radius of Curvature! Med: 3.1 Med: 3.8
Bankfull Width (RGWba) Range: 2.1-10.4 Range: 2.4.5.3

Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (S,,,) O.D121 0.0112
Valley Slope ($„kY) 0.0131 0.0116
Riffle Slo S
Pe 1 ~m I Mean: 0.0118 Mean: 0.0195
Range: 0.0026.0.0183 Range: 0.0178.0.0225
Pool Slope (S~) Mean: 0.0097 Mean: O.OD15
Range: 0.0.0254 Range: 0.0002.0.0036
Run Slope (S~„J Mean: 0,0085 Mean: 0
Range: 0.0030-0.0202 Range:
Glide Slope (S~) Mean: 0:0041 Mean; 0.0028
Range: 0 - O.D083 Range: 0.0001- 0.0054

Profile Ratos
Riffle Slope! Water Surface Mean: 0.98 Mean: 1.74
Slope(S,~,IS,,,) Range: 0.21.1,51 Range: 1.59-2.01
Pad SbpelWater Surface Mean: 0.80 Mean: 0.13
Slope (So,~ISw,) Range: 0 - 2.10 Range: 0.02 - 0.32
Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.70 Mean: 0.00
Slope (SNaS„,) Range: D.25 -1.67 Range:
aide SbpelWater Surface Mean: 0.34 Mean: 0.25
Slope (S ;,,lS~„) Range: 0 - 0.69 Range: 0.01- 0.48
Table 7. Morphological Stream Characteristics Table (continued)
Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Existing Main Channel

Upstream of fork Creek pROPOSED
Pattern Variables
Med: 90.d
Range: 67.8 -135.6
Med: 192.1
No distinctive repetitive
pattern d riffles and pools Range: 135.6 - 226.0
due to staightening adivflies ~~ 45.2
Range: 27.1- 67.8
Med: 90.4
Range: 45.2 - 226,D
1.08 1.10

Pattern Ratios
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0.6.0
Med: 8.5
No distinctive repetitive
attern of riffles and
d Range: 6.0.10.0
p
po
s
due to staightening activities
Med: 2.0
Range: 12 - 3.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 2.0.10.0

Profile Variables
O.D103 0.0097
D.0112 0.0112
Mean: 0.0243
Range: 0.0194.0.0291
Mean: 0.0019
Na distinctive repetitive
tt
f df8
d
d Range: 0 - 0.0039
pa
ern o
es an
po
s
due to staightening activities
Mean: 0.0039
Range: D • 0.0078
Mean: 0.0029
Range: 0 • D.0078

Profile Ratios
Mean: 2.50
Range: 2.0 - 3.0
Mean: 0.20
No distinctive repetitive
attern of riffles and
ools Range: 0.0.4
p
p
due to staightening activities. Mean: 0.40
Range: 0 - 0.8
Mean: 0.30
Range: 0 - 0.8
Existing Main Channel

Downstream of Fork Creek pROPOSED
Pattern Yedables
Med: 12fi.0
Range: 75.6 -176.4
Med: 214.2
No distinctive repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools Range: 151.2 - 252.0
due to staightening activities Med: 50.4
Range: 30.2.75.6
Med: 100.8
Range: 50.4 - 252.0
1.08 1.10

Pattern Ratios
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0 - 6.0
Med: 8.5
No distinctive repetitive
tt
f riffl
d
d Range: 6.0 -10.0
pa
ern o
es an
po
s
due to staightening activdies
~ 2.0
Range: 1.2 - 3.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 2.0 -10.0

Profile Variables
0.0103 D.0097
0.0112 0.0112
Mean: 0.0243
Range: 0.0194 - 0.0291
Mean: 0.0019
No distinctive repetitive
tt
d rifl
d
d Range: 0-0.0039
ern
pa
es an
po
s
due to staightening activities
Mean: 0.0039
Range: 0 - 0.0078
Mean: 0.0029
Range: 0 - 0.0078

Profile Ratios
Min: 2.5D
Range: 2.D - 3.0
Mean: D.20
No distinctive repetitive
attern of riffles and
ools Range: D - 0.4
p
p
due to staightening activities Mean: 0.40
Range: 0 - 0.8
Mean: 0.30
Range: 0.0.8
Existing Channel

Fork Creek pROPO5ED
Pattern Variables
Med: 77.6
Range: 58.2 -116.4
Med: 164.9
No distinctive repetitive
pattern of riFAes and pools Range: 116.4.194.0
due to staightening activities Med: 38.8
Range: 23.3.582
Med: 77.6
Range: 38.8 -194.0
1.08 1.10

Pattern Rados
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0 - 6.0
Med: B.5
No distinctive repetitive
attern of riffle
d
d Range: 6.0.10.0
p
s an
po
s
due to staightening activities
Med: 2.0
Range: 1.2.3.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 2.0 -10.0

Profile Variables
0.0103 0.01D2
0.0112 0.0112
Mean: 0.0255
Range: 0.0204.0.0306
Mean: 0.0020
No distinctive repetitive
tt
f dol
d
d Range: 0 - 0.0041
pa
ern o
es an
po
s
due tostaigMeningadivities
Mean: 0.0041
Range: 0 - 0.0082
Mean: O.DD31
Range: 0 - 0.0082

Profile Ratios
Mean: 2.50
Range: 2.0.3.0
Mean: 0.20
No dstindive repetitive
attern d riffles and
ools Range: D - 0.4
p
p
due to staightening activities Mean: 0.40
Range: 0 - 0.8
Mean: 0.30
Range: 0.0.8
Tributaries PROPOSED
Pattern Variables
Med: 22.8
Range: 17.1- 34.2
Med: 48.5
No distinctive repetitive
pattern of riffles and pods Range: 34.2 - 57.0
due to staightaning activities Med: 11.4
Range: 6.8 -17.1
Med: 22.8
Range: 11.4 - 57.0
1.08 1.10

Patfam Raters
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0.6.0
Med: 6.5
No distinctive repetdNe
attern
iffle
a
f
d
l Range: 6.0.10.0
p
o
r
s
n
poo
s
due to staightening activities
Med: 2.0
Range: 1.2 - 3.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 2.0.10.0

Profile Variables
0.01D3 0.0102
0.0112 0.0112
Mean: 0.0255
Range: 0.0204 - 0.0306
Mean: 0.0020
No distinctive repetitive
tt
f riffle
d
d Range: 0.O.D041
pa
ern o
s an
po
s
due to staightening activities
Mean: 0.0041
Range: 0 - 0.0082
Mean: 0.0031
Range: D • 0.0082

Profile Ratios
Mean: 2.50
Range: 2.0.3.0
Mean: 0.20
No distinctive repetitive
attern d riffles and
d Range: 0.0.4
p
po
s
dan to staightening activities
Mean: 0.40
Range: 0 - 0.8
Mean: 0.30
Range: 0 - 0:8

' Pattern: Straightening of the channels has resulted in a loss of pattern variables such as belt-
width, meander wavelength, pool-to-pool spacing, and radius of curvature. The channels are currently
characterized by low sinuosities of 1.08 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance) with no distinct
' repetitive pattern of riffles and pools due to straightening activities.
Profile: The average water surface slope for the Site measures approximately 0.0103 (rise/run).
' Typically, dredging and straightening will oversteepen a channel reducing channel length over a
particular drop in valley slope. In addition, dredging and straightening channels disturbs perpendicular
flow vectors that maintain riffles and pools, resulting in headcuts, oversteepened riffles, and loss of pools.
' The channel is characterized by a lack of pools, structure, woody debris, coarse substrate, and
gravel glides which are primary feeding and nesting habitat features for resident trout populations.
' Substrate: Channel substrate is characterized by gravel- or sand-sized particles. Stable,
undisturbed streams in the area are characterized by cobble and gravel substrate with gravel in pools and
glides. Existing fine grained substrate results from excessive bank erosion and a lack of sediment
transport capacity in the onsite streams.
' 3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
' 3.4.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to inflowing water and sediment load. One form of
instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to aggradation, or
deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the stream to transport
' sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or stability thresholds for materials
forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or degradation occurs.
' Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream power can be
used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment transport of streams.
Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream power) or per unit of channel bed area.
The total stream power equation is defined as:
I ~ = PgQs
' where S2 =total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p =density of water (lb/ft3), g =gravitational acceleration
(ft/s2), Q =discharge (ft3/sec), and s =energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of water (y = 62.41b/ft3) is
equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg. A general evaluation of power
' for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge and water surface slope for the reach. As
slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase, stream power increases and more energy is available for
reworking channel materials. Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus
stream power. Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular,
over-widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will decrease
stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to aggradation of the
stream bed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream power.
Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power and relatively
1 coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto adjacent floodplains have
lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable. Stream power assessments can be
' Detailed Restoration Plan _ _ _ Page 13
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and the deposition or erosion of sediments from
the stream bed.
3.4.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing water exerts
on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment supply (size and
amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the stream bed and bank on
water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the ability of a stream to efficiently
transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the bed is
defined as follows:
t=yRs
where t =shear stress (lb/ftZ), r =specific weight of water, R =hydraulic radius (ft), and s =the energy
slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily provide a
good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local variability and
instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on channel form and irregularity.
For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed from the following equation:
Zmax= I.Si
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
tmax - 2.f)SS(R~ /Wbkf) 0.5
where ~ =radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope, dimension, and
pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity increase to maintain adequate
shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have higher shear stress values than required for
bedload transport will scour bed and bank materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with
lower shear stress values than needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel
aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the available power
divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and vegetation. The stream power
equation can thus be written as follows:
w = pgQs = iv
where cu =stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), i =shear stress, and v =average
velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
~ - ~/Wbkf
where Wb~=width of stream at bankfull (ft).
_ _. _ _
Detailed Restoration Plan page 14
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1

3.4.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the resisting
forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of relative magnitude of
these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of open channels is only imperfectly
understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have yet to be developed for
conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical
formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1) maximum
permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The former is advantageous
in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power cannot be measured directly and
must be computed from various flow parameters. However, stream power and shear stress are generally
better measures of fluid force on the channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and
straightened reaches, 2) the reference reaches, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Important input values
and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress) are
presented in Table 8. Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated for the existing Site
stream reaches, the reference reach, and proposed conditions.
' In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed channel should
exhibit stream power and shear stress values so that the channel is neither aggrading nor degrading.
Results of the analysis indicate that proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream power as a
function of width values comparable to that of the reference reaches when taking into consideration the
watershed side and expected bankfull discharge and far below existing values for degraded reaches.
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the existing, dredged and straightened reaches than
for proposed channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by bank erosion, channel incision,
and bank-height ratios ranging from 1.5 to 2.5; degradation has resulted from a combination of water
surface slopes that have been steepened, channel straightening, dredging, and trampling by livestock.
Stream power and shear stress values for the proposed channels should be lower than for existing
' channels to effectively transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting, resulting in
stable channel characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are similar to values for the proposed Threemile
Creek channel. Values are slightly higher than for the proposed tributaries; however, the watershed sizes
and bankfull discharges are larger resulting in higher stream power and shear stress values. The reference
reaches are characterized by fully forested riparian fringes and are therefore able to resist stream power
and shear stress of these magnitudes. However, the proposed channels will be devoid of deep-rooted
vegetation; therefore, proposed targets for stream power and shear stress values should be slightly less
than predicted for the reference reach.
' 3.5 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
' associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Current research also estimates the bankfull discharge would be expected to occur approximately every
1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996a, Leopold 1994).
__ _ _ __ _
Detailed Restoration Plan page 15
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 8. Stream Power (SZ) and Shear Stress (il Values

ischarge
ftZ/s
Water
Surface
Slope
ft/ft
Total
Stream
Power
S2 Total
Stream
Power/Ban
kfull Width
!;2/W

ydraulic
Radius

Shear
Stress
ti

elocity
V

V

m
Existin Conditions
Threemile Creek (u stream) 56.3 0.0103 36.19 1.75 4.55 2.93 0.51 1.49 4.39
Threemile Creek (downstream) 84.4 0.0103 54.25 2.62 3.60 2.31 0.91 2.09 3.47
Tributaries 5.1 0.0103 3.28 0.62 1.80 1.16 0.41 0.48 1.73
Reference Reaches
Stone Mountain Reference 75.3 0.0121 56.83 1.89 1.38 1.04 t.64 1.71 1.56
Cranbe Reference 28.7 0.0112 20.06 1.60 1.29 0.90 1.42 1.28 1.35
Pro osed Conditions
Threemile Creek (u stream) 56.3 0.0097 34.08 1.51 1.41 0.86 1.54 1.32 1.28
Threemile Creek (downstream) 84.4 0.0097 51.09 1.88 1.71 1.03 1.59 1.65 1.55
Tributaries 5.1 0.0102 3.25 0.57 0.56 0.36 1.28 0.46 0.54
The Site is located in the Mountain Physiographic province; therefore, regional curves for the Mountains
(Harman et al. 2001) were utilized and verified by regional regression equations, Cowan's roughness
equation method, and reference stream data.
Based on available Mountain regional curves, the bankfull discharge is approximately 139.1 cubic feet
per second for Stone Mountain, 24.7 cubic feet per second for Cranberry Creek, and 99.3 cubic feet per
second for the onsite cross-section with bankfull indicators (Harman et al. 2001). The USGS regional
regression equation for the Blue Ridge-Piedmont region indicates that bankfull discharge for Stone
Mountain, Cranberry Creek, and the onsite cross-section with bankfull indicators at a 1.3 to 1.5 year
return interval average approximately 385 to 410 cubic feet per second, 65 to 80 cubic feet per second,
and 260 to 300 cubic feet per second, respectively (USGS 2003), which are above estimates based on
field indicators and regional curves as discussed below (plots are included in Appendix C). In addition, a
stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of Arcement and Schneider's (1989)
weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component values and applied to the following equation
(Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge estimate.
Qbkf = [ 1.486/n] * [A*R2/3 *S 1 /2]
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water surface
slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for averages approximately 206.5
cubic feet per second for Stone Mountain, 102.6 cubic feet per second for Cranberry Creek, and 234.2
cubic feet per second for the onsite cross-section, which are also above estimates based on field indicators
and regional curves as discussed below.
Field indicators of bankfull and riffle cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-
sectional area for the reference reaches and onsite cross-section. The Mountain regional curves were then
utilized to plot the watershed area and discharge for the reference reach cross-sectional area. Field
indicators of bankfull approximate an average discharge of 75.3 cubic feet per second for Stone
Mountain, 28.7 for Cranberry Creek, and 84.4 for the onsite cross-section, which is approximately 54
percent, 116 percent, and 85 percent of that predicted by the Mountain regional curves.
_ _ _ _.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 16
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

To verify regional curves and USGS regression models gauged streams are typically analyzed to
determine a return interval for momentary peak discharges. However, no stations are located within
Avery County; stations located in the surrounding counties have drainage azeas of 60-plus square miles
that are not comparable to the 0.7 and 7.5-square mile reference sites.
' Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site
will be based on bankfull indicators found on the onsite cross-section with bankfull indicators and an
1 average of the two reference site, which resulted in an area 85 percent of the size indicated by Mountain
regional curves. Table 9 summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull discharge.
3.6 Vegetation
1 The Site is characterized predominately by agricultural land utilized for strawberry production, Fraser fir
Christmas tree farms, and ornamental nurseries. The Site is regularly maintained and cleared in support
of land use practices leaving soils disturbed and exposed to the edges of the stream banks. South facing
' slopes are characterized by mesic hardwood forest that is frequently harvested for timber. North facing
slopes are characterized by evergreen stands and aze suitable for Fraser fir Christmas tree farming, which
is a large economic feature of Avery County. Riparian vegetation adjacent to Site streams is
predominantly disturbed (Figure 4, Appendix A).

Table 9. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis

Method Watershed Area
s uare miles Return Interval
ears) Discharge
cfs
Onsite Cross-sect ion with Bankfull Indicators
Mountain Re Tonal Curves (Harman et al. 2001) 4.7 1.3 - 1.5 99.3
Blue Ridge-Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
4.7
1.3 - 1.5
260 - 300
Mannin 's "n" usin Cowan's Method (1956) 4.7 NA 234.2
Field Indicators of Bankfull 4.7 1.3 - 1.5 84.4
Stone Mountain Reference Reach
Mountain Re Tonal Curves (Harman et al. 2001) 7.5 1.3 - 1.5 139.1
Blue Ridge-Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
7.5
1.3 - 1.5
385 - 410
Mannin 's "n" usin Cowan's Method (1956) 7.5 NA 206.5
Field Indicators of Bankfull 7.5 1.3 -1.5 75.3
Cranberr Creek Reference Reach
Mountain Re Tonal Curves (Harman et al. 2001 0.7 1.3 -1.5 24.7
Blue Ridge-Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
0.7
1.3 - 1.5
65 - 80
Mannin 's "n" usin Cowan's Method (1956) 0.7 NA 102.6
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.7 1.3 - 1.5 28.7
Detailed Restoration Plan page 17
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Distinct bankfull indicators were present within the reference stream channels. In addition, dimension,
pattern, and profile variables have not been altered or degraded, allowing for assistance with the proposed
restoration reaches (Figure SA-B, Appendix A).
4.1 Stone Mountain Reference Reach
4.1.1 Watershed Characterization
Stone Mountain is located in northern Wilkes County in Stone Mountain State Park (Figure 1, Appendix
A). Alterations, development, and impervious surfaces within the watershed are minimal.
4.1.2 Channel Classification
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify the reference reach based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996a). This classification stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. The
reference reach is characterized as a Cb-type, low sinuosity (1.08) channel with acobble-dominated
substrate. Cb-type streams are characterized as slightly to moderatly entrenched, riffle-pool channels
exhibiting a moderate to high width-depth ratio. Cb-type streams often occur in narrower valleys with
moderately-developed alluvial floodplains.
4.1.3 Discharge
The reference stream has an approximately 7.5-square mile watershed and a bankfull discharge of 75.3
cubic feet per second based on bankfull indicators.
4.1..4 Channel Morphology
Stream cross-sections and profiles were measured along the reference stream (Figure SA, Appendix A).
The stream reach is transporting its sediment supply while maintaining stable dimension, pattern, and
profile. Stream geometry measurements for the reference stream are summarized in the Morphological
Stream Characteristics Table (Table 7).
Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicates a bankfull cross-sectional area of 46.0
square feet, a bankfull width of 30.1 feet, a bankfull depth of 1.6 feet, and awidth-to-depth ratio of 20.0.
Regional curves predict that the stream should exhibit a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately
85.0 square feet for the approximate 7.5-square mile watershed (Harman et al. 2001), slightly above the
46.0-square feet displayed by channel bankfull indicators identified in the field. For a more detailed
discussion on bankfull verification see Section 3.5 (Bankfull Verification).
The reference reach exhibits abank-height ratio averaging 1.3, which is slightly high for a stable Cb-type
channel. In addition, the width of the floodprone area is approximately 100 feet giving the channel an
entrenchment ratio of 3.0 to 3.7, typical of a stable C-type channel.
Pattern: In-field measurements of the reference reach have yielded an average sinuosity of 1.2
(thalweg distance/straight-line distance). Other channel pattern attributes include an average pool-to-pool
spacing ratio (L~p/Wnkr) of 3.5, a meander wavelength ratio (Lm/Wbke) of 6.6, and a radius of curvature
ratio (R~/Wnkr) of 3.1. These variables were measured within a stable, forested reach, which did not
exhibit any indications of pattern instability such as shoot cutoffs, abandoned channels, or oxbows.
Profile: Based on elevational profile surveys, the reference reach is characterized by a valley
slope of 0.0131 (rise/run). Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide slopes to average
water surface slope are 0.98, 0.80, 0.70, and 0.34, respectively.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 18
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by cobble-sized
particles.
4.2 Cranberry Creek Reference Reach
4.2.1 Watershed Characterization
Cranberry Creek is located in Burke County east of the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A). Alterations,
development, and impervious surfaces within the watershed are minimal.
4.2.2 Channel Classification
The reference reach is characterized as an E-type, low sinuosity (1.04) channel with acobble-dominated
' substrate. E-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels. In North
Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains
(Valley Type VIII). E-type channels are typically considered stable; however, these streams are sensitive
1 to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel disturbance, and may rapidly convert to other stream
types.
4.2.3 Discharge
' The reference stream has an approximately 0.7-square mile watershed and a bankfull discharge of 28.7
cubic feet per second based on bankfull indicators.
' 4.2.4 Channel Morphology
Stream cross-sections and profiles were measured along the reference stream (Figure SB, Appendix A).
The stream reach is transporting its sediment supply while maintaining stable dimension, pattern, and
profile. Stream geometry measurements for the reference stream are summarized in the Morphological
Stream Characteristics Table (Table 7).
Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicates a bankfull cross-sectional area of 20.2
square feet, a bankfull width of 12.5 feet, a bankfull depth of 1.6 feet, and awidth-to-depth ratio of 7.8.
Regional curves predict that the stream should exhibit a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately
17.4 square feet for the approximate 0.7-square mile watershed (Harman et al. 2001), slightly below the
20.2-square feet displayed by channel bankfull indicators identified in the field. For a more detailed
I discussion on bankfull verification see Section 3.5 (Bankfull Verification).
The reference reach exhibits abank-height ratio of 1.0, which is representative of a stable E-type channel.
1 In addition, the width of the floodprone area is approximately 75 feet giving the channel an entrenchment
ratio of 5.7 to 6.4, typical of a stable E-type channel.
1 Pattern: In-field measurements of the reference reach have yielded an average sinuosity of 1.04
(thalweg distance/straight-line distance). Other channel pattern attributes include an average pool-to-pool
spacing ratio (L~r/Wb~) of 4.4, a meander wavelength ratio (L~,/Wbkr) of 8.3, and a radius of curvature
ratio (R~/Wbkf) of 3.8. These variables were measured within a stable, forested reach, which did not
' exhibit any indications of pattern instability such as shoot cutoffs, abandoned channels, or oxbows.
Profile: Based on elevational profile surveys, the reference reach is characterized by a valley
slope of 0.0116 (rise/run). Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide slopes to average
water surface slope are 1.74, 0.13, 0, and 0.25, respectively.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by Cobble-sized
' particles.
' Detailed Restoration Plan
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 19

4.3 Reference Forest Ecosystem
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which to model
restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically
stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (predisturbance) conditions of the
restoration site. Quantitative data describing plant community composition and structure are collected at
the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data for design of the restoration Site planting scheme.
The RFE for this project is located on the Stone Mountain Reference reach. The RFE supports plant
community and landfotm characteristics that restoration efforts will attempt to emulate. Tree and shrub
species identified within the reference forest and outlined in Table 9 will be used, in addition to other
relevant species inappropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions.
Table 9. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Cano S ecies Understo S ecies
white ine (Pinus strobus do wood (Corpus orida
white oak uercus albs) ironwood (Car inus caroliniana)
s camore (Platanus occidentalis) s ice bush (Lindera benzoin
black locust (Robinia seudoacacia) rhododendron (Rhododendrons .
red ma le (Ater rubrum) wild azalea (Rhododendron ericl menoides
red oak (Quercus s .) strawbe bush (Euon mows americana)
black the (Prunus serotina)
tuli o lar (Liriodendron to/i i era)
hemlock (Tsu a s .)
Detailed Restoration Plan
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 20 ,
1

5.0 SITE WETLAND (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
' Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual, the presence of three
clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology) are
required for a wetland jurisdictional determination.
Hydric soil limits were mapped in the field during May 2007 by a Licensed Soil Scientist. Based on field
surveys, approximately 2.3 acres of cleared jurisdictional wetlands currently occur within the Site
enhancement areas (Figure 4, Appendix A). An additional 2.5 acres of drained hydric soils occur within
1 the Site restoration areas. The drained hydric soils have been significantly disturbed by compaction due
to agricultural practices; relocation, dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site streams; ditching of
fields; and removal of vegetation and are effectively drained below jurisdictional wetland hydrology
thresholds.
1 During stream enhancement and restoration implementation approximately 03 to 0.5 acres of
jurisdictional wetland will be temporarily impacted. Specifically, Tributary 2 will be enhanced and
Tributary 3 will be restored within the jurisdictional wetland area boundaries (Stream Enhancement and
Restoration is described in Section 6.2 Restoration Plan). Upon completion of stream
enhancement/restoration activities, the jurisdictional wetlands will be enhanced through vegetative
1 plantings and will continue to exhibit jurisdictional wetland characteristics.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Areas of the Site targeted for riverine wetland restoration will receive hydrological inputs from periodic
overbank flooding of the restored tributaries, groundwater migration into the wetlands, upland/stormwater
runoff, and, to a lesser extent, direct precipitation.
' S.3 Soil Characteristics
Restorable portions of the Site are underlain by hydric Nikwasi soils. Soils have been impacted by
plowing, land clearing, ditching, agricultural production, in addition to landscape alterations associated
with dredging and straightening of stream channels. Atypical profile is as follows.
Soil Profiles (Boring Log)
Nikwasi
Hydric Soil as Observed in the Field

1
1
O - >, ~.,
j 2.SY 3/2
~ common distinct gtgl
lOYlt X1/6 mottles ,
I0-
0 YR 3/ 1
common 5f3 & 4/6
mottles
~~~ -----
Depth in inches
"F extw•e
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy clay
loam
etc? Sandy cla} loam
' Detailed Restoration Plan
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Nikwasi
Hydric Soil as Described in Avery Co. Soil Survey
(USDA 1950
10- ~
If N2.50 ~
20
--
lOYR 4/i
30 I
Depth in inches
"texture
A I loam
A2 [,oam
Cgl Gravelly sandy
loam
page 21
n ~;: s
~,
tr
~"

1

5.4 Plant Community Characterization
Historically, Site wetlands may have supported a community similar to a Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Piedmont/I,ow Mountain Alluvial Forest communities
typically occur on river and stream floodplains and are seasonally or intermittently flooded.
Typical species of this community, according to Schafale and Weakley include river birch (Betula nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occientalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), American elm (Ulmus americana), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). Understory
species typically include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), box elder (Ater negundo), red maple (Ater
rubrum), pawpaw (Asiminia triloba), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
_ _ _.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 22
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

6.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN
6.1 Project Goals
Restoration of Site streams and wetlands will result in positive benefits for water quality and biological
diversity in the Threemile Creek watershed. Restoration of onsite streams and wetlands will achieve the
following goals:
1. Remove nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with agricultural practices including
a) cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and
adjacent to the Site and b) provide a forested riparian buffer to treat surface runoff.
2. Reduce sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank
erosion associated with vegetation maintenance and plowing adjacent to Site streams and
wetlands and b) planting a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams and wetlands.
3. Reestablish stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promote floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, dredged, straightened, and entrenched tributaries,
thereby reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; c) restoration of
depressional floodplain wetlands and floodwater storage capcity within the Site, and d)
revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters.
5. Improve aquatic habitat with bed variability and the use of in-stream structures upstream of a
reach identified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as supporting naturally
reproducing rainbow trout populations.
6. Provide a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area that is developed for agricultural
production.
These goals will be achieved by:
• Restoring approximately 6446 linear feet of stream channel through construction of stable Ce-
and E-type channels (Priority I), thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Enhancing (Level I) approximately 638 linear feet of stream channel by stabilizing banks and
supplemental planting with native forest vegetation.
• Enhancing (Level II) approximately 875 linear feet of stream channel by supplemental planting
with native forest vegetation.
• Preserving approximately 6744 linear feet of stream channel along a stable, forested reach.
• Restoring approximately 2.5 acres of riverine wetlands by reconstructing Site tributaries within
the floodplain, filling ditched channels, rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native
forest vegetation.
• Enhancing approximately 2.3 acres of cleared riverine wetlands by planting with native forest
vegetation.
• Planting a native forested riparian buffer adjacent to restored streams and within Site floodplains
and wetlands.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
6.2 Restoration Plan
The complete restoration plan is depicted in Figures 6A-6C (Appendix A). Components of this plan may
be modified based on construction or access constraints. Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1)
stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (level I and level II), 3) stream preservation, 4) wetland
Detailed Restoration Plan page 23
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Sfte

1

restoration, 5) wetland enhancement, 6) soil scarification, and 7) plant community restoration. A
monitoring plan and contingency plan are outlined in Section 7 (Performance Criteria) of this document.
6.2.1 Stream Restoration
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new location that
approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference
conditions. Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded channels and the proposed, stable channels are
listed in Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics (Table 7).
An erosion control plan and construction transportation plan are expected to be developed during the next
phase of this project. Erosion control will be performed locally throughout the Site and will be
incorporated into construction sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Site are unconsolidated, alluvial
sediments, which do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance; therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses
and immediate planting with disturbance-adapted shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving
process. In addition, onsite root mats (seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed
after disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed to
minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent feasible. The number of transportation
access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long distances through the Site's
interior.
' 6.2.1.1 Stream Construction
Primary activities designed to restore the channels include 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2)
floodplain bench excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation of channel plugs, and 5) backfilling of
the abandoned channel.
Belt-width Preparation and Grading
' Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-width
corridor, which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading will be
stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled. These segments
' will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
Spotl material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction of the
underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon completion of
construction activities.
After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be developed and the
' location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile. Pool locations and relative
frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local variations in the floodplain profile.
Floodplain Bench Excavation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove the eroding material and collapsing
banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the erosive potential of flood
waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull benches may be created by
excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling eroded/abandoned channel areas with
suitable material. After excavation, or filling of the bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is
expected to be stabilized with suitable erosion control measures. Planting of the bench with native
floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood
waters, filter pollutants, and provide wildlife habitat.
_ __
Detailed Restoration Plan page 24
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Channel Excavation
The channel will be constructed within the range of values depicted in the Table of Morphological Stream
Characteristics (Table 7). Figure 7 (Appendix A) provides proposed cross-sections, plan views, and
profiles for the constructed channel.
The stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted with
shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or overhanging the
constructed channel is encouraged.
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer
bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments, available root mats, and/or biodegradable,
erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote more rapid development of
an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or collected onsite and inserted through the
root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.
Channel Pluss
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs will consist of low-
permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive
energy of surface flow events across the Site. Dense clays may be imported from off-site or existing
material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for plug construction. The plug will be of
sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and channel bed.
Channel Backfilline
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will be
performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will be filled to the
extent that onsite material is available and compacted to maximize microtopographic variability,
including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear depressions may
be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical areas may be obtained by
excavating shallow depressions along the banks of these planned, open-channel segments. These
excavated areas will represent closed linear, elliptical, or oval depressions. In essence, the channel may
be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral pools adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled
channel sections. These pools are expected to stabilize and fill with organic material over time.
Vegetation debris (root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the backfill
area upon completion.
6.2.1.2 Marsh Treatment Areas
Shallow wetland marsh treatment areas will be excavated in the floodplain to intercept surface waters
draining through agricultural areas prior to discharging into the mainstem Threemile Creek channel.
Marsh treatment areas are depicted on Figures 6A through 6C (Appendix A) and will consist of shallow
depressions that will provide treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater pulses. The outfall of each
treatment area will be constructed of hydrolocally stable rip-rap or other suitable material that will protect
against headcut migration into the constructed depression and/or upstream stream reaches. It is expected
that the treatment areas will fill with sediment and organic matter over time.
6.2.1.3 In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-stream
structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include the installation of log vanes, J-hook vanes, cross-vanes, and or a
step-pool structure. Details for the structures are depicted on Figures 8A-8B (Appendix A).
__ _ _
Detailed Restoration Plan page 25
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1

6.2.1.4 Forded Channel Crossing
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of three channel fords to allow access to portions
of the property isolated by the conservation easement and stream restoration activities (Figure 8B,
Appendix A). The approximate locations of the proposed channel fords are depicted on Figures 6A-6C
(Appendix A). The fords are expected to consist of a shallow depression in the stream banks where
vehicular and livestock crossings can be made. The ford will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip-
rap or suitable rock and will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic.
Approach grades to the ford will be at a minimum 15:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour-resistant
crushed rock or other permeable material, which is free of fines. The bed elevation of the ford will equal
the floodplain elevation above and below the ford to reduce the risk of headcutting.
6.2.2 Stream Enhancement (Level I and II)
Stream enhancement (Level I and II) on the upper reaches of Tributaries 2 and 4, the lower reach of
Threemile Creek, and Fork Creek will entail the cessation of current land management practices and
planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation. Enhancement Level I will also entail dimension
and profile adjustments along with the installation of instream habitat structures. Bank stabilization will
occur including the use of root/biodegradable erosion control matting, live staking, and bank sloping
where necessary to prevent further bank erosion/degradation. Particular attention will be directed toward
providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer bends of each stream meander. Riparian
buffers will extend a minimum of 30 feet from the top of stream banks to facilitate stream recovery and
prevent further degradation of Site streams. In addition, water quality functions and aquatic and wildlife
habitat associated with stable riparian corridors/streams will be improved.
6.2.3 Stream Preservation
Preservation is being proposed on the forested/upstream reaches of Tributaries 3, 5, 6, and 11 and on the
Preservation Tributaries (Figures 6A to 6C, Appendix A). Based on preliminary analysis and field
investigations, these reaches are relatively stable due a lack of human induced impact and a well-
, developed riparian buffer. These areas will be protected in perpetuity through the establishment of a
conservation easement including a minimum 30-foot forested buffer adjacent to each bank of the stream.
6.3 HEC-1tAS Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to predict the
feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or
adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with
provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential
for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year storms
under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities have been
implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by .simulating peak flood flows for Site
features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program and regional
' regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry and cross-sections are digitized
from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a professional surveyor) using the HEC-
GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are adjusted as needed based on field-collected
1 data. Once corrections to the geometry are performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation Model) data
and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were obtained along Site
features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both onsite cross-sections and detailed topographic
mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic
Detailed Restoration Plan page 26
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the computed water surface elevations will be
calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for Site restoration
activities. A primary objective of the stream and wetland restoration design is maintenance of a no-rise in
the 100-year floodplain. The Site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) floodway; therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) are not expected to be necessary at this time. However, mapping of the region is expected to be
released later this year. Therefore coordination with FEMA may be conducted, if necessary, prior to
initiating Site construction activities.
6.4 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Alternatives for wetland restoration are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system which will
provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds, and will
create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Restoration activities are expected to restore a
minimum of 2.5 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and enhance approximately 2.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland (Figures 6A-6C, Appendix A).
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by channel incision, drainage ditch
excavation, vegetative clearing, hoof shear, and earth movement associated with agricultural practices.
Wetland restoration options should focus on the removal of fill materials, restoration of vegetative
communities, filling drainage ditches, the reestablishment of soil structure and microtopographic
variations, and redirecting normal surface hydrology from ditches back to Site floodplains. In addition,
the construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add
an important component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the
restoration of 2.5 acres of jurisdictional riverine floodplain wetlands. An additional 2.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland will be enhanced within the Site by planting cleared wetlands with native
species.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
The existing Tributaries 1 and 8 average 3-5 feet in depth, while the depth for the proposed tributaries
average approximately 0.7-1 foot in depth. Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have
been drained due to lowering of the groundwater tables and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream
reaches. Reestablishment of channel inverts is expected to rehydrate soils adjacent to Site streams. In
addition, drainage ditches are effectively removing wetland hydrology within the restoration areas.
Filling of these ditches and restoring Site tributaries are expected to rehydrate hydric soils within the Site,
resulting in the restoration of jurisdictional hydrology to riverine wetlands.
Excavation and Grading of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to the existing channels and area ditches have experienced both natural and unnatural
sediment deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during dredging, straightening,
and rerouting of Site streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain. Major flood events may have also
deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from onsite eroding banks and upstream
agricultural fields. The removal of these spoil materials and/or filling of onsite ditches with spoil material
represents a critical element of Site wetland restoration.
Hydrophytic Ve etation
Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as land clearing,
agriculture, livestock grazing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will be revegetated
with native vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis will focus on developing
Detailed Restoration Plan page 27
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

' a diverse plant assemblage. Section 6.6 (Plant Community Restoration) provides detailed information
concerning community species associations.
Reconstructinu Stream Corridors
The stream restoration plan involves the reconstruction of Site streams through the floodplain. Existing
channels will be backfilled so that the water table may be restored to historic conditions. However, some
portions of the existing channels may remain open for the creation of wetland "oxbow lake-like" features.
These features will be plugged on each side of the open channel and will function as open water systems.
They are expected to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife as well as create small pockets of open
water/freshwater marsh within the Site.
6.5 Fooodplain Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent important
components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex surface
microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools, oxbows, and
hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout these
systems. As discussed in the stream reconstruction section, efforts to advance the development of
characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed. After
construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical
asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated
on complex floodplain surfaces.
6.6 Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to
diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for
mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to
develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during community restoration
activities.
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate,
and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events.
Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within IS feet of the channel throughout the meander belt-
width. Shrub elements will be planted along the reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer
bends. Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest is targeted for the Site wetland areas and PiedmontlLow
Mountain Alluvial Forest is targeted for the remainder of the Site (Figure 9, Appendix A). The following
planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration.
6.6.1 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish vegetative community patterns across the landscape. The
plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of proposed Site preparation,
and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various noncommercial elements.
Detailed Restoration Plan _ - page 28
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side assemblage will be
planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 10 depicts the total number of stems
and species distribution within each vegetation association. Planting will be performed between
December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the
spring season. A total of 19,449 diagnostic tree and shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
6.6.2 Nuisance Species Management
Prior to the revegetation phase of the project, nonnative floral species will be removed. Exotic species
currently identified within the project area include multiflora rose. This is a fast growing species that can
overwhelm and out-compete the plant communities proposed for stabilization of the new stream channel.
Methods for eradication of this species are will to include both manual removal by cutting and grubbing
in addition to chemical herbicide treatment. Approximately 9.6 acres of the Site will be treated for
removal of multiflora rose, predominantly located within the Stream-side Assemblage and
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest planting zones, as depicted on Figure 9 (Appendix A).
Beavers and other potential nuisance species will be monitored over the course of the 5-year monitoring
period. Appropriate actions will be taken to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation
development and/or water management on an as-needed basis.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 29
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 10. Plantin Plan
Piedmont/Low
Piedmont/Mountain Mountain Alluvial Stream-side
Ve etation Association Bottomland Forest Forest Assembla a TOTAL
Area acres 5.4 4.0 4. 8 14.2
Number % of Number Number % of
S ecies lanted* total lanted* % of total lanted** total Number lanted
Swamp chestnut oak

( .uercus michauxii) 551 15 -- -- -- - 551
Cherrybark oak
( uercus a oda) 551 15 -- -- -- -- 551
Sycamore

(Platanus occidentalis) 551 15 272 10 -- -- 823
Hackberry
(Celtis laevi ata) 551 15 -- -- -- -- 551
American elm

Ulmus americana 551 15 -- -- -- -- 551
Green ash

(Fraxinus enn lvanica) 367 10 -- -- -- -- 367
Pawpaw

(Asimina triloba) 294 8 272 10 -- -- 566
American beech
(Fa s randi olia) -" -- 408 15 -- - 408
Mockernut hickory
Ca a alba/tomentosa -- -- 408 15 -- -- 408
Northern red oak
( uercus rttbra) -" -- 408 15 -- -- 408
White oak

uercus alba) __ _ 408 15 -- -- 408
Black cherry
(Prunus serotina) -- -- 272 10 -- -- 272
Persimmon
Dios ros vir iniana) -- -- 272 10 -- -- 272
Silky dogwood

Corpus amomum) 257 7 __ __ 3917 30 4174
Black willow
Salix ni a) -- -- -- -- 3917 30 3917
Buttonbush
Ce halanthus occidentalis) _ -- -- 2611 20 2611
Elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis) -- _ -- -- 2611 20 2611
TOTAL 3673 100 2720 100 1.3,056 100 19,449
• Ylanted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stemslacre.
__ _ _.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 30
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until agreed upon success criteria
are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, hydrology, and vegetation.
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Annual fall monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble
counts, and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular
format. Data to be presented will include 1)cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4)
maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface slope, 9)
sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate composition. A photographic record of preconstruction and post-
construction pictures will also be compiled. Preconstruction photographs are included in Appendix D.
Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996a) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure
of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
are performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland restoration
area (USEPA 1990).
Hvdrologv Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing
season, during average climatic conditions. During growing seasons with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of
reference). These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are
marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be
performed.
7.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with USEPA guidelines
enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE 2003), and CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only (Version 4.0) (Lee et al. 2006). A
general discussion of the restoration monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant
growth should be included in each annual monitoring report.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting
and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain
the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling
of vegetation will be performed between June 1 and September 30, after each growing season, until the
vegetation success criteria are achieved.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 31
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

' During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to 10 sample plots (10 meters by
10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site. Best professional judgment may be necessary to
establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot,
vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
' elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth
of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of
"Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree Species include planted species, species identified
through visual inventory of an approved reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community, and species
' outlined in Schafale and Weakley (1990).
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the first
' three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be surviving in year
4 and 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5.
7.4 Contingency
7.4.1 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
' implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair and/or
installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The
method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with
success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream success, include 1) structure failure, 2)
head-cut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that onsite structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream banks
and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but exhibit flow
around, beneath, or through the header/footer pilings will be repaired by excavating a trench on the
upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures which have
been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse ofheader/footer pilings, will be removed and replaced
with a structure suitable for onsite flows.
~ Headcut Migration through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through onsite measurements [i.e.
bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage
caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation
of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane weir) and/or restoring stream
geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include
' channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative
transplants, and/or willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs at the Site resulting in elevated width-to-depth ratios,
contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be implemented. Bank
erosion contingency measures may include the installation of cross-vane weirs and/or other bank
stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a
channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable values.
1 Detailed Restoration Plan... _ _ __
page 32
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

7.4.2 Hydrologic Contingency
Hydrologic contingency may include floodplain surface modifications such as construction of ephemeral
pools, deep ripping of the soil profile, and installation of berms to retard surface water flows.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology may be implemented and monitored
until hydrology success criteria are achieved.
7.4.3 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots
over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting will be performed with tree species approved by
regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation
success criteria.
7.5 Reporting Schedule
The first year monitoring report will be submitted at the end of December after Site implementation. ,
Monitoring will continue for five years or until agreed upon success criteria are achieved, with a report
submitted by the end of December for each monitoring year.
_. _ _ _ _ _ .
Detailed Restoration Plan page 33
Threemile Creek Stream and Weiland Restoration Site

8.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients

' for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineerin , 37, 473-
g
475.
'
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
'
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
'
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.

Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological Society
(map scale 1:1,500,000).

Harman W.A. G.D. Wise D.E. W lk r
a e , R.M, Cantrell, M.A., Clemmons, M., Jennings, G.D., Clinton,
' D., and Patterson, J. 2001. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
North Carolina State University
Raleigh
North Carolina
,
,
.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.0. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
' Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers of Ireland
20
161-20
.
,
.
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Avallable: http://h2o.enrstate.nc.us/tmdUdocuments/2004IRCategortes4-7.PDF [May 14, 2007]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006b. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review
(online). Available: http://h2o.enrstate.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006303dList PublicReviewDraft.pdf [May 14,
2007]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

__ _ _
Detailed Restoration Plan page 34
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007. North Carolina Water Bodies Report
(online). Available: http://dem.ehnrstate.nc.us/buns/reports/reportsWB.html [May 14, 2007]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2005. Broad River Basin Watershed
Restoration Plan (online). Available: http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/French_Broad_Plan.pdf [May
14, 2007]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996a. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Rosgen, D. 1996b. Classification of Natural Rivers: Reply to the comments by J.R. Miller and J.B.
Ritter. Catena. 27:301-307
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1955. Soil Survey of Avery County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2003. The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3: A
Computer Program for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods for Ungaged Sites.
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168. United States Geological Survey.
Detailed Restoration Plan
Threemile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 35

Appendix A. Figures

Directions to the Site
From Spruce Pine
North on US Route 19E - 5 miles
Right on NC Route 194 - 1.5 miles
Site is on Right
,. ~ > ..
~ ~ ~"
,t ~; .
`~ ~- %~ Cranberry Creek , ~:,q~;
-~--;' `~ ~ ,.~ Reference Stream
t ~ ~ a..~_
Location --
Site Location w . _ _
35.9827° N, 81.9843° W r I C7 N
(NAD 83/WGS84) H ~ ~ t
WY 184: ~,`~
~,~ ~ r ~...~-;.;. i o v
_ „: ~ ~ ~~s - ~ ~'
y ~ ~~
r „i+ ,,
>~ _
~,. ~ ~ r
a ~t .r
~~+-5 ~' ^ ~~ ~ 0 1 mi. 4 mi.
~~- ~ ~~~ S,prUCQr°~~ - i r 1:158400
~~~ -. ~~ Source: 1977 Norih Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 32 & 33.
=Pine ~ ~ ~_.
~;,
-,
_ i ~ `
~ ,
~'
~,
Stone Mountain t
~. ~ti.:
Reference Stream 1r -
^ L. -~~ r` and Forest Location poughton
~!--3~ ? Park Stone Mountian
~~ ;~ GL - State Park
r ~~~.
B` e ~tid9e Q
._
~ ~ ~ ,
~Nt `~~,~ r ` ` ~~.,
>r
Ai4%' ~4
l..._"
Er
t ~ ~~`
~ ~ E-CiT ~ ~' 0 1 mi. 4 mi.
,~ ~" ~ xC ~,..r , .~
i~ ~ 1:158,400
~ Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 14.
...-_
~: _ ~ ,
~~ .,., ~ ~
~~._- ~ Dwn. by:
2126 Rowland Pond Dr SITE & REFERENCE LOCATION ckd by: wcL FIGURE
- Willow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
[phone] THREE MILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE Date:
[phone] fax Avery County, North Carolina June 2007
Project: 07-004

j/ r ~
~~ t Elk park li
s _ - ~ ~,
~/~ - ,„ ` /"`./' ~, `S ~ N ,r ;err
~~~/ ~ _ ' 3n Il~~h ~~
~, Btite~.l-_~ari Kt ~b
~ r
'~ '' Min neap~lr;
r ~ Vdley' ~ (y~ 't'om ~yY
~~~~ o~lar' ~ ~ E_uod•t 'firanb I' C`~'~
P ~coiir r - r ~ ~ Mon! c ,.
~ _ m .~ Linpvllle
I., , ycu*t -Glen ~~ R ~`;.
i>'Aa of ~~Spear t. -
. a1;.iUX Nt1 r? i~? •'•', r ~~Ite~ ~IUr'i ,8 ~
p .a vin
~'
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~~
., Yip-- ,~ •itn;t' dge _
r Rims .•,,r„wn
a ~, , ~, .~ ~ ~ ,
.., .~ B_P ~,ay g ~.:,k B~nd~na Ir~F;-• ~ , / Jo~.~RrCf~F I
Hid'°~n` ~ ~ t_eJ• nr j !'he5tnit? Hl1n ;
~( ,
~ _ t;_r~ac ~~
~' _ ~ --
Sa'd Creek , ,~ \
USGS 14-digit HU 4'` '
-;:,:,--__ :: - and Targeted Local . ~5nr,,.
r~~ I
1~`atershed ~~`'
06010108010020 :~ ~ ~~ I ~ °r
~., Cove
r1 ,n~; c 4'V:~ocUawn i.~~'f~=
c3~rnardsvitle I i _~ I ~ .~~MtS` ,~
~_1 - J w ~ Zvi;! .
~+ttin~harY~ ~ h~ ~'
;; r k ~, e • ,y'
:,
=ch lveoc \BridgPw-,
.. ~ _\ ~
..%`
P a~,ant .,/
s~ ~ ~-
G irdens ~
~;3rlofl I ri- r;.s.k~,
~~* a `~ ~,--~ Greenlee NJ hq;,r~ r
r:ri,~c~rlt~ ~ '~
d I" '=r ~~ rfd f:,1 v ~:lNr,c,g
'' ~." { F\~~L~E Grovestane _.
sP , M~,~firrr Glen
,•~ wsartsvt!le _
~S~,~ar~ J'.~
t_ j ~~~~~,- s.:. /' • ~~ 1-1111 r
W' ~'~•
~~
~ , '
~ _p
I..
5mi, 0 Smi 15 mi. ~/ Sfiln~. I; ~~`ti-?-!~ M~.~
, s25,ooo Z -~, ,.
. , ~~
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974 State of North Carolina
_.__.. Dwn. by:
2, 26 Rowland Pond Dr USGS CATOLOGING UNIT MAP ckd by: w~~ FIGURE
Willow Spring, NC 27592 WG~
(s,s>2,5-,ss3 THREE MILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE Date:
(9,9)34,-3839 fax Avery County, North Carolina June 2007
Project. Oi-004

- r ~b lug Y~ ~~, rr.. ,•~~ [t18~t.Q~O.v I.`FS'+".- ~ _ - 1V
n
~
.'
' ~~ '~
t
I
, ,_ i ?
_ n~
f
.
.,g
_ -
- - i .. .. - - . .~' ' j
- 4` _
__ ~
__ ~- }
~
' '
w ~ _
~.~
f _ _
\ rh

~ X \ i 1 ~. ~ (~. ~` s
' ~ ,r -~~ ' 3 ~~4 __
- \ , J-'~ r-~I
* _ ~ fr 4
) - n ~ ~
`, ~ r l~
i~
i _
1t
~
~
r
l~
A:.. f-
_ _... Y.~ ~ ~. ~ ail _ ~iY~ r ~
_

_
~
~
fr ~ _
+,. t
~
~~
'
~
~
#t r e ~ ~. , ~
'w b s
,r r° T
. '~ ~ ~.~. ~-T~b`r;r~'re , i m ~ ~° r~
°~ ~ , ,Y ~ - ., ,.
~
``
'
,
r~ - _ ..J _ ~.
'~ Tay
~ _ ~. Threem

,~ ^~~t , g lp4~dries 4t`dries~, ~ : , ~
' -_ r ~ r'%
4
,. --
~
~,
,~
& 71 Preservation
S
±Y! ~ Tributaries ~6'~ .r ('~ 3_'1+
. ~
r
) ~
I
~t
r i,. __ ., 1 r P'~.411~'17~.
' r ' ry, _!

..
_
-_
.
i
' - :. r' =' _ ~' ups F llY1M~ .r. ,. a, --ta
x t't f~
d -_ i'
_~ .~
'
'
~,
'
Qoe kti
l ,
Legen
~
,,a
_-
Conservation Easement - ~-- - ~ 1 -
,
,750 5A Feet
DrainageArea = 5.1 square miles -~ - _- ~ 0 625 1,250 2,500 3
- ; _ - - -, A

2, 26 Rowland Pond fir.
~~`~~. sieizss~isss c27s92
9,9
34, 3839
f
TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA
THREE MILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE Dwn. By:WGL

~atjune 2007 FIGURE

3
(
)
(
ax)
~ Avery County, North Carolina Project:
~~~~ ~ 07-004

2,26Raw~endFondDr. EXISTING CONDITIONS
,,-~ WIIowSpring,NC27592 THREE MILE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
Avery County, North Carolina
AMio~~Envitenrien~al Inc.
Dwn. BY CLF FIGURE
Date:
Se t 2007
Project:
07-004

i60
`Cross Section 2 Reference Pattern
Lp-p = 55 (37 - 83) ft
ia0
X20 ~- Cross Section 3 Lm = 104 (77 - 131) ft
~~ f Wbelt = 23 (16 - 28) ft
Rc = 47 (31 - 66) ft
~ Lp-plWbkf = 4.4 (3.0 - 6.6)
6o LmlWbkf = 8.3 (6.1 -10.5)
WbeltlUVbkf =1.8 (1.3 - 2.2)
°° Rc/V+/bkf = 3.8 (2.4 - 5.3)
Zo Cross Section 1 SIN = 1.04
~d 24 40 6D BU COQ X20 1°0 i60 180 2D0 220 2A0 28D
Pattern Legend
Top of Bank
Thalweg
Cross Section
,e
9 Floodprone Area
a e ,~
~~'-t Bankfull ~--
Ns
w
5
4
o s io ~s za 2s
Station
Cr.QSS Section 1 -Riffle
Abkf = 20.4 ft
Dave = 1.5 ft
Wbkf =13.2 ft
Dmax =1.9 ft
Bank Height =1.9 ft
W1D = 8.5
FPA = 75
ENT = 5.7
~a Stream Type = E
F Crows S ..tion 2 - Riffl
Floodprone Area Abkf = 19.9 ft .
'°
4
Cross Sectifln 3 - Ponl
Abkf = 29
2 ft
c b
° Dave = 1.7 ft
Wbkf =11.8 ft c 6
°
~~ .
Wbkf =15.7 ft
B
f
ll
Bankfull
Dmax =1.9 ft •
-
-..._ __
~ ank
u
_ „ _ ___ / Dmax = 2.7 ft
.w_ __ .
5
~
` Bank Height = 1.9 ft ~
w W1D = 7.0 w 5
FPA = 75 4
z ENT = 6.3
1 s '~ 'S 2a zs
Station
° 5 20 25 Stream Type = E
~
.Station
Profile (Reference Reach)
,o~
Save = 0.0112 riselrun
Svalley = 0.0116 riselrun
,o, Sriffle = 0.0195 (0.0178 - 0.0225) rise/run
Spool = 0.0015 (0.0002 - 0.0036) rise/run
o,ao '~ _ .. Srun = 0 (0 - 0) riselrun
~ Sglide = 0.0028 (0.0001 - 0.0054) riselrun
> ~'~---

~ ss ~
w
`
""'~ Profile Legend __
9a
Reference Bed
97
o
zo ao so eo ,oo ,zo
,ao ,ao ,eo
zoo Reference Water Surface
Station ' --
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
Cranberry Creek
Reference
Dimension, Pattern, and
Profile
NA
FIGURE N0.
56
Oate:
July 2007
Project No.:
07-004

520
480
440
400
a6o
)20
280
240
200
i60
X20
40
Cross Section 4
Pattern Legend
Top of Bank
Thalweg
Cross Section
~?ference Pattern
Lp-p =104 (65 -167) ft '" Cro~~ Section 1 -Pool
Lm =199 (102 - 273) ft '~'° Abkf = 44.8 ft ~~ °'
Wbelt = 46.8 (40 - 55) ft o 45 Wbkf = 23.8 ft
Rc = 94 (62 - 312) ft ~~ 9a Dmax = 2.6 ft
Lp-pNVbkf - 3.5 (2.2 - 5.5) ~ s' ~ Axiom Environmental, Inc.
LmlWbkf = 6.6 (3.4 - 9.1) w ~~
WbeltlWbkf =1.6 (1.3 -1.8) 95
Rc/Wbkf = 3.1 (2.1 -10.4)
SIN =1.2 a ~ +D ~ 2D ~_ 5. 55 5a
Station I
Cress Section 3 -
Cross Section 2
i
Cross Sect on 1 J
0
D 4D 8p X20 X60 200 240 Z80 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 660 720 760
,DS Flood rop ne Area _
o ,~ ~ _ Bankfull
.~,
0 02
N X61
W .06
9a
e0 2S 10 35 a0 45 56 55 a6 ~; 7a ~_ BO
Station
toa
to6
Cro~~ S .coon 4 - Riff) .
Abkf = 46.1 ft
Dave = 1.7 ft
Wbkf = 27.2 ft
Dmax = 2.6 ft
Bank Height = 2.6 ft
W/D =16.1
FPA =100
ENT = 3.7
Stream Type = Cb
.rosy S ..tion 2 -Riffle
Abkf = 45.9 ft
~a2 Floodprone Area Dave = 1.4 ft
~'°' Wbkf = 33.0 ft
°io° _ Bankfull Dmax = 2.2 ft
99 ~-~~ Bank Height = 3.9 ft
~ a$ W/D = 23.8
w 9i FPA =100
a +a 'S za zs as ~5 ao as 56 ss 56 ENT - 3.0
Station
Stream Type = Cb
tm
,~
ios
,~
~ 169
~ , 02
:.
c>3 ,D,
~ ro6
w 99
9~
97
96
D
s +p a 2D 2s ~u ss 4a as sD ss sD
Station
104
o toz
N 100
W 98
96
94
92 '
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Station
Cross S . tion 'i -Pool
Abkf = 41.8 ft
Wbkf = 25.0 ft
Dmax=2.7ft
Profile (Reference Reach)
Save = 0.0121 riselrun
Svalley = 0.0131 riselrun
Sriffle = 0.0118 (0.0026 - 0.0183) riselrun
Spool = 0.0097 (0 - 0.0254) riselrun
Srun = 0.0085 (0.0030 - 0.0202) riselrun
Sglide = 0.0041 (0 - 0.0083) riselrun
Profile Legend _ _ _ _ _
Reference Bed
Reference Water Surface
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
Stone Mountain
Reference
Dimension, Pattern, and
Profile
Scale: FIGURE N0.
NA
Date: r A
July 2007 thJH
Project No.:
07-004

Start Restoration
Tributary 1
Station 00+00
Restoration
on 03+84
Legend
Easement Boundary
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
s,~~~m~. Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
_ Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
DitchlChannel Backfill
Marsh Treatment Area
26.7 acres CirOSS Va
6446 linear feet
638 linear feet
875 linear feet
I
6744 linear feet
2.5 acres
2.3 acres
Log Van
Drop Structure
.~-.-__~

~-- ,,,..bs ~ .~
~' ~
fir'//' /
,~~_
I y.
o ~
on
~~
r v~~~ ~+ ~
~ ~~
i
~o
i
~r ,/
f r
!~ ~ /~'jf
~~ '
.t
E i
,4~4, .
s~
I
~Y
r1
o , o0 200
SCALE IN FEET
,.UV-
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration
Plan
Scale, ~~~~ FIGURE N0.
1 in = 110 ft
Date: i
July 2007 6A
Project No.. ~
07-004

~egena
Easement Boundary
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
~- Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
~ Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
DitchlChannel Backfill
0 Marsh Treatment Area
~ Forded Stream Crossing
• ~ ~ -~~ Road Realignment
/°

26.7 acres
6446 linear feet
638 linear feet
875 linear feet
6744 linear feet
2.5 acres
2.3 acres
I~
. ~~ .,.
~ P. ,
~' ~~~
,~~
~.
Ij
,l,
(~ 1
V'" i
r~i
i~
til
~"'~ ',`
1 \ .~-t 1~. /1
X.
F

%~
0 100 200
~~
SCALE IPi FEET
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration
Plan
Scale:- ---_.__T FIGURE No.
~t in-1~10ft~'
Date: i
July 2007 6 g
Project No.:
o7-ooa
Start Enhancement II
Fork Creek
Station 00+00

Legend
Easement Boundary
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
-- -~- Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
~ Wetland Restoration
~~ Wetland Enhancement
DitchlChannel Backfill
0 Marsh Treatment Area
~ Forded Stream Crossing
•~~ ~~ Road Realignment
26.7 acres
6446 linear feet
638 linear feet
875 linear feet
6744 linear feet
2.5 acres
2.3 acres
~' M"~' ~
~~
J Hook Vane
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
`Log Vane --
/ II
~:
~.
-`~-
~•,~ i ~.
i` _ . ..
. # ~ ~._
cture ~`
_.
t
h ~~~
~~~
Braided Channel ` ~ Po~ ~ ~`
Restoration
242 feet '~-
--- '~
Start Restoration '~
Tributary 8
Station 00+00 j
,~
`Start Restoration
Tributary 9
Station 00+00 to 00+43
Start Restoration
Tributar 10
Station ~0+00 to 00+39
on ~ ~-~;,~~~~.:'? wStation 00}04:to 01+10
to 01+30 ~~~ ..~-~ °'~~
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration
Plan
Scale; FIGURE N0
j 1 in=110 ft
Date:
o ioo 200 ' July 2007 ~,
l _ Project No.:
SCALE IN FEET ' 07-004 I
__,::,
Start Restoration
Tributar 7
Station ~0+00
to 02+75

kIEELE
WRIER SURFACE
- - ~ ~ F1.~lATiQRI - ~ -
~~~I~v
867TOM(
CMAYNEI
NOTES.
RUN
RIFFLE

.VARIES SEE "iGlt ~~
TYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE
1. POOL-TO-POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND
,L MAN
VALLEY --1
`S~'ID~E,,SLOPE
`~ P!J/(
'_' 3 y
W. 7 i T
OS 1
eANK SLOPE
E%TEND STONE
BED MATERIAL UP
CHANNEL BANK
10 1!. D rM~
COIR FIBER
'~EROS~ON-
CONTR01 MA?TP,J::
Class B a U
~Ig<g t $19~~-

TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
PROPo
R.0'JU
PDOUENCTH
„«-.....,.h.5..h / MEAD OF
_ = ~ , ~ RIGFI F
7AL OF • yl ... '- 'j , ~R7
RIFFLE ~~ h IFI OF •KT .
R~r F
DESIGN 'N Gtr ~ ~ ,~ ~
CHANNEL ~ QJ~ • `
\ 4
~.
p RIFF - Y °°.,... .. /
- ~~,.
R7
PWL LENGTH
TYPICAL CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL
2. FIELD ADJUSTh1ENTS DF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES THE STAKE-0UT SHALI BE APPROVED 8Y THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORECONSTRUCTION OFTHECHANNEL
~ r;~n~_~
MAX i 1 SLOPE
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
WiILOIM
~'~"`"1
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Project:
CHANNELCONSTRUC110N NOTES
i MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FI OODPI AIN BHALI. BF
USED TG BACKEILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
2. BANK PP.OTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING.
3 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY BED MATERIAL FOR THE ENTIRE BED
LENGTH OF EACH RIFFLE SECTION. THE BED AIATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
A MIX OF CLASS 8 AND CLASS 1 STONE
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH Wbkf (ft. Wbot ft. Dnf(Ift,} Dthal fl D ool tfl. Woo! ft. Wthal ft.
Main Channel Sta 00+00 to 20+50 22 6 18.4 2.1 0.2 2J 29.4 1.0
Main Channel Sla 2D+50 to 42+35 27 2 222 2.5 0.2 3.2 35.4 1.0
Fork Creek 19.4 15.8 1.8 0.2 2.4 25.2 1.0
Tribs. 1.2.3, 4.5, 6, 7,11, and 12 5.7 4.1 0.8 0.2 1.2 7.4 0.5
Tribs. 8.9, and 10 2.6 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 2.6 0.5
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
PROPOSED DIMENSION,
PATTERN, AND PROFILE
NA
Date.
July 2007
Project NO.:
07-004
FIGURE N0.
7

NOTE.
HEADER ANO FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE. ANGULAR BOULDERS
MEASURING A MINIh1UM OF 32' ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION

'~
\O~
~

\ ~ \~ CHANNEL
BANN
\
\
FILTER
\ FABRIC
1
A l
~
t
A
l \

1 L

/
~
~ t
~ 1
~
~
I I I ~ 1 ~ HEADER
CHANNEL I I I
L STONE
BANK I l
t
I
1i ~I 1 I
5'
1 X
1 11 t
I 1
~ •1 11 I
~ ~
I I
~
~~
I
~
~ SCOUR
~~ F007ER
I
I COOL '~ STONE
PLAN VIEW
TYPICAL J-HOOK VANE
PROFLE B-B
REACH ARM LENGTH IFT ~ CHANNEL DEPTH IFTi
A1AIN CHANNEL 20 L' 2 7 Z 5
FORK CREEK 15.0 t 8
TRBL-.ARIES A% ,iA G8
NOTE.
HEADER AND FCbTER STONES ARE LARGE. ANGULAR BOULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 32' ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION q
~ ExlsT
~ CHANNEL
~ HEADER
BANKNEL I I~ I CHANNEL ~ STONE -
{ BANK
~, ,_ FILTER ~ ~ ~"'1
FABRIC~I
' 1
I A
I
I
I
2D- 30
HEADER STONE
I
I
0J -~
C ! I
PLAN VIEW
5'
t
1
Exlsnrlc ~
~ CHANNEL-~~ Y
i ~--HEAD'eR 7
~ NONE ~
I
I
1
FOOTER \
ELEVATION A-A STONE ~
BACK FILL
TO GRADE -,
\~ i:HANNEL
GROUND-T ~,rY/////t (9 i
FIL TFR FAflRIC
HEADER STONE - 0 5
=00TERSTONE
T~•z
`k, c s:"•
Xx•,:'ts~,.
~ HUUK }„~
I>19 STONE
WHERE NEEDED
i
~ FOOTER
ELEVATION A-A STONE
HEADER STONE
F007ER STONE
ROCK FILL
Ia575TONE)
WHERE NEEDED
TYPICAL CROSS-VANE
PROFILE 8-B
BACK FILL
TO GRADE
FLOW
~~ ExlsT
1\\\\\A ~ GROUND
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES
1 EXPOSED VANE OCCUPIES 113 OF THE BANKFULL WIDTH OF
THE CHANNEL
2 SUPPORT PILINGS SHALL BE PENCIL SHARPENED UNTREATED
PEELED. A MINIMUM OF 4 WCHES IN TOP DIAMETER AND 8 FEET LONG
3 LOGS SHALL CON51510F NATIVE HARDWOOD SPECIES. RELATIVELY
STRAIGHT WITH A MINMUM DAMETER OF 15 INCHES AND
APPRO%IMATELY 35 FEET IN LENGTH
4 USE FIVER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS
VEGETATION
TRANSPLANTS
OR UVE STAKING
~DPLAIN BANKFULL STAGE _ _ /
_g____ Top.10°I`l~~
6FT
MIN
CROSS SECTION
T
~0
~!-
\I
V
c
~~~

BURIED ~
~
LOG ~ ~ y
POOL
P
1
PLAN L'IE'N
~ FLOW
~REAn+aE~
..~, 4 FILTER
yam-FABRIC
~. .- BACK-ILL
~-~1" MIN -+
SECTION A-A

SUPPORT
PILINGS W;
GALVANIZED
SPIKES OR
TIE RODS
,, ii
Axiom Environmental, Inc
I
NOTESIREVISIONS
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
TYPICAL LOG VANE -- ------------
Title:
TYPICAL
SUPPORT KdREBAR STRUCTURE
P"'NGT ".2''' ]]] DETAILS
1 \\\ CLOSE-UP OF SUPPORT PIIING
Jj/ -SUPPORT PILNGS SHOULD RE CUT
~r~"~"' SuGHTLVBELOWTHETOPLGG ISC21e'
Ida AFTER PLACING Lots DRIVE REBAR FIGURE N0.
iHROUGHLOGSANDBENDENDS NO SCALE
,aNF I OG - REBAR MAY BE REPLACED WITH LAG
BOLT WITH APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ~ date:
July 2007 ~ /~
Project No.: ~~~,,,JJJ, `
07-004
VEGETATION
TRANSPLANTS
OR LIVE STAKING

NOTE
HEADER AND FOOTER
MEASURING A MINIMU
STREAM FLOW
FILL SCOUL HOLE TO MINIMUM DEPTH
.`
NNISHED
ROODPLAiN
ELE'd ~
FILTER
FABRIC
AGGHLGAIt f
BASE COURSE 0 CLASS A S1UNE
CLASSASTONE LL CHANNEL BOTTOM
PLAN VIEW
PERMANENT CHANNELFORD DETAIL PERMANENT CHANNEL FORD DETAIL
OF CLASS t STONE
PROFILE B-8
1,S
cLASS ~ J
STONE SECTION A-A
15.E
48RIC
nlnaF ¢ral irtl I(lL
f WISHED
FL006PLAIN
ELE`,~
NOTES:
1 KEEP FORD CROSS FALL WITHIN 1~2°/ OF STREAM GRADIENT
2 FILL VOIDS BETWEEN CLASS i STONE WITH
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE CLASS A TO CREATE DRIVEABLE SURFACE.
___
-,
"e
', ,. .
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTESIREVISIONS
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Scale; FIGURE N0.
NO SCALE
Date: I n
July 2007 '!V[
I
Project No..
07-004

_ -~ ~ I'irdmm~VLux
\rRrlalinn I'iednumr \Innnlpin \Innnfain allm ial til rrn m-+idr
A~•ociatian Rutlomland Forest Rrre~1 \+ecmldagc TOI,\
trralarr[.I 5.1 1.0 1.N IJ.l
' Somber "-~of \nmbrr ~nmber 96 of Snmbr
ti(n nes plantnl' nnal pLmnvl° i„of Intel plnnled" lo[al planter
\r~ nip hcstnul uaA
<~~
I~

~~
:<
~~?,r.~,~,vuidr,n~~i.)
111 TI~hJIA 1:IG
GSI 1
15

.. .. ..
t51
-
IC! )r ii L cr,dal _
_- -
sy nn

II'f nmuu rmr;Mnt~trcl

SCI j

j
i
t
>,_' lil - -

r_ - -

B?.;

-
I lu Ah m
If'h h-n¢nrr0 I
___
is
li i
._ .- -
,
:;I

loon an bn SG I( .. -. _. ++I
~Iirl fl!1'(t G141I
I +
' '- -_ .- __ ..___.. _.._
i
I
l7uu a+h
___
-
e
__-
IFrarintu Jhi III .. .. j .. 36i
r, ~ln.,,,,„„i,,,l
_ ~
i
I'i11111,i11
~

?91

8

_`7? III ~ ..

..

i(yr
I,f3rrn~rnl Ielfulkl) ...~_ ... -
rAmctian hnch .. _ ~
1dtl I? I ~. -. 111%
. IFrrRU~ psndlU~drel _
-
-~ _
4f I,lrlllll In ~. R _ '" ~ ^
1118 IS 1118
11 Il !I 1 r vircr)
4r rlh rnrdoal, ~
4

I 111A IS 1 1071
iiU a rn7~ra1
- -...--
- .-..~ .... ~----~-
----
-- - --.
1\hi9•o;a ~ _ '~ t
'
'
1iIN IS ~~ .. 11p1
~I 1 ' ~ ~d6lll A ..
Ill 1 k °hern

I'cr. unnlm +~~ l0 '"
~Ur yt ~ r iRIltrGral y ___ _ __ _. _--
tiilh J ~xr.xi

f(' t u r ~,nunnl +n 7 ~.
_. _. 391i fll

-_
!I'1
111Iacl. uilll~a ' `
~ ` 3917 ie p11'
i.1,Jh nrERn
• _--
Hutumhmh ~.
~f17rh<danlhrn '., .- ._ .. -- 2611 ]a ?hll
..r drnrulirl '.

r
I
. _........ -- -' - - 'e11 `n `all
ISunrhra~n.r: er¢~d,,nr.J - -
TOTAL 1673 IINI Y?0 IINI I1,0Sh IINI 19,119
' I'Imned ar dun , l 64n t n xrc
"I'Imdal drain I ni num.
.~

l
~~
~~l
~~.
Legend
----- Easement Boundary 26.7 acres
® Stream Side Assemblage 4.8 acres
(15 feet each side of channel)
Piedmont Mountain Bottmland Hardwood Forest 5.4 acres
(Wetland Areas)
Piedmont Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 4.0 acres
'Nuisance Species Management will occur primarily within
Streamsitle Assemblage and Hardwood Forest areas for
removal of multiflora rose.
~~'

~~iG~
~~~~ , ..;
`~\
a
,'~
~~,
/~
Iv
yy
~t
,~~, ,'
~,
°~•`
;4;,,
Project:
Threemile Creek
Restoration
Site
Avery County
North Carolina
,~, .
r
'~~~
Title:
Planting
Plan
scale. FIGURE N0.
1 in = 300 ft I
Date: !,
0 300 - 600 July 2007
~ ~ I Project No .
SCALE IN FEET 07-004

Appendix B. Existing Stream Data

dimensions
36.6 x-section area 1.7 d mean
21.8 width 22.8 wet P
2.2 d max 1.6 h d radi
5.6 bank ht 13.0 w/d ratio
32.0 W flood rone area 1.5 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u`
8-8 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

Three Mile Site (Above Fork Creek)- Cross Section 38 Riffle --
82
81
80
79
C
° 78
W 77
76
75
74

0 10 20 30 40 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
RifFle
ucaa iNi
hei ht of instrument
omit distance FS
notes nt. (ftl fft1
78.040866
77.968981
75.643105
74.881302
74.384948
74.53593
74.447975
78.475148
78.815677
>ankfull to of ba
76.32 77.9
60
channel
„n..
70
dimensions
36.5 x-section area 1.6 d mean
23.0 width 24.0 wet P
1.9 d max 1.5 h d radi
3.6 bank ht 14.5 w/d ratio
100.0 W flood rone area 4.3 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u!u"`
8-i3 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

dimensions
36.5 x-section area 2.1 d mean
17.4 width 18.9 wet P
2.9 d max 1.9 h d radi
5.6 bank ht 8.2 w/d ratio
100.0 W flood rone area 5.8 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear veloci ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/ut
9:-9 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

54
53
52
51
c
°- 50
m
w 49
48
47
46
Three Mile Site (Below Fork Creek)- Cross Section 58 Riffle ---
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
0
Riffle
notes
of instrument
FS FS W fpa channel Mannino
inkfull ton of bank (ftl slope (%1 "n"
dimensions
52.9 x-section area 2.8 d mean
18.7 width 21.9 wet P
3.3 d max 2.4 h d radi
5.1 bank ht 6.6 w!d ratio
150.0 W flood rone area 8.0 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear veloci ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u*
8-9 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

i~
i~
i~
i~

1

i~

dimensions
53.0 x-section area 2.3 d mean
22.6 width 24.6 wet P
3.2 d max 2.2 h d radi
4.9 bank ht 9.7 w/d ratio
150.0 W flood rove area 6.6 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear veloci ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u`
&B threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 ftic. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

dimensions
23.6 x-section area 1.8 d mean
13.0 width 16.1 wet P
3.9 d max 1.5 h d radi
4.0 bank ht 7.1 w/d ratio
100.0 W flood rone area 7.7 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
8:-9 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

dimensions
23.6 x-section area 2.0 d mean
12.0 width 14.1 wet P
3.3 d max 1.7 h d radi
3.7 bank ht 6.1 w/d ratio
100.0 W flood rone area 8.3 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear veloci ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ftJsec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u*
9:-0 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

Three Mile Site (Tributaries)- Cross Section 22 Riffle ---
97
~ 95
c
0
a~
w 93
91 +
0
5 10 15 20
Width from River Right to Left (ft)
Riffle
notes
height of instrument
omit distance FS
94.34661
93.10318
91.67361
91.62483
91.52203
93.97284
94.90534
94.61138
bankfull
FS
of ban
25
.,n,.
30
dimensions
4.0 x-section area 0.9 d mean
4.4 width 5.5 wet P
1.3 d max 0.7 h d radi
2.8 bank ht 4.9 w/d ratio
8.0 W flood prone area 1.8 ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocit ftlsec
0.0 dischar e rate, Q cfs)
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit (ft/sec)
0.000 unit stream power (Ibs/ft/sec)
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u*
&-0 threshold rain size (mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm)
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor

i~
ii
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
ii
ii
ii
dimensions
4.0 x-section area 0.7 d mean
6.1 width 7.0 wet P
1.4 d max 0.6 h d radi
2.1 bank ht 9.3 w/d ratio
18.0 W flood rone area 2.9 ent ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit ft/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibslft s
0.00 shear velocit ft/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
8:8 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
i~

rr r rr rr rr rr r rr r rr r~ ~r +r r rr ~r r rr r
Cranberry Creek Profile

o
-
~l
l
!
~ ~

I
~
~
r i ~ i
l
i
~ ~
~ ~ 1
r

~

i

l
-
-
~
-
~
~ i

l
~
i I Ct
i
i
,, __. l Iii ~~ ~ ~ ~J_
: .o vo .o ~, „o .o ~ ~ ,o~

Three Mile Cran Reference
Profile
1
2
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0112
Bed Water
Point Description Station Elevation Elevation
23 tr 0.00 100.3412 101.2718
25 mr 8.32 99 .91862 100.6718
27 mr 24. 70 99. 94679 100.5323
29 mr x2r 34. 00 99. 93489 100.4713
31 br 45. 79 99. 67809 100.2431
33 r x3p 54. 41 99. 07827 100.2443
35 p 64. 77 99. 21253 100.2423
37 tr x1 r(I think; 79. 43 99. 71263 100.2412
39 br 112 .38 99. 23088 99.65434
58 tr 124 .98 98. 78404 99.6089
60 br 156 .79 98. 46779 99.02623
62 run 170 .73 98. 10109 99.02793
64 p 192 .74 97. 62746 99.01141
66 tr 210 .94 98. 59622 98.91259
Revised Revised Revised Revised
Riffle Pool Run Glide
Slope Slope Slope Slope
0.0225
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
0.0178
0.0036
0.0183 0.0000
0.0008
0.0054
average 0.0195 0.0015 0.0000 0.0028
median 0.0183 0.0008 0.0000 0.0028
min 0.0178 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001
max 0.0225 0.0036 0.0000 0.0054

3 Mile Cranberry Refernce Cross Section 1 Riffle-
12

10 I
I
_.-__
~
__~ j

_
~___

i _-._
B --~- _

w -_- ~ --
fi
_~
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 90
Widtn from River Right to Len iftl
section:

de
ri
ti RifTle
p
sc
on.
hei ht of instrument fl - -

notes omit
pt. distance
(h FS
(fl
elevation FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
6ankfull to of bank h sla e % "n"
^
J 10
'~s ~
. 8.45 6.72 G.72
^ 6.04
^ - 7.31 dimensions
^ 6.98 20.4 x-section area 1.5 d mean
^ 6.72 13.2 width 14.9 wet P
^ 5.46 1.9 d max 1.4 h d radi
^ 5.24 1.9 bank ht 6.5 w!d ratio
^ _ 4.64 75.0 W flood rone area 5.7 ant ratio
^ R
~ 4.95
^ _
' 5.06 h draulics
^ ~'t<ii~; 5.66 0.0 velocit tllsec
^ 6.54 0.0 dischar erate, ~ cfs
(] - 6.63 0.00 shear stress Ihs/fl s
^ ~ 7.16 0.00 shear velocit fl/sec
^ 749 0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/Nsec
^ 7.46 0.00 Froude number
^ ~' 0.0 friction factor u/u'

- ^ 0-0 threshold rain size mm
^
^ ~ check from channe materia
^ 0 measured D84 mm
^ 0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. (actor
^ 0.000 Mannin 's n tram channel material
^

10
B
6
4
3 Mlle Cranberry Refernce Cross Section 2 Rinle -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Witlth from R fiver Right to LeR (R)
notes
dimension s
19.9 x-section area 1.7 d mean
11.6 width 14.6 wet P
1.9 tl max 1.4 h d radi
1.9 bank ht 7.0 w/d ratio
75.0 W flood rone area 6.3 ant ratio
h draulics
0.0 velocit Nsec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/fl s
0.00 shear velocit Posec
0.000 unit stream ower 16s/R/sec
O.OD Froutle number
0.0 friction factor Wu'
0,9 threshold rain size mm
c eck from channe materia
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
u

12
10
r 8
m
w 6
4
notes
:~~,~~
3 Mile Cranberry Refernce Cross Section 3 Pool-
0 5 70 15 20 25 30
Width /ram Rver Righ[ to Lefl (fl)
section: -
dimension s
29.2 x-section area 1.9 d mean
15.7 width 18.3 wet P
2.7 d max 1.6 h d ratli
2.7 bank ht
h dreu ics

0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocit ftlsec

B,0 threshold rain size mm

,. ~,
. ~.o
Riffle -
106
105 _.- _ ~ - _-___±-- -~_-_ _-
_- 104 ----}--- _
103
uJ 102
101 --_. _-_-1---
100
0 0.2 04 0.6 0.6 1 1.2
Width from River Right Io Lett (ttl
dimension s r
0.0 x-section area 0.0 d mean
0.0 width 0.0 wet P
0.0 tl max 0.0 h d radi
0,0 bank ht 0.0 w/d ratio
0.0 W flootl rone area 0.0 ent ratio
h tlraulics
0.0 veloci fl/sec
0.0 dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/tt s
O.OD shear veloc- fl/sec
0.000 unit stream ower Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor ulu"
&8 threshold rain size mm
check fro m channe materia ~ ~
0 mea_sur_ed 084 (mm)
N 0.0 ~elative roughness 0.0 (ric. factor
u 0.000 Manning's n from channel material

Stone Mountain -Reference Reach (Profile)
108
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
92 +
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
800

0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Three Mile Reference
Stone Mountain Profile
1
2
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0121
Bed Water
Point Description Station Elevation Elevation
23 tr 0 94.13263 95.28835
25 gl 15.11 93.49411 95.39867
27 r 38.89 93.67068 95.3751
29 br 59.92 94.37789 95.44286
31 tr 82.54 94.22491 95.50187
33 gl 94.29 94.0706 95.48023
35 r 105.39 94.31203 95.76228
37 r/g apex 111.78 94.75754 95.77852
40 r 141.01 94.86304 95.91908
42 br 171.36 94.98409 96.01657
44 mr 256.56 97.16899 97.95923
47 tr 287.32 97.2581 98.12326
49 g 302.71 96.97995 98.25032
113 r 350.51 97.23894 98.32526
115 br 369.26 97.73992 98.70362
117 tr 404.84 98.22537 98.9956
119 gl 419.75 98.03464 99.11351
121 p 429.32 98.05653 99.10281
123 r 452.73 97.5777 99.23967
125 br 464.25 97.93262 99.27449
128 mr 493.98 98.75011 99.82854
150 mr 522.74 99.28535 100.6848
152 mr 548.74 99.83258 100.9343
154 mr 585.36 101.4943 102.3335
156 mr 620.98 101.8458 102.8417
158 mr 656.61 102.4351 103.4359
160 tr 696.02 102.7114 103.52
162 g 709.18 100.9006 103.5193
164 r 717.25 101.3102 103.7075
166 br 724.79 103.0025 103.8044
168 tr 751.50 103.856 104.5526
170 gl 765.81 103.2189 104.5449
186 p 775.07 103.1101 104.6147
188 r/g apex 791.03 103.4307 104.6652
190 gl 805.30 102.3903 104.6703
192 r 815.38 102.5111 104.7109
194 step 830.33 104.8077 105.5761
196 mr 849.89 104.936 105.6655
199 gl 869.07 104.3944 105.8226
Revised Revised Revised Revised
Riffle Pool Run Glide
Slope Slope Slope Slope
0.0000
0.0032
0.0026
0.0000
0.0254
0.0032
0.0182
0.0083
0.0016
0.0202
0.0082
0.0079
0.0038
0.0030
0.0183
0.0000
0.0233
0.0128
0.0000
0.0040
0.0082
average 0.0118 0.0097 0.0085 0.0041
median 0.0132 0.0039 0.0032 0.0040
min 0.0026 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000
max 0.0183 0.0254 0.0202 0.0083

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ r ~^r ~ ~ ~
is
Three Mile Stone Mountain Reference -Cross Section 1 Pool -
104
102 -

100

98

I~I
-

- ~ -j

w t -

96

94 i
-_ '--_~
--
__._.
_.- - -~
-_--._..-_ ,
~
i
~-~
j
__.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Right to left (ft)
section:

description: Pool
, - -~ -• r;; ,
height of instrument (fl):

notes omn
ct. distance
(fl) FS
)ft)
elevation FS FS
bankfull lop of bank channel
slope (%)
102.7709
^ 100-197 97.25 982
i ^ 90.08725
^ 95.44918 dimensions
~ ^ 95.11941 44.8 x-section area 1.9 d mean
~ ^ 94.84799 23.8 width 25.9 wet P
^ ~ 94.78013 2.6 d max 1.7 h d radi
^
~ 94.64073 3.6 bank ht
^ - 95.00487
^ 94.85002
^ 94.876 drau ics
^ 95.55882
^ ~ 97.04423
~ ^ 97.24789 0.00 shear stress (Ibs/ft s )
^ __ 98.1832 0.00 shear velocit fVSec
~ ^ 98.97323
i ^ ~ 99.31775
^ i 99.9911
^ &0 threshold rain size mm
^

n

.__._____- B. _ _ _. --__ - __ _- - i
104
102
100
w
98
96
Three Mile Stone Mountain Reference -Cross Section 2 Riffle -
0
Holes
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width tram River Right to LeM1 (ft)
dimensions
45.9 x-section area 1.4 d mean
33.0
2.2 width
d max 34.3
1.3 wet P
h d radi
2.2
100.0 bank ht
W flood prone area 23.8
3.0 w/d ratio
ent ratio
h drau ics
0.0 velocit fVSec
0.0 dischar a rate, D cfs)
0.00 shear stress Ibs/tt s
0.00 shear velocit fVSec
0.000 unit stream ower IbslPosec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
B:0 threshold rain size mm

c eck rom Llanne malena
0 measured 084 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

ri r~ ri ri r~ rr rr rr r it it rr rr rr r r rr r^ ~r

Three Mile Stane Mountain Reference -Cross Section 3 Pool -
106
106 I

104 -- - --
102 - I ___
{

w 100 --- -_-- T- ____
98

96 . - ---

i -
i --~
i -__
-~-~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width from River Right to Lefl (fl)
i
on:
sect
description.
Pool
height of inslrumem (ft)'.

nines ~n~it distance
rho FS
(ft7
elevation FS FS
bankfull top of bank channel
slo a (% )
^ 1068477
^ 105.655 99.6 102.25
^ 102.7767
^ 98.4834 dimensions
^ - 97.25501 41.8 x-section area 1.7 d mean
^ 96.97777 25.0 width 26.3 wet P
^ 96.92935 2.7 d max 1.6 h d radi
^ 97.90913 5.3 bank ht
^ 98.14921
^ _ - 95.0657fi
^ ~ 100.D636 h rau ics
^ ~ 100.5908
^ - ~- ~ - 102.2509
^ 1 D2.7265 0.00 shear stress ~ Ibslft s
^ I 0.00 shear veloci fUSec

^ I
^ 0-0 threshold rain size mm
^

a

Three Mile Stane Mountain Reference -Cross Sec4on 4 Riffle -
106
105 - --~ -
-~-- I
~ 104
c
I
o i
a 107 ---___- _-__..._
I
w 102 I
101 ---~~_--t----t- -- i
100
0 70 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width from River Rght to Left (tt)
notes
dimension s
46.1 x-section area 1.7 d mean
27.2 width 28.4 wet P
2.6 d max 1.6 h d radi
4.1 bank ht 16.1 w/d ratio
100.0 W flood rone area 3.7 ant ratio
h drau ics
0.0 veloci fUSec
0.0 dischar a rate, ~ (c(s
0.00 shear stress (Ibslft s
0.00 shear velocit fVSec
0.000 unit stream ower IbslfVsec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 faction (actor u/u'
(LO threshold rain size (mm)

c eck fro m c anne materia
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric, factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel materia l
u

1
t

Appendix C. Bankfull Verification
t

t
Stone Mountain Reference
(DA = 7.5 square miles)
Raninn• Rli~n Ri.InnlDinel.......~
Return Interval
( ears) Discharge
(cfs)
1.3 385
1.5 410
2 555
5 947
10 1270
25 1750
50 2160
100 2620
200 3140
500 3930
Bold indicates interpolated data.
Cranberry Creek Reference
(DA = 0.7 square mile)
RPninn• Rli~n Ri,Ina/Piuiimnn*
Return Interval
( ears) Discharge
(cfs)
1.3 65
1.5 80
2 105
5 190
10 264
25 378
50 480
100 596
200 729
500 935
liOld indicates interpolated data.
Onsite Cross-section with
Bankfull Indicators
(DA = 4.7 square miles)
Raninn• Rluu Ridnn/Diudw.nnF
Return Interval
( ears) Discharge
(cfs)
1.3 260
1.5 300
2 400
5 690
10 930
25 1290
50 1610
100 1960
200 2360
500 2960
tlold IndlGates Interpolatetl data.
Regional Regression Method
Threemile Creek Restoration Studies
Stone Mountain Reference
Regional Regression Method (Blue Ridge/Piedmont)
4500
4000
'~ 3500
d 3000
a~2500
~ 2000
~ 1500
a 1000
~ 500
0
1 10 100 1000
Return Interval (years, logarithmic scale)
Cranberry Creek Reference
Regional Regression Method (Blue RidgelPiedmont)
tooa -
eoo
;, soo
.°c 400
c zoo
0
1 10 100 looo
Return Interval (years, logarithmic scale)
OnsiteCmss-section
Regional Regression Method (Blue Ridge/Piedmont)
3500
3000
2500 ~
irzooo
t 1500
„ 1000
'p 500
0
1 10 100 1000
Retum Interval (years, logarithmic scale)

i

1
1

w

Appendix D. Site Photographs

Threemile Creek
Preconstruction Photographs
March and May 2007

~'
p^' +~ ,q
~ ,,§~
~v:~. _-
Y
~,~ ,~-

`s
,,
`
~
1

.w. ~
~ ~, ~,
.~ x"~4

1

Appendix E. Categorical Exclusion Document

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
1

1
1
1
1
1

Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation)
as the environmental document.
•
.
Pro'ect Name: Three Mile Restoration Site
Coun Name: Ave
EEP Number: Contract # D06125A
Pro'ect S onsor: Restoration S stems, LLC
Pro'ect Contact Name: Travis Hamrick
Pro'ect Contact Address: 1101 Ha nes Street, Suite 107, Ralei h, NC 27607
Pro'ect Contact E-mail: travis restorations stems
EEP Pro'ect Mana er: Gu Pearce
. - ~-
The Three Mile Creek Restoration Site is located approximately 5 miles northeast of Spruce Pine,
in southwestern Avery County It is located in Cataloging Unit 06010108 of the French Broad
River Basin and in Targeted Local Watershed 06010108010020. The Site encompasses
approximately 22.7 acres of land that is utilized for Christmas tree production, ornamental
landscape nursery plant production, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. A total of 8,021
Stream Mitigation Units and 2.3 Wetland Mitigation Units will be implemented by a combination of
restoration, enhancement, and reservation.
• - ~
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
7_
~
,,~ ,
~
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
^ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By'
~ ~ .
~
.
i ~-~ `i.
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Environmental Documentation
for
Three Mile Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract Number D06125-A
Categorical Exclusion Form Items
CZMA
Not applicable, as the project is not located in a LAMA county.
CERCLA
See the attached Executive Summary of the limited Phase 1 Site Assessment.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 1061
See the attached letters to and from the State Historic Preservation OfFce. SHPO recommended
that an archaeological survey of the site be conducted. RS contracted with Legacy Research
1 Associates, Inc. and the survey was conducted. Two copies of the report were submitted to
SHPO and they have concurred with the conclusions. See the attached Management Summary
from the report.

Uniform Act
See the attached notification letter to the landowner.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
A request for concurrence and a copy of the archaeological report was submitted to Mr. Tyler
Howe, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, EBCI. See the attached correspondence to Mr.
Howe. He did not offer any comments on this project.
Antiquities Act
Not applicable
as the project is not located on Federal lands
,
.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Not applicable
as the project is not located on Federal or Indian la
d
,
n
s.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Letter sent to EBCI. No response.
Endan erg_ed Species Act
Literature and field searches revealed that no suitable habitat nor species occurrence exists for
the eight Federally protected species listed for Avery county. See the attached internal memo
with the Biological Conclusion of No Effect.

Executive Order 13007
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal Lands within a county claimed by the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

Farmland Protection Policy Act
Ten acres of prime farmland and 0.7 acre of statewide important farmland will be impacted by
the project. See the attached USDA Form AD-1006 and correspondence with the NRCS.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
See the attached letters to the NCWRC and the USFWS. Only the NCWRC provided continent
on the project. They had no objection to the project and suggested that it could improve the trout
fishery in the watershed. They also stated that they will require review of the application of the
nationwide permit that will be required for the project because the project is located in a "trout
county."
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
Not applicable. The project will not convert recreation lands.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Not applicable. The project is not located in an estuarine system.
Mig a~- tory Bird Treaty Act
See the attached letters to the NCWRC and the USFWS. Neither agency made a comment on the
project relative to this act.
Other Ivlisceltaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in the Mitchell News.

1

t~~uuril R~~au~z:e
Rc'tittn~ttiun;~ C~~n~i~atiun
March 12, 2007
1
1
1
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: EEP-Three Mile Stream & Wetland Full Delivery Project, Contract Number D06125-A
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has been awarded a contract by the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) to implement a stream and wetland restoration project in Avery County. As required
by the contract, RS requests your review of the project and any comments that you may .have with
respect to archaeological or historical resources associated with it. The location of the project is
shown on the attached map.
The Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration site has been identified for the purpose of providing
in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel
have been identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts
have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. In
addition, the majority of this site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as
hay production and cattle grazing. The ground disturbance activities required to complete this project
will only impact those areas that have previously been impacted due to these agricultural practices.
The site is located on the Spey Farm, approximately 7 miles northeast of Spruce Pine in Avery
County (Figure I ). The project involves the restoration of approximately 6,500 feet of Three Mile
Creek, 250 feet of Fork Creek and 2.3 acres of wetlands (Figure 2). An additional 5,000 linear feet
of stream will be protected in its natural state within the easement boundaries. The property is owned
by Ms. Mary Spry.
We request that you review this site based on the information provided to determine if you know of
any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please provide us with your
comments regarding the proposed project.
j Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please fee{ free to contact me at the
office [phone] or on my cell phone [phone] if you have any questions.
Si cerely,
~ ~~~
1 Travis Hams ,Project Manager
Attachments: 2 maps
Pilot 4ti11 • I I(il Ha}nes St.. Suite 107 • Raleigh. NC ?76(kl • w~r~t.restorations~stems.coui • Phone 919.7ji.9-}<~ • Fix 919.7j5.y:~y?
1

r r r rr ~r ~r ~r r r r w~ rr rr rw r ~r rr ~r r
~~ , ~~~ r ~' °`' ~ ~~ r "~ `~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ '" Directions (From Spruce Pine, NC):
Overview Map .f ,~ , ;`~ ~~-•• ~.,-- _-..- ,,,)'`
,~' - ~~w!g ~,.-~~} i„~ f ~ '`:y e, ~`../, 1. Travel North on US Route 19E (5 miles)
~ ~ 1 , ,r;` ~" %'~~ ` ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. Turn Ri ht onto US Route 194 1.5 miles)
~1'~,j g (
J'..~ { %,r°'!~-~„i h` ~- "'f ~ :..,,,-. 3. Site is on right- large white farmhouse.
~~'~.. ~ ma'r' ,.~~ '~_ !~~ ~./ ,
Avery -~1y f ' ~1y ! }~~ i .~"1 ~ ~„ ~ ~
~ ~ '~ tin r` ~~,.1f ~ il,/\ , r` ~ ` `~
~Mlrchell ~ i- --...~ {x a> ~;~ ` cti \.r-... ~r ham{ ~..•,._y ~ ~~~~~J ':rl; l
.~.
-, ~t ~_ 221 j ' ~ ./., ~~', ~ - Y V ~'" _ ~ .., (i ~~
. a '~ '~ ~~~'' _._. ~ns~ , c -cry„Y.i~
.~ -
Figure 1: Project Location ~ 1 inch equals 2.OOD feet
Threemile Stream & Wetland ~ Project Area
Restoration Site N o %~ ~•4~ '$~ 4.'~ S.GOOet
~ Avery County. NC

r~ r r r . r r r rr . re r ~r ~r r r ~r ~r ~r

~~~v
~e ~M~
vaw
i~ticllael F. Easley, Oovemor
Lisbeth C. vans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Apri13, 2007
Travis Hamrick
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St., Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
ORice of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: E]P, Three IVlile Stream and Wetland Restoration, Northeast of Spruce Pine, Avery County,
1/R 07-061.3
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
Thank you for your letter of March 12, 2007, concerning the above project.
'T'here are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However;-rhe~project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site farms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A Gst of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in conrxact work in North
Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc us/consults htm. The archaeologists listed, or any other
ex~3erienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
fart 800.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Offlce
Peter B. Stu:dbeck, Adminiatrator
Locatloo biafllne Address TelophondNax
ADM4WSTILiTION SOT N. Blount Stroet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4GiT (919)733-4763833-8653
RRS'I'ORATION S IS N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Scrvico Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING S I3 N. Blmmt Streel, Raleigh, NC 4Gi7 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-•1617 (419)773-6545815-4$01

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 est. 246. In all Future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
~~ v f
P ter Sandbeck

Naturtl Rt~~~iurt~•
R~~t~ a ati~ nr ~L Cr x~~et1'ati~ ~r r
May 15, 2007
•
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
' Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 29699-4617
' Subject: EEP, Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration, Northeast of Spruce Pine, Avery County, ER
07-0613
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
Please find enclosed two copies of the report titled "Archaeology Survey for the Three- Mile
I Creek Stream-and-Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County, North Carolina" and one copy of the
associated Archaeology Site Form III.
On April 3, 2007, you responded to Restoration Systems (RS) request for concurrence on this
project that is being implemented for the EEP. In your response, you recommended that RS have a
comprehensive survey of the project conducted by an experienced archaeologist. RS contracted with
Legacy Research Associates, Inc., to conduct the recommended survey.
' Three sites were identified in and adjacent to the project boundaries. The one site located within
the project boundary (Site 3 t AV 120) consists of a "non-diagnostic prehistoric lithic isolated End" and no
further archaeological work was recommended. The two additional sites identified are both located
outside the project boundaries. Site 31 AV 121 is a cemetery adjacent to Highway 194 and is well outside
(> 70 meters) the project boundary. There will be zero chance of impacts to this site as a result of stream
and wetland restoration work. Site 3lAV 1 I9 "appears to represent long-term habitation" and is
immediately adjacent to the project boundary. We concur with the recommendation from Legacy
Research for "site avoidance" and as a result, fencing will be placed around the site to insure its boundary
is clearly identified and avoided.
' Based on this survey, RS requests a letter of concurrence from your office to complete
Environmental Screening of the project. I would appreciate receiving such a letter at your earliest
' convenience.
Si cerely, ,
~~
Travis Ham ick, Project Manager
Enclosures
Pilot iviill • I IO1 Hahne, St_. Suite 11)7 • Ralci~~h. 1~tC ?~60-t • ~~ ~~ ~~.re~turationsy~tenn.~om • Phone 919.7;; <):}yO • Fas 919.7~:i.9~9?

Archaeological Survey for the Three-Mile Creek Stream-and-
Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County, North Carolina
Archaeological Survey for the Three-Mile Creek Stream-and-Wetland Restoration Project in
Avery County, North Carolina
North Carolina Environmental Review # 07-0613
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Legacy Research Associates, Inc. (Legacy) of Durham, North Carolina, on behalf of Restoration Systems,
LLC, of Raleigh, North Carolina, has completed the archaeological survey for the Three-Mile Creek stream-
and-wetland restoration project in Avery County, North Carolina (North Carolina Environmental Review
Number 07-0613). The project encompasses approximately 71.1 hectares or 175.8 acres (Figure 1).
Within the project boundaries, 1 7.7 km (1 1 mi) of restoration and 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of preservation
are planned (Figure 2).
The purpose of this survey was to locate, document, and conduct National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)-eligibility evaluation investigations for archaeological resources within the project area of potential
effects CAPE) that may be affected by the proposed restoration of stream-and-wetland areas.
This work complies with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Archaeological
and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 1 1593, and 36 CFR Parts 660-66 and 800, as
appropriate. It follows the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office guidelines and meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal
Register 48). All information submitted in this report is factual and sufficiently complete to enable the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to perform the necessary reviews.
Background Research
Before initiating the archaeological survey, a thorough review of state and local survey data was
performed. This included the files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and historic
documents, maps, and county histories held at the State Library of North Carolina. Both repositories are
located in Raleigh.
Data collected during the background research provided information necessary to understand the historic
context of any resources identified during the survey. The data also enabled an assessment of existing
cultural resources within the project area.
No previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the proposed Three-Mile Creek stream-
and-wetland restoration project boundaries or within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project.
Field Investigation Results
The archaeological survey of the Three-Mile Creek stream-and-wetland project was conducted by Legacy
on April 17 and 18, 2007. Deborah Joy served as project director; Jared Roberts served as field director;
Andrea Kontrath, Rhonda Cranfill-Moran, Chris Pettyjohn, and Jay Stevens assisted.
The archaeological investigation consisted of pedestrian survey, informant interviews, and subsurface
shovel testing within the project APE. The survey resulted in recording three archaeological sites. One

Archaeological Survey for the Three-Mile Creek Stream-and-
Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County, North Carolina
site (31AV120) is located within the APE, the second site (31AV1 19) adjoins the APE, and the third
(31 AV121 **) is located outside the APE (Table 1). A description of these three archaeological sites follows.
y .
~..
rs
IY' ~., ,.
~~ ~. r.
#~ r
,:
i.
..
.. ~ 1 ;
Figure 1. Three-Mile Creek stream-and-wetland restoration project location map (Restoration Systems, LLC).

Archaeolooical Survey for the Three-Mile Creek Stream-and
Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County. Yorth Carolina
c
~~
- _
x~''' ~ e
~ ~
S~, d
'r}. o
~_a'
' 31 A`:12"'
NeifnuC tVJ~~`
t ..1
' M I Ge•k t am and Wetiand aeswratron ?ra3e:t
E0. 7. -a613
A rvc n.rc
~ ~ :11 ells, vC USCS Quadrangle
a4 HAO 2 ~ UTLt i 14 ueters
j__ i Escuo .,
~.'
3rte BounCary -~
0
t
Q ?caiea A?'c ,. ,
I ':' y
_.__.i~
AVI I9 ~. r
~_
' ].
. (. .. V
Three Knoba ~~ ,
_ ~ ~~: -
.ar.v ~' e~ ----
~MS:.
n k .. .t=
/ ~: Rya ~ 11 Pisq?-„ y . .
. ec ~ ;,
. ~
k ,~...,
v _.
..
~.__
I ,~ 2 ~L'"f ...
~"~`~ ~ } c ~ .. I
'~~ ~' ~r-r , ,
t `... ~ - ~ ~ t~ Sr ~ -
4 ~ V
~ 1 atJ'
R Vt11ey ; r ~ ZS - ~ '.
_ 8,,,_ ~ ~
~ ~~
R i d
Figure 2. Site location and project APE map (USGS 1994).
r~

t
Archaeological Survey for the Three-Mile Creek Stream-and-
Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County, Nonh Carolina
Table 1. Archaeolo ical sites recorded durin the Three-Mile Creek stream-and-wetland restoration ro'ect surve .
Site Number Component(s) Description NRHP-Eligibility project Recommendation
Recommendation
Prehistoric, Middle Eligible under No further work. However, the boundary of
31 AVl 19 Archaic to Early Long-term Criterion D for its the site adjoins the project APE. This area
Woodland habitation information should not be used as a temporary staging
otential area durin construction
Unknown Lithic
31 AV120 prehistoric isolated find Not Eligible No further work
Eligible under
Criterion B for its
31 AVl 21 ** Historic, early-19th Cemetery association with the No further work, outside project APE
century lives of persons
significant in our
ast
31AV119 is a large prehistoric site located on the north side of Three-Mile Creek. The site is situated on a
first terrace and side slope landform, adjacent to the northeastern boundary of [he project APE. This site
area consists of a plowed field and grassy pasture.
Based on the results of the archaeological survey, 31 AVl 19 appears to represent long-term habitation
that dates from the Middle Archaic to the Early Woodland period. The estimated size of 31AV1 19 is 60 m
(197 ft) north-south and 240 m (787 ft) east west. The eastern boundary of the site adjoins the project
' APE (see Figure 2).
This site is recommended as being eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its information potential.
The site contains intact deposits, diversity in artifact material and type, and there is potential for the
presence of cultural features that could add to our understanding of the prehistory of the region. Site
avoidance is recommended. It is also recommended that the use of heavy machinery on the site should be
avoided. If the portion of the site adjacent to the project APE cannot be avoided, then additional
archaeological investigations are recommended in this area.
31 AV120 is a prehistoric isolated find that was located on the floodplain of the north side of Three-Mile
Creek and within a grassy pasture. The site lies approximately 60 m (197 ft) south of Spry Farms, which is
a complex consisting of two barns, a shop, and a dwelling.
' Based on the results of the archaeological survey, 31 AVl 20 represents anon-diagnostic prehistoric lithic
isolated find. The site measures approximately S m by 5 m (16.4 by 16.4 ft). The entire site lies within
' the project boundaries. Due to the sparse artifact recovery and lack of diagnostic material, this site is
recommended as being not eligible for the NRHP; it cannot add new information to our understanding of
the prehistory of the area. No further archaeological work is recommended.
31AV121** is an early-nineteenth-century cemetery located north of Spry Farms on the south side of US
Route 194 (Three-Mile Highway). The cemetery lies approximately I km (0.6 mi) north of Temp Site 2,
which is outside the project APE.

Archaeological Survey for the Three-Mile Creek Stream-and-
Wetland (iestoration Project in Avery County. North Carolina
The cemetery is not depicted on the current Linville Falls, NC, USGS topographic quadrangle map (USGS
1994). Through consultation with the Site Registrar of the North Carolina OSA, it was determined this
resource should be recorded as an archaeological site even through it lies outside the project APE (Susan
Myers personal communication 2007).
The cemetery was used by the William Davis family who lived in nearby during the late-eighteenth- and
early-nineteenth centuries (Arthur 2002). William Davis served as a Corporal during the Revolutionary War
and was a local hero. The Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) erected a stone monument atop
the location of William Davis' grave and his wife Frances' that is inscribed (Avery County Historical
Museum):
CPL. WILLIAM DAVIS FRANKY CARPENTER WEATHERMAN DAVIS
20 NC REGT., 1778-1781 BORN 1755 DIED SEPT. 10, 1842
BORN c. 1727 DIED OCT. 5 1841
It is not known how many other members of the Davis family were buried in this cemetery; however, early-
nineteenth-century documentation noted that plain rocks once marked Davis' grave and the graves of two
others (Arthur 2002). Currently, two fieldstone markers lie next to the DAR monument. The cemetery
encompasses an area of approximately 8 m (26.2 ft) by 8 m (26.2 ft).
This resource lies outside the project APE and will not be affected by the proposed Three-Mile Creek
stream-and-wetland restoration project. Therefore, no further archaeological work is recommended.
However, the cemetery is recommended as being eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B for its association
with the lives of persons significant in our past. According to the Avery County Museum, William Davis
was the last surviving veteran of the Battle of King's Mountain of October 7, 1780; and he was present at
Yorktown when General Cornwallis surrendered to Washington (Avery County Historical Museum). Davis
also served with Braddock during the French-and-Indian War and later with the Continental Army.
The Davis family homestead was located near the project area. In 1805, Davis was granted 100 acres on
Rogers Fork of Three-Mile Creek (Burke County, NC, Deed Book 1 19, Page 209); the confluence of Rogers
Fork and Three-Mile Creek is located within the project APE. Davis built four connecting log cabins and
according to the Avery Museum website, "Davis's log home ... stood not far from (his gravesite) and has
long been torn down" (Avery County Museum; Arthur 2002). No archaeological evidence of historic
occupation within the project APE was found during the survey.
vi

~°~~~~~ o~~~~~~
0
~ JUN 2 8 2007
Michael F, Easley, Covetnor
Lisbelh C. Evans, Secretary
Jefli-ey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 26, 2007
Travis Hamrick
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St., Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Oitice of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: CEP, Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration, Northeast of Spruce Pine, Avery County,
' ER 07-0613
Dear LVIr. Hamrick:
' Thank you Eor your letter of Map 15, 2007, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Le acy Research
g
Associates, Inc. for the above project. The report meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary .of the
' Interior.
During the course of the survey one site was located within the project area, and two sites were located
' adjacent to the project boundaries. For purposes of compli<1nce with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under the ci:iterion cited:
31AV119 Criterion D 31AV119 is a huddle Archaic to Early Woodland period habitation
site with intact cultural deposits.
' 31r1V121** Criterion B 31AV121** is an early 19'" century cemetery associated with
Revolutionary War soldier William Davis.
The following property is deternuned ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
31AV120
31AV120 is an isolated find laclung sufficient density of cultural material to have the potential to yield
information important in history or prehistory.
' The report authors have recomtended no further work at 31AV120. Avoidance is recommended for
31AV119 which borders the project area and for 31AV121** which lies outside the project area, We concur
with these recommendations. If 31AV119 cannot be avoided, additional archaeological work is necessary.
Location Mailtag Address 'l'clcphondFaY
O ADAiINISfRAT10N 507 N. Dlount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Maii Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-46; 7 (9(9)733-4763/733-8653
RESTORATION S I S N. Dlount Suet, R.ileigh NC 4G 17 Meil Service Center, Reloigh NC 27699-06! 7 [phone]/715-0801
SURVEY & PLAYNING 515 N. Dlount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter D. Sendbec!4 Adrrwiistrntor

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Pxeservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations Eor Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-barley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 est. 246. In all future
communication concerning tlus project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
~~R-
~~1~.~
Peter Sandbeck
cc: Carrie Collins, Legacy Research Associates, Inc.

~~i~ ~I~~IaU~ ql ~~: ~ ~ ~Ilv`IZ :IUD ail
October 1 U, 2006
Ms. Mary Spry
2145 Three Mile Rd.
Newland, NC 28657
Dear Ms. Spry:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in
offering to purchase your property in Avery County, North Carolina, does not have the
power to acquire it by eminent domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase
your property is based on what we believe to be its fair market.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-755-9490
Sincerely,
y ti
Travis Hamrick
Project Manager

Naturll Resc~ultc
R~~G )liltll ~Il c` ~ (111~i:1\ ~lU~ II1

March 12, 2007 '
Mr. Tyler Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject: EEP- Three Mile Creek Stream 8 Wetland Full Delivery Project, Contract Number
D06125-A
Dear Mr. Howe:
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has been awarded a contract by the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) to implement a stream and wetland restoration project in Avery County. As
required by the contract, the EEP requests review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to archaeological or religious resources associated with a potential
stream and wetland restoration project. Please review the attached maps for general project
location (Figure 1) and areas of ground disturbance for project implementation (Figure 2).
A similar letter has been sent to the North Carolina State Preservation Office for compliance
with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act.
The Three Mile Stream 8 Wetland Restoration site has been identified for the purpose of
providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel 8 wetland impacts. No architectural
structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of
the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of this site has historically been
disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as hay production and cattle grazing. The ground
disturbance activities required to complete this project will only impact those areas that have
previously been impacted due to these agricultural practices.
The project involves the restoration of approximately 6,500 linear feet of Three Mile Creek and
250 linear feet of Fork Creek. In addition to the restoration of the Three Mile and Fork Creeks,
the project consists of 5,000 liner feet of stream preservation on 10 Unnamed Tributaries to
Three Mile Creek. Approximately 1.3 acres will be impacted for wetland restoration while an
additional 2 acres of existing wetlands will receive impacts from enhancement activities
(invasive species removal and native vegetation planting). The project is located approximately
7.3 miles northeast of Spruce Pine, North Carolina (Figure 1). The property is owned by Ms.
Mary Spry.

Pilot ~~lill • I t01 Haynes Sl.. Suite 1117 • Raleigh. vC ?761W • ,c~~ ~~.rcst~~rationsystenu.cont • Phone 919.7i5,y.~yQ • FiLC 919.7ij.y-t~)?

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you know of
any existing resources that need to be brought to our attention. In addition, please let us know
the level your future involvement with this project needs to be (if any). You may contact me at
the office [phone] or on my cell phone [phone].
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
the below referenced EEP Project Manager with any questions that you may have concerning
the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
~t ,~- l
Travis Hamrick, Project Manager
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc:
Guy Pearce, EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Attachments: 2 maps

~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~
~r Y r,
Overview Map ~, ;;~~r ~"'~~-.3~ ° ~",~ ~~+ ~~~"~' j «~'` ` { ~.~' Directions (From Spruce Pine. NC):
,, ~ ~,,~ !}~ r-~'s~ ~ `., ~ ~-=-`~~~ ` 1. Travel North on US Route 19E (5 miles)
~ `° `~'_ ~ ''`~ ~ ~ i ~` ~~) 2. Turn Right onto US Route 194 (1.5 miles)
'"''~ ,~..~ _~~~~< °~ . ~ '~! ~ ''~(,,,~ ~; ~ 3. Site is on right- large white farmhouse.
Avery ~ -.1~y ~,..,~`.' : 1.~.~...~-~ ~` ~_ .1 '' ;!- ~~.;.
'~.- ,. Sty- ~ ,~ C` #,,.. ,l ^ ~~ ..
Mltchell ~ i' J `• " t ~' jr ~"'~ ~ . ~~ ._ ~,,~; ,'`,,.
~ ~ `~ r
~ MCUOW f ~' L-..~ .4' ~•a ' r ~~~,1;.,. F~' ..- ~ rf• ~ .~ ~ ~ /~ •~ J '~`~ `.i
r"~ ~ ~ ~~`` , I ; ~Q/erf ~ ~ ~_ l.~ ,~ 1 wl j I f! '~(, It (~f~ ~ /~~~16
t~ ~-
4}
. It
a
~~ ~' ...
y~ ~
p .. S\ ~J
~. n
• +
• VV
___ ~ .
/V
~( _ ~ ~~ w ~ , . ~,,.1. y ~ - Project Area • . ~ ~,
` r ,JA
„ff C 1. --~ .Y„ ~: '`
..
...~ 1 .._
,. `r; '~
~~ ~f'
,,~
,ck~
~,.
w
t 1.4
.~
_. ;
_~
..
• t
%`-
... r„ , r
~U1LR t7tlL e ~ .: . \ ~ s ~ ~ ~ . .'/`_fi=~=~-~,~'~' _ l-''`~./`~ .ru._ .• A r. ,ice ~ - .. ~t ~ 1 _ ,
Figure 1: Project Location 1 inch equals 2.000 feet
Threemile Stream & Wetland ~ Project Area ~ o ~~ i aoo , eoo 4.2~ s.soo
Restoration Site N Feec
~~
Avery County. NC

Nanu~tl R~scntrtc
Rc ~t,~t Dui, m ~~: Cr,n~ n ati~,n
June 4, 2007
Mr. Tyler Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject: Three Mile Creek Archaeological Survey
Dear Mr. Howe:
~ Please find enclosed a copy of the report entitled "Archaeology Survey for the Three- Mile
Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County, North Carolina." This report
was required by the State Historical Preservation Office to fulfill part of the Categorical
' Exclusion process for our restoration project in Avery County. Restoration Systems contracted
with Legacy Research Associates, Inc., to conduct the recommended survey.
Three sites were identified in and adjacent to the project boundaries. The one site located within
the project boundary (Site 31AV120) consists of a "non-diagnostic prehistoric lithic isolated find"
and no further archaeological work was recommended. The two additional sites identified are
both located outside the project boundaries. Site 31AV121 is a cemetery adjacent to Highway
194 and is well outside (> 70 meters) the project boundary. There will be zero chance of
impacts to this site as a result of stream and wetland restoration work. Site 31AV119 "appears
to represent long-term habitation" and is immediately adjacent to the project boundary. We
"
"
concur with the recommendation from Legacy Research for
site avoidance
and as a result,
fencing will be placed around the site to insure its boundary is clearly identified and avoided.
if you have any questions concerning this report you may contact me at the office (919) 755-
9490 or on my cell phone [phone].
S cerely
1 ravis Hamrick, Project Manager
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604

Pilot (Viill • 1101 Haynes St.. Suite 107 • Raleigh. YC'76(kl • ~~~~ u.resu,rationsystent,.eom • Phone 91y.75i.y-1y0 • Fax [phone]x92

July 16, 2005
MEMO TO: Dave Schiller
FROM: Randy Tumer
SUBJECT: Three Mile Creek Restoration Site: Biological Conclusions for Federally
Listed Species that are Known From Avery County
Based on the most recently updated (05/10/07) county-by-county database of federally
listed species in North Carolina as posted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countvfr.html, eight federally protected species are
listed for Avery County. Table 1 lists the federally protected species for Avery County
and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each species.
Table 1. Federal) Protected S ecies for Ave Count ^
Habitat Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status' Present Conclusion
Within Site
Bo turtle
g Clemmys
muhlenber ii
Threatened (S/A)
Yes
Not Applicable
Carolina northern Glaucomys

fl in s uirrel
sabrinus coloratus Endangered No No Effect
Virginia big-eared Corynorhinus
bat townsendii Endangered No No Effect
vir inianus
tnverteorates
Spruce-fir moss I Mirrohexura I Endangered I NO No Effect
SnlrjP_r mnnr'iv~n~
Plants
Blue Ridge
oldenrod Solidago
s ithamaea Threatened No No Effect
Heller's blazin star Liatris helleri Threatened No No Effect
Roan Mountain bluet Hedyotis purpurea
var. montana Endangered No No Effect
S readin avens Geum radiatum Endan erect No No Effect
~nuanya~CU = a raxvn m ganger or exnncnon mrougnout an or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon
'likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a signifignt portion of its range°; Threatened
(S/A} = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection;
these species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Secdon 7 consultation.
The analyses conducted on behalf of each species listed above includes:
• Review of each listed species' natural history including bloom window,
soil relationships, general habitat requirements; elevation restrictions, etc.
Thorough evaluation of all habitats within the conservation easement of
the project, not just areas likely to be disturbed by construction;
Formulation of conclusions about Site availability of suitable habitat for
each species;

• Development of biological conclusions.
Field evaluations were conducted in February and September 2006, as well as May
2007. Of the eight listed species, only one, the bog turtle, has any reasonable chance
of occurring within the project conservation easements. The "bog" located at the
extreme east end of the project appears to be suitable habitat for the bog turtle, which is
listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (T-S/A) with the Northern
population of bog turtle. Section 7 consultation is not required for T-S/A listed species,
consequently, no surveys have been conducted for this species. Based on the scope of
work planned in this area, no risks are foreseen to the bog turtle.
Based on the absence of suitable habitat for each of the 7 remaining listed species,
none of the other species is likely to occur within the boundaries of the project.
Furthermore, the only habitat likely to be impacted within the project easement is farm
fields. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on
federally listed species.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on March 7,
' 2006 and no known element occurrences have been documented within the Site. Bog
turtles were documented to occur approximately 1 mile northeast of the Site near the
town of Pyatte and approximately 1 mile downstream/southwest of the Site near Mullin
' Hill.
cc: Travis Hamrick

1.tttu:rl Rt'~cutrZ~e
It:',k ~rttt i~ n t ~~ (', xr~c n Ott i~ n t
March 12, 2007
Haywood County NRCS Office
Waynesville Service Center
589 Raccoon Rd. Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786
[phone] (Ext. 105)
ATTN: Kent Clary
SUBJECT: Completion of NRCS Form AD-1006 for Three Mile Creek Stream &
Wetland Full Delivery Project (Contract Number D06125-A) in compliance with the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
Mr. Clary,
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC has been awarded a contract by the EEP
to provide 8,021 feet of stream and 2.3 acres of riverine wetland mitigation at the Three
Mile Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site in Avery County, North Carolina.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with the NRCS to
complete Form AD-1006 in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act on
behalf of the FHWA. The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in
completion of the Form.
The project is located on the Spry Farm, approximately 7 miles northeast of Spruce Pine
in Avery County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude at the project
center is 35.98300 Nand -8 l .98000 W. The project consists of two named tributaries of
the North Toe River (Three Mite and Fork Creeks) and 11 unnamed tributaries that flow
Pilut 4till • 1101 Hanes St.. Suite I(}7 • Raleigh. NC ?7(~(U • ~r~r~~.restarnions~stems.com • Phone 919~7ij.9~490 • Fax 419.7j.9a9?

into Three ~,lile Creek (Figure ?). A map (Figure 3) depicting the type of soils «~ithin the
area of restoration as well as the total acreage is included.
' The Site includes approximately 22.7 acres of land situated on the northern flank of Doe
Hill i4lountain, between the termini of Phil: Ridge and Rodgers Ridge. The Site includes
spring fed streams draining off the steep slopes of Pink 2idge to the floodplain of Tlu-ee
TViile Creek. The farnl is currently used for Fraser Fir Christmas tree production (steep
' northern facing slopes) and as an ornamental nursery in the valley areas.
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete the
Form. please feel free to contact me at the office (919) 7~~-990 or on my cell phone
(919) 819-001=1. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~ C
Travis Hamrick, Project Manager
Attaclunents: 2 maps

t

MCDOW ~'r ..J yf~. ~~~ ~~\ r,,`'`'Y~ ~ ~ f` ~ i~/~~~• ~ !'_: ~ ~ 1~:~~ ....~ ...
ax~ 4 ` n ti ~ ~~~
~ \ ~ 1'r\~ r ""4. 11 ~ 1.f: ~,) ~+.Jr~ ~. Y. ~...1,~ 'i + ,~ ({~~~}L,( i ~,.. ~., ., .w
. I "'ti. { r., rill. $ ~. i:'J.~. ~~a"~"~Y I.~ ."'
._
. ~ ~
...
/y { .. ..
;/ .. t~
.,
n
~ 1~r1 ~ ~~ -~)`,~ v~ _y ~_~ app,. ,'/'~ - _. ~ ' _~ Project Area ~ ~ ~pti
4 1
I
.` ~~.~. : ~ 1`1 `r~ .•f~ ,.~-~- + s ..ice, ~}; ~,•.
. ,
~C+
.~
... ~ ~ r t'~
-~ .. _//
_~~ ,/~
~ ~ .
• .,. _
._ ,
r
S~»_.l 1,,~ r (t ~~r-%`.i"'"-'_..,`~~f`~~.J"f r! ~ 1J11 `-~.... •' ,} -t
,S
}~.
~~
~f'_ ' ~+~ ~YF '~ ~ S T~~ ` • 1. ~ ~ ~ /''f .^f~ f ~ ,
r 4 ~-~..~wr r'~
. ,~,,~ ,
3 ~,,...r ' ~ .
. .~~ ,
t
..
.~ ,
U ~, ~ , ~.
,~
Figure 1: Project Location ~ 1 inch equals 2.000 feet
Threemile Stream & Wetland ~ Project Area
Restoration Site o goo i,aoo z,eoo a,zoo s.soFOec
Avery County, NC N

~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r^^i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

tiaifbed states Department of Ayriwltuee

1

1
o MRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
WaynesvAle, NC 28786
Phone [phone] ext. 5 FAX [phone]
March 21, 2007
Travis Hamrick
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Farmland Impact Rating
Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Mr. Hamrick:
d ~,~t.~~v ~~II
MAR 2 ~ 2~Q1 '
gY:...•----------------
Attached are the original and copies of the completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form
(AD-1006) for the Three MileCreek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Avery County,
NC.
It appears that 10 acres of prime farmland and 0.7 acres of statewide important farmland will be
impacted by the proposed project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 828-456-6341 east. 105.
Sincerely,
v l V\
M. Kent Clary
Area Resource Soil Scientist
USDA-NRCS
589 Raccoon Road Suite246
Waynesville, NC 28786
1

The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
An Equai Opportunity Provider and Employer

U.S. Departrnant of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Fedora/Agency) ~ Date Of Land Evakiatlon Request 3/12/07
Name Ot Project Three Mile Stream i~ Wetland Restoration Site I Federal AGen~ Involved FHA
Proposed Land use Stream ~ Wetland Mitigation CO1"~ And State Avery, NC
PART It (To be completed by NRCS) ~ Date Request Received By NRCS 3 Z'v -7
Does the siDe wntain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Sae
(lfno, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete ad~tional parts of this tiorrrm). ~ ~ _ I ~ 2
+~~C/rop(5) I Fannable Land In Govt Jurisdiction ~ Arraunt Of Farmland ,qs pefined ~ FPPA
Y1fk7 jAaes: 5 ~ ~ U % ZU, 2 ;Acres: i ~ t ~~ ~ °~,~'
Name Of Land Evaluafion System Used Name Of Local Sde Assessment System ! date Evaluation Returned 6y NRCS
_ ~,'~Ry t~~5 3~z 110-7
PART tlt !Tn hP rmm~lolu~ by Fciiurnr e..o.,,..,i ~ exe...~:,n cae o.,s:..,.

-- A. Total Acres To Be Converted Direr~ly _- -- -- - -__ I Site A
~___ 1 1 -~ Site B
-_ Site C- i-~- Site D -
B_ Total Acxes To Be Converted Indirectly -- -- ----
C. Total Acres In Site ,
~
/~ 22."7 -___
0.0 - _ __---
,0.0 ;0.0
PART N (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
i
A. Total Aces Prime And Unique Farmland
~
B. Total Acres Statewide And Logl Important Farmland ~ - ~-
0 - --
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted I ~ i _____ _
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt Jurisdirion MAttm Same Or Higher Relative Value I 6S
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) i ' ~
0 + i0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) ~
Site Assessmment Criteria (/here artevia are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6) Points
---i
I
1. Area In Nonurban Use
! s '-- I -- ---
-
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use ~- -
_ _- - ----
i ' -
_ 3. Percent Of Site Being Farrmed
~ !/ -- ._ ___ ~ __--
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government ~
5. Drstance From Urban Buiftup Area I ~-
6. Distance To Urban Support Services ~ K ~ I - -
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average ~ _- __-_
8. Creation Of Nonfamiable Farnland ~ it' ,p ! ~ ---
I _
__ 9. Avalfabdrty Of Fare Support Services S- ~ ( --
10. On-Earn Investments ~, ` ~r
11. Effects Of Conversion On Fans Support Services "0 I I
G
12. Compatibility With Existing Agriwkural Use ~ _
,
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS ~ 160 0 80 ;0 0 i 0 ^
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) ~
! ~

Relative Value Of Farmland (Fnxn Pad ~
100 _
!0 IO
~
' '0
Assentslsrtmermt (From Part Vl above or a local 160 -
---
0 0 ~ - ~ v _-
0 '0
TOTAL POINTS (rota! of abomre 2lines) 260
1 0 t ~ 10 ; 0 0
!
Site Selected-
Date Of Seleccti~on
f Was A Local Site Assessrmerrt Used?
Yes D No D
Reasar For Selection:
isea ~ ~ n~verse ~) Form AD-100ti {10.83)
1'Ma far;1 was electronidily po°uced by NaBonal PtoOut'LCn Ssnicss Staff

Nano~d Rc•~nur~
IZC~t0l~tUt)n ~~ C1 ni~i1 ctli, m
March 12, 2007
U. S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
ATTN: Marella Buncick, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
SUBJECT: Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Behalf of (1) Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act and (2) Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the Three Mile
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site.
Mrs. Buncick:
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC has been awarded a contract by the EEP
to provide 8,021 feet of stream and 2.3 acres of riverine wetland mitigation at the Three
Mile Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site. One of the earliest tasks to he performed
by RS is completion of an environmental screening and preparation submittal of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This document is specifically required by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to ensure compliance with various federal
environmental laws and regulations. The EEP must demonstrate that its projects comply
with federal mandates as a precondition to FHWA reimbursement of compensatory
mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to offset its
projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office on
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA). This letter provides you with certain details of the Three Mile Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, including the project's location, a general
description of its physiography, hydrography and existing land uses, as well as the
intended modifications to the site proposed by RS. You are encouraged to determine if
the actions proposed by RS may be inimical to any resources embraced by the FWCA, or
the MBTA and provide comments to RS based on your evaluation. It is reasonable to
assume that the Service will comment if the actions proposed by RS are, in the Service's
opinion, likely to result in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA or the META.
Pilot dill • 1101 Hai nes St.. Suite 107 • Raleigh. VC ?760d • ~~ ~~ u.resturations~ uems.com • Phone 91 N.7>5.9.}90 • Fae 919.75 ~)-t92

Project Location & Description
The project is located on the Spry Farm, approximately 7 miles northeast of Spruce Pine
in Avery County, North Carolina (Figure I ). The latitude and longitude at the project
center is 35.98300 Nand -81.93000 VV. The project consists of t,vo named tributaries of
the North Toe River (Three iVtile and Fork Creeks) and l 1 uru~amed tributaries that flow
into Three iV(ile Creek (Figure 2).
The Site includes approximately 22.7 acres of land situated on the northern flank of Doe
Hill tiiountain, between the termini of Pink Ridge and Rodgers Ridge. The Site includes
spring fed streams draining off the steep slopes of Pink Ridge to the floodplain of Three
~•lile Creek. Doe Hill IVtountain, Pink Ridge, and the surrounding region are characterized
primarily by forested land in mountainous terrain that is too steep to clear for agricultural
production. South facing slopes are characterized by mesic hardwood forest that are
frequently harvested for timber. North facing slopes are characterized by evergreen
stands and are suitable for Fraser fir Christmas tree farming, which is a large economic
feature of Avery County.
Restoration Means & ~[ethods
To perform the necessary stream restoration along the impaired reaches, natural channel
design methods will be used. The restoration will allow a reconnection of the stream
channel with the adjacent historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a
riffle-pool system with proper pattern and profile. ivleanders of varying radii will be
integrated along the length of the restored reaches to mimic the variability of a natural
channel and utilize the available project area to the maximum extent possible based on
existing site conditions. The restored channel banks will be planted with native
vegetation that represents both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
As suitable hydric soils already exist, the restoration of riverine wetlands will be
performed through the rehydration of existing hydric soils by routing the restored stream
through these areas (with an appropriate pattern) as well as restoring the potential for
over-bank flooding of these areas. Once grading and structural development is complete,
suitable wetland vegetation, including tree and shrub species, will be planted within all
restored wetland areas.
Summary- of Anticipated Effects
`Ve anticipate that the immediate effects of this project (construction phase) will cause
b~round disturbance within the project area due to the use of heavy machinery to complete
channel construction. Again, this site has historically received extensive ground
disturbance due to livestock and agricultural operations. The long term effects of this
project (post construction) will result in an overall enhancement to the integrity of the
immediate ecosystems and result in long term beneticial effects to fish or wildlife. This
site will also be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement.

1
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
' your review, please feel free to contact me at the office [phone] or on my cell
phone (919) S 19-0014. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
' Sincerely,
LL,,
1~
Travis Hamrick, Project Manager
' Attaclunents: 2 maps

1
1
1

_ ~,
Overview Map ~ ~~~ , ~~~ ~r ~ w`~ ~ .; •~ A` Directions (From Spruce Pine. NC):
~l_ , ~ir;,_, j ~ ~ F' ' ~ r, "~~ 1 Travel North on US Route 19E (5 miles)
r ;' ~/ '' ~ 2 Turn Right onto US Route 194 (1.5 miles)
,~''~ ~ "r~ '' ~ ~f ''~~ 3 Site is on ri ht- lar a white farmhouse.
~c .. ~, .~
Avery --~19 'r/~ ~ rt •
~t `` M:
--" S ~ ~ by K >}t~ ~ ~ !'' r' Qt ' ~~ {~j .; ".
. •..
` ~.J.. tJ,~'Tb"~I
.~. _.,J 221 1 F ;.~ k ~ r ~ ~~
• ,~,,
,. , _
s~
„ .-~_, 4
_. .1
{ ,.
~.
Y r ~.. ~ ~ ~: _.
~ _ .i..
J/; ''
6~ `
~ ~ ~+~ '~, " ~~ ~; ''/' _ Project Area '•Vl~+"'`~ ,
.,
l t ~ °
,1 ~"~
.,
. ~ ;, - ~ r
•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~:.
:.
u'
^~ ,r a 1~llr
_.
_. ~ i ~ _
^•
1,,,,~. ~ ,. ~ +~ ~ ,.
. .
., -~
r
1V9 1, ~ ~--- `''~ ~' ~ ,~
s ~ t.,
(. r...1 . } ~'l ..1
1 f
• a
• '
,L!"-J
~ ~ 7~.•~ -
n
,
1 ~ .-
._.
4 ,J (,.
.'
Figure 1: Project Location ~ 1 inch equals 2,000 feet
Threemile Stream & Wetland ~ Project Area
0 700 1,400 2,800 4,200 5.600
,,, Restoration Site N Feet
Avery County, NC

~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

N;t[tn<il R~k,ut~e
f1~~I~a~IIi~ m ~~ C~ ~nki~.!u, a2
March 12, 2007
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Falls Lake Office
l 142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmore, NC 27522
' ATTN: David Cox, Technical Guidance Supervisor
SUBJECT: Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on
' Behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for the Three Mile Stream & Wetland
Restoration Site (Contract Number : D06125-A)

' Mr. Cox:
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Ralei , NC has been awarded a contract b the EEP
~ y
to provide 8,021. feet of stream and 2.3 acres of riverine wetland mitigation at the Three
Mil
C
k St
& W
l
d
e
ree
ream
et
an
Restoration Site. One of the earliest tasks to be performed
by RS is completion of an environmental screening and preparation/submittal of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This document is specifically required by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to ensure compliance with various federal
environmental laws and regulations. The EEP must demonstrate that its projects comply
with federal mandates as a precondition to FHWA reimbursement of compensatory
' mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to offset its
projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office on
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). This letter provides you with
certain details of the Morgan Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site, including the
project's location, a general description of its physiography, hydrography and existing
land uses, as well as the intended modifications to the site proposed by RS. You are
encouraged to determine if the actions proposed by RS maybe inimical to any resources
embraced by the FWCA, and provide comments to RS based on your evaluation. It is
' reasonable to assume that you will comment if the actions proposed by RS are, in your
opinion, likely to result in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA.

1
Pilot dill • 1101 Hai nes St.. Suitt' l07 • Ralei:h, f\iC ?76t1-t • ~sw~c.restaruionsystems.rnm • Phone 919.7j5.y-19U • Fax 919.7jj.9-19?

Project Location & Description
The project is located on the Spry Fann, approximately 7 miles northeast of Spruce Pine
in Avery County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude at the project
center is 35.93300 tiand -31.93000 ~V. The project consists of two named tributaries of
the North Toe River (Three vole and Fork Creeks) and l t unnamed tributaries that flow
into Three Mile Creek (Figure 2).
The Site includes approximately 22.7 acres of land situated on the northern flank of Doe
Hill iVtountain, between the termini of Pink Ridge and Rodgers Ridge. The Site includes
spring fed streams draining off the steep slopes of Pink Ridge to the floodplain of Three
lVtile Creek. Doe Hill IVtountain, Pink Ridge, and the surrounding region are characterized
primarily by forested land in mountainous terrain that is too steep to clear for agricultural
production. South facing slopes are characterized by mesic hardwood forest that is
frequently harvested for timber. North facing slopes are characterized by evergreen
stands and are suitable for Fraser tir Christmas tree farming, which is a large economic
feature of Avery County.
Restoration Means & Methods
To perform the necessary stream restoration along the impaired reaches, natural channel
design methods will be used. The restoration will allow a reconnection of the stream
channel with the adjacent historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a
riffle-pool system with proper pattern and profile. IVleanders of varying radii will be
integrated along the length of the restored reaches to mimic the variability of a natural
channel and utilize the available project area to the maximum extent possible based on
existing site conditions. The restored channel banks will be planted with native
vegetation that represent both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
As suitable hydric soils already exist, the restoration of civerine wetlands will be
performed through the rehydration of existing hydric soils by routing the restored stream
through these areas (with an appropriate pattern) as well as restoring the potential for
over-bank flooding of these areas. Once grading is complete and in-stream structtues
have been installed, suitable wetland vegetation, including tree and shrub species, will be
plaited within all restored wetland areas.
Summary of Anticipated Effects
~Ve anticipate that the immediate effects of this project (construction phase) will cause
ground disturbance within the project area due to the use of heavy machinery to complete
channel construction. Again, this site has historically received extensive ground
disturbance due to livestock and agricultural operations. The long term effects of this
project (post construction) will result in an overall enhancement to the integrity of the
immediate ecosystems and result in long term beneficial effects to f sh or wildlife. This
site will also be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement.

Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your review, please fee) free to contact me at the office (919) 7»-9490 or on my cell
phone (9l9) 819-0014. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
~,
' Travis Hamrick, Project ~[anager
tlttaclunents: 2 maps

1

Overview Map r S" '"''d ~ ~r Directions (From Spruce Pine. NC):
- ., r, ~ ,~~~ ~ r e, ~ t. Travel North on US Route 19E (5 miles)
,~ - a^^'y~ .>~ ~. '1~ ~,~ ~', ?. Turn Right onto US Route 194 (1.5 miles)
~- r ~ .-~~,r ~ r ~ •,,~. ~ ~r:~~-. 3. Site is on right- large white farmhouse.
_,,
Avery ~; ~r9a ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '
j _ ,, ti .~ *w,.r
,Mitchel! *J .--"4~3 i?- ~ ~``.' _.!': ~r-"" .`~ H'~... rw''-'^ `^
McOow ~ •• '~'~ •
~t. S ~ , ~ ~/,~. to +. , i Y.., _ i~f" 4a ~ ~ l
J' ram , ~, a+R ~• r o- „~ a ~~• •~4J~,w Y'. . . \ "i. ~`~tU"~,.G~~I Y°• ~ }: ~,~ •~~~
~.
~ _
LI ,
' i i
..
G! =
Are
le a ~ ,
,+!~ ~Cr
.;
.. .
.w
'~
/'~
•
:., .
. S' `
~,,~ ~q®
~iir" ! ,
i ~ ~ -
t ~ 1f . _ ~ y~ "' , -'"US ~ i _ ~ ~ /"~ 'em`u:.: ~'(
` ~ ~ h k ~~f,~ .~. "~~ ~l~ t fir....
.. ; , . 4
^
- ,
a
• _
'.
~.•..
y `
.. ~ -
.. ~ r,. J~ it _. '. ~ t. ~. r,. .~......r! - F ~ fn,~ ~~ ...rte ~ F~
, ..
~`
'..
v ~.., r,.- ' i
~ _ ii// i,\J r
,. ..,..~
Figure 1: Project Location ~ 1 inch equals 2.000 feet
Threemile Stream 8r Wetland ~ Project Area
Restoration Site N ° ~°° i.4oo ?.80° x'200 s.s~et
~ . ~
Avery County, NC

�1 •x. !
04)
0 LL
VP'
' W
CD
f 4 *2k } •
Ln
En
CD
r
•
'1P •
t � rt • ~S�
•fh• `
jpprPI&V�'
>}♦'t
`� 4 ♦ 7��,
v
+Y' r, • ;i r •
Ir .,
e-oftwo, 41 .
����` • a
10
•
. � t t y gig; - • • ". +� ��,<� ,�- '
.� ` •� -' •
•
QE
Joe ` ., •
.+t

p~~,~~`~~~r~
MAR 2 ~ 2~U7
B Y:--------------------
~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive 1)trector
' March 27, 2007
Mr. 'Travis Hamrick
' Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Request for Information and Comment about Proposed EEP Stream Mitigation Project,
' Three Mile Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Avery County
Dear Mr.1'Iamrick:
~ This correspondence is in response to your letter of March 12, 2007 concerning coordination
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act considerations at the proposed stream
mitigation site indicated above. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
' Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the. area. The NCWRC is authorized
to- comment and make recommendations which relate to the impacts of this project on fish and
wildlife pursuant to Clean Water Act of 1977, North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, US
' National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat
884}, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 1G U,S.C. 661-667d)
and/or Federal License of Water Resource Project Act (Federal Power Act-16 U.S.C. 791a et
' seq.) as applicable.
The Three Mile Creek site is being evaluated as an Ecosystem Enhancement Program mitigation
site for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts; The streams are located on Spry Farm. The
' site consists of 22.7 acres. Restoration activities proposed include reconnecting streams to
floodplains, increasing wetland hydrology, and restoring natural channel form and dimensions.
Our is-house review has determined that streams in this area are suitabte for restoration activities
and that wild Rainbow trout are known for area streams. Additionally, conversion of prior
converted wetlands to restored wetlands could pprovide needed habitat for listed animal species
like the Bog turtle, Glypten:ys muhlenhergii (NCT, FT s/A).
Pro ect proponents should be made aware of the above information. Improvements in stream
' an~wetland habitats should improve habitats far aquatic listed species in the area as well as for
trout. Accordingly, project proponents are encouraged to pursue mitigation activities at the site
including preconstruction Clean Water Act permitting and certifications. Spring investigations
for bog turtles are encouraged. These should be done prior to ground disturbing activities. If
Bog turtles are found in the work area, they should be relocated by professionally certified turtle
biologists. Wildlife Diversity biologist, Lori Williams has requested that the restoration site be
evaluated for the provision of Hog turtle habitats. Project proponents should contact Ms.
Williams at 828/68:4-0358 to discuss this option further. Only autochthonous plants should be
Mailigg Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
1'cleplta~ie: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Three Mile Creek -Page 2 - March 27, 2007
used for the project. Only state-of--the-art stream and wetland natural channel design
methodologies should be used for stream and wetland restoration. Maximum available,
undisturbed forested stream buffers should be provided and protected from livestock unless
periodic livestock disturbance is appropriate for listed species management. Provision and
maintenance of trout and potential bog turtle habitats should be evaluated as. an integral part of
the project. Habitat should be considered as important as stream and wetland equilibrium and
stability. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone should be
prohibited during the rainbow trout spawning season of January 1 through April 1 S to protect the
egg and fry stages of trout.
Please be advised that NCWRC only reviews for anima! species. You should contact the NC
~iatural Heritage Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for their review about the
proposed stream and wetland restoration activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed project during early planning
stages. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Sincerely,
Ron Linville
Regions! Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
E-copy: Bryan Tompkins, USFWS
Sarah McRae, NHP

r~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>~a w;th ~~
~-~r__=__~~-- .t
o~~~`~-~-ate' ~--
~a~_ t~oc~~4 ~v_
Certi. fication
of publication of legal notice in
MITC>3>rI.L NEws Joult~vAL
Spruce Pinc, Mitehcl2 County, NC ~ weeks

~~~ ~ i e~ ~o~ic.e~
Paid
9_
No. ~~~-
MITCHELL
NEWS-JOtT~[ZNAL
~Y .::- --~---..~._
., t.., ..
"'PUBCtC Pft3TICE ,
~
cost of Advert~uent ......._...._.$ . ~ j '.:. NOTfGE;QFTUNITY •

cost oe wffidavic ..
$ FOR ~:tNFO'RJG[AT10pi~~:
PUBI.YC;MEET
:
~NG~4
.._._......
c
Total._......_..__$ . d~ .
NYC
TtE.'PUf~CygS~%AiVD OR ;
USE~OF'PRpp~~rFOR •
• . :.THJ= RESTORATION.OF
"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .
' :STREAMSANE?:W~-ANDS;
COUNTX OF MITCHELL ~ `'
I, NathaniN A. Ashurs4 Publishes of the [~I'itehelt NewsrJournal, a '~ A-ntU Resfnr-ter ~ •
newspr~cr published in Mitchell County, North CaroIitta, in
compliance with steams Cr.S.1 597 of North Catolima, as a~oded in Sk--~ : proposes io .put- ,
chase andloruse a 22

i947 session ofCxmeral Assembly, being duty sworn, certify that the
attached advemserr,
t
f :11- acre
,~ tract of :tend. in•Ave
t
Co
rn
o un
y, .
; : North. Carolina. ~7he
' Pu-pose
'

i
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,}-3 .
of<a nrrrn
c4., 9 a1ldlor: usir>
g..ihis
~
~
m- ,~'-~`,C--/____~~-t ~~
11, ,
(~G{
J ,
Prop
e~fji is.#o pzovlcie mi~gatijn ,
for rrnpa~ ~ys~ear~s ar~d vvet- `~'
, lands flier wilt ~resuft from exist
was dui ublishcfl in aforesaid paper- once a week for tng Qr future development in
this area. Anyone desiring th
.
t
consecutive weeks, beginning with the issue date ;
a
;~? i~i?rl~onal #,utiGe;irreeti'
~
be h~td #or~.ahis~ . r
p oposed ac-
20 lion naay make such a request ,
•byregtsteredletter G

(signed) o Travis
~ Hamrick tti Restoration`Sys- .
"
towcc«,rarner, t?u6iisher or other "terns
toed}ed: at 9
101 Ha

Employee Authorized w make the affidavit) .
ynes
~ . StGee~, ~$uite to?}
, Rateigtj

Sworn to and snbscn'bed~.before me this ~~ des of
Y ,
NC:2~604 ~
R' tiesE: must be
.: '->tad
b
~ ~ ~
~~
=
'
20 ~ ~ ~ e
y April:27; 2007. 7f
' additianal ~r'nform~tion is Fe=
~.,
-
,-, J quired,, pease .corrtact Travis
' Ha~mc,k~t'979-755-9490. 7}~.
NG°Ecosystetn Enhancement
-

• ~ ` ! 1 .
,.
Prpgram reserves; ttte right to r
e~h-~
_ determine•if a public rlieetrng
:`
'

Notary Public for Nf~tchelt County .
;
'~n~eheld:
;'
North Carolina .: #55!.47 - 3/28/07
•
My COmmiceipn etcpitts •
I ~ - ~_ ___. ___. .
No.

R~ Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheck®
Three Mile Creek Restoration Project
Three Mile Road
Newland, NC 28657
Inquiry Number: 01878966.2r
March 15, 2007
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
~GiM-gPK~EAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------. ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary---------------------------------------------------. 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Orphan Summary-------------------------------------------------------- 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-t
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum__________________________________________ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary___________________________________________ A-2
PhyslcalSetting Source Map_______________________________________________ A.7
PhysicaiSetting Source MapFindings________________________________________ A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched____________________________________ A-14
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer -Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained froppm a variety of puublic and other sources reeasonably availablege to Eppnvironmental Data
otherusOUrCesCNO WARRANTY EXPRE SED OR IMPLIEDrtIS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORTroEN IRONMENTALexist from
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FRNESS FOR A PARTICUUIR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Repoli 'AS IS'. Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided far illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast ot, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2007 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. RePreduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanbom Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the roe of their res ective owners.
TC01878966.2r Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
THREE MILE ROAD
NEWLAND, NC 28657
COORDINATES
Latitude (North): 35.982500 - 35' S8' 57.0"
Longitude (West): 81.983300 - 81 ° 58' 59.9"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X {Meters): 411354.5
UTM Y (Meters): 3982254.0
Elevation: 2843 h. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 35081-H8 LINVILLE FALLS, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1994
West Map: 35082-H1 SPRUCE PINE, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1994
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL-________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL_______________ National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY____________ Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC-NFRAP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC01878966.2r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY t

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CORRACTS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Corrective Action Report
RCRA-TSDF_________________ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LOG__________________ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-SOG_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS________ Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD_________________________ bepartment of Defense Sites
FUDS________________________ Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS__________ AListing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT___________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_________________________ Recnrds Of Decision
UMTRA______________________ Oranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODI__________________________ Dpen Dump Inventory
TRIS_________________________ Tnxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA________________________ Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS________________________ FIFRA/TSCATracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS________________________ Sectinn 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS_________________________. lntegrated Compliance Information System
LUCIS_______________________ Land Use Control Information System
US CDL____________________. Clandestine Drug Labs
RADINFO____________________ Radiatinn Information Database
PADS________________________ PCB Activity Database System
MLTS________________________ Matevial Licensing Tracking System
MINES____________________ Mines Master Index File
FINDS_______________________ Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS______________________ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS_______________________ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
' NC HSDS____________________
IMD__________________________ Hazavdous Substance Disposal Site
Incident Management Database
SWF/LF_____________________. List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI__________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
' HIST LF_____________________.
LUST________________________ Snlid Waste Facility Lisiing
Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State Trust Fund Database
UST_________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST_________________________ AST Database
INST CONTROL_.__._._____ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP_________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS_____________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES______________________ NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
' INDIAN RESERV_.__________.
INDIAN LUST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lndian Reservations
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST__ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants___
EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
1

TC01878966.2r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01878966.2r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1

1
1
1
1

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name Database(s)
AVERY COUNTY C&D LANDFILL SWF/LF, HIST LF
AVERY COUNTY LANDFILL SWF/LF, HIST LF
AVERY COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SWFlLF, HIST LF
S. BELL-ALTAMONT LUST, IMD
NEWLAND EXXON LUST, IMD
PARKWAY JUNCTION LUST, IMD
NCDOT-NEWLAND LUST, IMD
DON WOODLE PROPERTY LUST, IMD
RAINBOW PANTRY #5 LUST TRUST
ERWIN'S GROCERY UST
SPEAR SUPERETTE UST
SPEAR SUPERETTE UST
TIME-OUT CONVENIENCE STORE UST
NEWLAND EXXON UST
RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UST
TOE RIVER GROCERY UST
SLUDER FLORAL CO. UST
SINGLETONS GROCERY UST
NC DOT - NEWLAND {DIV ELEVEN) UST
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BLDG UST
HUGHES GROG / ALLENS GROC UST
CARLOS & SONS BODY SHOP RCRA-SOG, FINDS
CREEK NEAR PROPERTY ERNS
HENSON CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH FINDS
ABRUSCIPROPERTY IMD
AVERY CO. BOARD OF EDUCATION IMD
THREE OAKS NURSERY IMD
NCDOTJFRANKLIN RESIDENCE IMD
TC01878966.2r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

I~
OVERVIEW MAP - 01878966.2r
i

\

~

,<
s
d .

y,

~`.,~ .
- -_ -..~
,~
~__
_,
* Target Property
' . Sites at elevatOns higher than
or equal to the target properr;
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
~ Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
pent, Defense Saes

0 Iii 1R 1 Y(lea
~~ -
Indian Reseriaticns BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Srtes
National Wetland Inventory 't
L~ State Wetlands
This .g~R utcludes Interactr~e Map Lasers to
display an~or hida map inforrnatlon. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view
SITE NAh1E: Three Mile Creek Restoration Project CLIEPIT: Restoration Systems. LLC
ADDRESS' Three Mile Road CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Newland NC 28657 I~IQUIRY ~~ 01878966.2r
LATrLONG 35.9825 / 81.9833 DATE: tvlarch 15 200? 9:55 am

\ _-

i
1
1
1
1
1
DETAIL MAP - 01878966.2r
* Target Property
• Sdes at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
l Manufactured Gas Plants
rrr: Sensitive Receptors
National Priority Llst Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Saes
SITE NAPAE: Three Mile Creek Restoration Project CLIENT: Restoration Systems. LLC
ADDRESS' Three Mile Road CONTACT: Dave Schiger
Newland NC 28on? INQUIRY ~: 0187896o.2r
LAT'LONG: 35.9825 r 81.9833 DATE: tilarch 15 ZUU~ 9:55 am
0 tn6 L~ 1'A Yiks
Indian Reseriatiens 91A Hazardous Substance 1
''.," Oli & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
Y
This report includes Interactrle fvtap Layers to
ifisptay andior hida map information. The
legend includes only those irons for the
default map view

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 114 1/4 - 1/2 i/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPL RECOVERY TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA Sm. Juan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FUDS 1,000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CDL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RADINFO TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
HIST LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC01878966.2r Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 112 - 1 > 1 Plotted
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST '0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NOTES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC01878966.2r Page 5

1

1

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation Site
NO SITES FOUND
MAP FINDINGS
EDR fD Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC01878966.2r Page 6