20090673 Ver 1_401 Application_20090609

EA
#1V 11 l Consulting Services Inc.
June 8, 2009
Ms. Amanda Jones and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Office
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
"09'0673
3764 Ronyinger Road
Banner Elk, NC 28604
Ph., 828-2976946
Fx:828-20'7 09P.
19
Ms. C ndi Karol <01?n
NC Division of Water Quality Jr 4,ry
401 /Wetlands Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250 "'"L^y
Raleigh, NC 27604
PAI
RE: Avery County Humane Society
Avery County, NC
Dear Ms Jones and Ms ICaroly:
Transmitted with this letter is one copy (for USAGE) and five copies with permit fee of
$570 (for NC DWQ) of the 404/401 permit application for the Avery County Humane
Society Project. The Owner-Agent is David Patrick Moses, AIA (828-963-4478). ENV is
the consultant for this project, could you please copy us on any correspondence with the
applicant. Impacts for this project consist of 240 linear feet of UT-White Oak Creek.
If you have any questions regarding this application please contact us at 828-297-6946.
Sincerely,
John Vilas
President, ENV Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.
Cc: David Patrick Moses, A,IA
Alan Crees, P.E. -- Municipal Engineering
Ron Linville - NC WRC
. 0 9- 0 6 7 3
O?0 WAr?q?G
M O -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information r7b
1. Processing i
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Avery County Humane Society
2b. County: Avery
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Newland
2d. Subdivision name: n/a
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: n/a
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Avery County, NC Humane Society, Inc.
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 431/557
JU

3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): -
N 0
Alisa Lucas - President of the Board
DENR-WATE 9 2D89--

Rawny
Street address: 1824 Stamey Branch Rd. MUMSAND Ml
3e. City, state, zip: Newland, NC 28657
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page I of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: David Patrick Moses, AIA
4c. Business name
(if applicable): (Agent Authorization Letter attached)
4d. Street address: PO Box 783
4e. City, state, zip: Linville, NC 28646
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: John Vilas
5b. Business name
(if applicable): ENV-ECS, Inc.
5c. Street address: 3764 Rominger Rd.
5d. City, state, zip: Banner Elk, NC 28604
5e. Telephone no.: 828.297.6946
5f. Fax no.: 828.297.1982
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 183600386520, 183600287294
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.10146 Longitude: - 81.3258
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 6.25 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to White Oak Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV; Tr
2c. River basin: French Broad
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
One brick house is located on the project site. The house is currently unoccupied. Approximately 1 acre around the house
is maintained as a yard, with the remainder of the site being wooded. An Ingles supermarket is located to the East,
adjacent to the project area. Heritage Park, an Avery County recreational facility, is located to the west of the project site.
Single and multi-family housing and vacent lots comprise the remainder of land use around the project area.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
No wetlands were found on the subject property.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
975
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Avery County Humane Society intends to construct a new facility providing shelter, adoption availability, and a
greenway area for exercising homeless and displaced animals.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The Avery County Humane Society project is located off Vale Road, SR 1159 approximately 0.25-miles from the
intersection with NC Hwy 194, Elk Park Highway. A 13,438 sf building is proposed to be constructed on the site with 30
parking spaces. The entire facility footprint will encompass approximatley 0.86-acres. Site planning is calling for the
relocation of 240 linear feet of an unnamed tributary of White Oak Creek located within the boundary of the proposed
facility footprint. This tributary has been degraded by the historic land use of timbering and woods road construction. The
stream relocation design will enhance water and habitat quality providing a total 260 linear feet of channel. Stream
relocation will tie into the existing channel above the proposed facility, wrap around the structure, and tie into White Oak
Creek approximately 140 feet downstream from its current confluence (see attached Mitigation Plan). Typical equipment
will be used in the development of the new facility and completion of the stream relocation including trackhoe, dozer, and
dump truck. Construction sequence will be as follows: (1) site clearing, (2) site grading, (3) stream relocation, (4) facility
construction, (5) landscaping and buffer planting.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: ENV-ECS, Inc.
Name (if known): John Vilas and Sean Martin Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
August 26, 2008 Amanda Jones from the USACE Asheville Regional Office met with John Vilas on site and made a
preliminary jurisdictional assessment of the unnamed tributary as being a low quality intermittent stream.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ?Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4of11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404 width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? ,
other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Fill/relocation UT-White Oak ? PER ® Corps 3 240
Creek ® INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 240
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction ro osed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland

number (acres)
of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Permanent (P) or Reason
for
Stream name Buffer
mitigation Zone 1 impact
(square feet) Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
In planning the new Avery County Humane Society facility for this project site, the existing site conditions were limiting factors
for its layout, position, and orientation. White Oak Creek runs through the southern section of the properties, limiting access
and requiring a trout buffer and Water Supply buffer setback. Preservation of an existing brick house in the southeast corner of
the property limits access and layout. The northern and western portion of the property has very steep forested slopes that
would require excessive grading and a much greater area of disturbance. The most suitable area for the proposed facility is in
the eastern and central portion of the site. A small unnamed tributary to White Oak Creek ( UT-WOC) flows from the northwest
to the south-central portion of the site. The upper reach of UT-WOC is in good condition, although heavily impacted by
sediment from off-site land use, and flows through a dense forested buffer. The lower reach of UT-WOC is a poor quality
water body with heavy sediment depostion just above the woods road, bank erosion, and loss of channel definition below the
woods road. The proposed facility will impact approximately 240 linear feet of the lower reach of UT-WOC. Mitigation for these
impacts will be accomplished on site by relocating the stream around the proposed facility. Mitigating the stream impacts on-
site will improve the water quality, biological health, and channel stability of the lower reach of UT-WOC, and it will increase
the total length of stream by approximately 20 linear feet.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to both White Oak Creek and UT-WOC will be minimized by providing proper sediment and erosion control measures
and construction sequencing that allows for the construction of relocated UT-WOC to be performed in the dry. After the project
is completed, UT-WOC will be more stable and provide better instream habitat than the existing lower reach of UT-WOC.
Natural channel design and construction techniques will be used for the relocated channel.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ® Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ® Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project. ? payment to in-lieu fee program
® Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
The reach of UT-WOC being impacted as part of the Avery County Humane Society project is a poor quality stream. A
1:1 ratio is being used in the mitigation plan for designing the relocated reach. Assessed fill impacts to this stream were
evaluated at being 240 linear feet. Designed stream relocation length is 260 linear feet. Geomorphology for the relocated
stream references an upper reach which was assessed as a good quality stream with stable channel dimensions. The
lower portion of the relocation stream design will preserve existing vegetation. The upper portion of the relocation stream
design will be heavily graded which will require buffer plantings following channel construction. The relocated stream will
incorporate a 66' CMP which will pass water under an existing access road that must be maintained, this road will also
serve as a greenway trail. Please see attached Mitigation Plan for a complete description for the relocation of 260 linear
feet of UT-White Oak Creek on the Avery County Humane Society project site.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: ? Yes ? No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 14.4%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan
explain why: While the post-construction site
,
impervious cover will be only 14.4%, all of the proposed development will be concentrated in one area of the site. In order
to be classified as Low Density, the site stormwater design incorporates several elements specified in the most recent
revisions to the stormwater management conditions of GC's 3704 and 3705. Specifically, the site drainage plan does not
incorporate a stormwater collection system; all stormwater is transported primarily via vegetated conveyances.
Stormwater that discharges from the site will drain to surface waters via diffuse flow. In the one area of the site that
collects a substantial amount of stormwater, a shallow vegetated basin with a level spreader, sized for the 10-year peak
discharge, has been incorporated into the plan. See sheet SR-3 of the mitigation plan for details of the basin and level
spreader.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
® DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Avery County
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
® Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply El HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in

additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ® El Yes No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The Avery County Humane Society project does not anticipate any growth stimulating effects which may degrade
downstream water quality. Development of the site will not exceed proposed plans exhibited in this PCN application
as
,
the designed facility will meet the needs of the county based on set financial and management resources. Following on-
site stream mitigation work, water quality coming off the property will be improved with less sediment loads
and will
,
improve downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Project facility will be tied to the Newland municipal sewage system.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? ? Yes ® No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? ? Yes ® No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
http://www.fws-gov/nc-es/esicountyff.htmi
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would Impact Essential Fish Habitat9i
http:/lwww.saw.usace.army.miJ/wetlands/NWP2007/specialwaters.html; http://www.ncftsheries.neVfmps/iridex.html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Rosources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in El Yes No
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
http:/Avww.nenhtf.org/index.htm; NC OneMap Viewer
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. if yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Sc. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? http://Www,nefloodmaps.com/ Applicant/Agent's Printed Name AtUr0iSVaWPJ[1ddonn11yi11 ent's Signure Date
(Agent's siauthorization letter from the applicant
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
dlJ/bli/ 1k9by 1L: t71 tlLCG7b7? f 3 L11`IV LI.-LL 1.1f/Vt- ,,?-,?. ,. .. -_-- --
Avery County Humane Society
1824 Stamey Branch Road
Newland NC 28657
May 8, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Alisa Lucas, grant permission to David Patrick Moses - Architect, to act as
Owner / Agent for The Avery County Humane Society to obtain proper permits
for building of new shelter in Newland, NC.
Sincerely,
4
Alisa Lucas
President of the Board
Avery Humane Society
Cc: Marti Huiz,eng;a
All Board Member's - Avery County Humane Society
Charlene Calhoun - Director
Avery County Humane Society
Nationwide Permit #39
Vicinity Map
N
0' 850' 1700'
W- ?.E
5
Avery County Humane Society
Nationwide Permit #39
Topographic Map
• r
Property-,- a
Location W c
o if Fork Mwr"t n Cam,
'>\?
Cliff HII! \ f? {
4 n ?? ?/ J
!1
I
M4 }
6 01 -We 3514?
Cem
J !
41
?I ?e + %-
S]' WL
AND` Vagnet,c'? ion North
!at
OD -
Ile !tz:
'? 1, 'V "'? ? • KX } ( ? ?
N B N 46° J#
.1
rwtard Cem-` t 9i °
• '. ? ? > ?-?- , 3689 /IIlr.? i ? ?
`? " - - - NEWLAND
N3600-W8152.5/7-5
??? • ii !' ^' `?-? Water 1960
t in
_. Q AMS 4656 IV SW SERIES V842
40h
SCALE 1:24000
' o
I MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 5 0 1 KILOMETER N
--------------------
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET W? E
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 s
>% d7 a
) Cr)
(a
0-,-
0 -
U) -
N U)
N n
E N
r
c
?O
c M
oZ
U
^L'
W
X
0-
(n
(0
O
U)
O
U)
.Q
Q
0-
(D
O
(0
Cl)
(n
U
L
D
O
Q
O
cn
3
C
O
'
U
ry
z
Q
D
U)
ai
U
O
U)
Avery County Humane Society
Nationwide Permit #39
UT-White Oak Creek
Photosheet
Photo One: View of UT-White Oak Creek on the right of photo.
This portion of channel is filled with sediment and functions as a
ditch along the woods road seen to the left. Flow is concentrated
into a 12" CMP seen in photo two. This section of stream from the
woods road to the confluence with White Oak Creek scored a 21
on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. This is
the same section of stream proposed to be filled and mitigated as
part of the proposed nationwide permit.
Nnoto Four: View of the lower end of UT-White Oak Creek near
the confluence with White Oak Creek. Flow is observed going
submergent near the confluence with White Oak Creek. There is
approximately twenty-five feet with no surface flow between
White Oak Creek and the tributary.
Photo Three: Section of UT-White Oak Creek below the pipe
seen in photo two. Channel definition is very poor, and heavy
sedimentation is evident in this photo. This section of stream is
proposed to be filled as part of the nationwide permit application,
and it will be mitigated for on-site with a 1:1 ratio as a stream
relocation.
Photo Two: View of UT-White Oak Creek at an existing 12" CMP,
which is approximately 30 feet in length. Severe bank erosion can
be seen in this photo. Channel definition below this pipe is very
poor with heavy sediment deposition. This pipe was installed
during past logging operations on the property for the
construction of the woods road.
Avery County Humane Society
Nationwide Permit #39
Existing Conditions-Delineation Map
^o
o ;.
o
M
CST ? a? ???
? \ o
?O
co
o
9
i O19? I
? ? 6 0
? i
Brick!,
Residence
e
G C
C)
e
1
i
i
N
Property
Boundary S, Scale: 1 "=60'
Avery County Humane Society
Nationwide Permit #39
Impact Map
Site Pan Overlay
Impact Table: UT-White Oak Creek
Boundary s' Scale: 1 "=60'
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be.completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Avery County Humane Society
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Avery City: Newland
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.04039° , Long. 81.88799° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: White Oak Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: North Toe River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010108
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Linville River is navigable.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters: (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 375 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or 0.025 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Linville River.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: Liville River is navigable by small non-motorized boats..
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": The wetlands assocaited with this project are within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Linville R.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 2 square mites
Drainage area: 2 acres
Average annual rainfall: 50.38 inches
Average annual snowfall: 41.4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW•
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT White Oak Creek- White Oak Creek to North Toe River (TNW).
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1 st.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
® Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Past grading and other activites have degraded the channel.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 1-2 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ? Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover: 95% Forested
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable in the upper reach, but eroding in
the bottom reach.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 8 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Fick List. Characteristics: Areas of confined flow in the upper reach, but channel structure diminishes
towards the bottom and the reach and sheetflow and subsurface flow is predominate.
Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings:
® Dye (or other) test performed: Test pits with soil auger.
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water is clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
`'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TN W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 275 linear feet 3 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TN W are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (I-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED )INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Z Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2005, Avery County, GIS.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
Q STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: knv " 6-?? i ,,Icy„cge SC1 2. Evaluator's name:- e,-A o.t A6 r,
3. Date of evaluation: C=cn 4. Time of evaluation: 3 :..?? 0"
5. Name of stream: ( zi-l- ?s??t .! ? e Cf,k, CV CA: 6. River basin: ( ?\( ,c ?-
7. Approximate drainage area: `
9. Length of reach evaluated: 4 cc
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
8. Stream order: G , , 1?
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3(a I (, ? G ? Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 3 ( , q .3 j ? I
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other G1S Other &"6TS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
r
II
GdV? K--o, Q,; -,, P t \ e \?-? C. ?-(" 1` ?(t - X r Z n u eti 7 r C«
14. Proposed channel work (if any
15. Recent weather conditions
16. Site conditions at time of visit: (,L, l
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
J Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed :?(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 90-.1 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested :
> % Cleared / Logged l % Other
22. Bankfull width: C 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) ? Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight VOccasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature , c ??'?t Date 115
This channel evaluation form 1s intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION PE5 T:GE °
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedrt:
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1 no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
2 extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
S
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
3
4 extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
j
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)
U Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 i
6 no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
y 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 Q- 2
96 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
8 (no wetlands = 0- large adjacent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
9 extensive channelization = 0•'natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
G
(extensive' de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
I I fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
j?
>0 12 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
? 13 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion. stable banks = max points)
Q Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
14 no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
3 .
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0-6
l 6 no riffles/rip les or pools = 0• well-developed = max oints E
d Habitat complexity 0- 6 O- 0- 6
1 (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
s
? 18 (no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
x
Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
J
19 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
20 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oints
L7
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4

`
C 21 no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
?? Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
O
22
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use -6
0 0 - 5 00-5
23 no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100.
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on f irst page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID-- DWQ # Site -- (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: -k\ 'Lv r\k 2. Evaluator's name: C
?4. Time of evaluation:
3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: l ?( vLti. C'? k t? 6. River basin: ^r? < C-V
7. Approximate drainage area: _ k C 8. Stream order: `A
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1 `) L 10. County: ?. X, ?
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
J 1
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 7? ??cl Longitude (ex. --77,556611): ?? 1 '(3
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other v c,`,?-
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
a
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: -n
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ,t
lydentify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
/_/ Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters I Water Supply Watershed--Cz::(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE NO \ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (N' 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO,
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
&I, % Forested 5L % Cleared / Logged (? % Other ( ?m, V'- ck- 6C o, n ?
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Ol A C(? ?i nCJ
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) V Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: 1 Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100.. with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: c E ?- n.„ cti2 , K-K2-
9 . C_r1\ l??L C, vu uc- C7
Evaluator's Signature \, ??? /- Date S / 5
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
C' Sr' +,-a
o
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coasta
l SCORE
,. .
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-- 5 a
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
?
0-3
0-4
0-4
e = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
no dischar
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
Q
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
x Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 t
a" (deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
C
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
D
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensiv6 deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
D
fine hoino enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
?.+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
C
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points
90 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
14 no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
i
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints
H
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
F little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
x 18 (no shadiri vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

C
21 Presence of amphibians
i 0-4 0-4 0-4
nts)
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max po
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100:

1 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) t
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other c-i Wil-- '?f'"
Stream is at least intermittent County:'
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 f e.g. Quad Name: ,,,7r v.:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank - - 0 - 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 - 1 - 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 r 1 3
9 a Natural levees
- ---- -- -
- -
-- - 1
-- 2
? 3

10. Headcuts -
-1
---1
-
2
._ --
3
- - -

11. Grade controls
----- -
0 -
0.5 - -- --
f 1) -- -
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway _ 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing _

USGS or NRCS ma
d
' p or other documente No O•)

Yes = 3
evidence.
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
tD
_
-- ._.
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
-- _. _ -- - ----- - - -
0 -
:n -----
2 -- -.
3

15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain,
or

0

1 -

3
Water in channel -- dry or growing season `J
16. Leaflitter 1.5
+
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris -
0
5 _-
'n 1
5
. - .
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19_Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) presents
- ---- --
- No
- - - - y_ Yes 1 5
- - --
-- -
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
210. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish ® 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1.5
25. Amphibians
- 0.5 _
-- 1 T 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae, periphyton - - 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. - 0.5 1 1.5
29
°.
Wetland plants in streambed F Gr="0"5} F A C W = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other = 0
_
_
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants , Item 29 focuses on th e presence of aquatic or wetland plants .
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:

----------- --

,v
r„
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date:? j % Project. Latitude:
Evaluator: v J Site: y . r!r, Q Longitude:
y`
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent Countyi
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30 e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 Continuous bed and bank ! 2 -? - 3
2. Sinuosity 0 -' 2 3 ---
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence p? _ 1
- - 2 --- --- 3
4.
5. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
Active/relic floodplain 0
0 _
2
1-.
2 3
3
6.
- Depositional bars or benches 0 _
1 2
3
7. Braided channel 0 ----2 - - -- ----- 3- --
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 F 3
9a Natural levees __- _ Of 1 2 3
10, Headcuts --- - ----- -- 0 .' --- 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 . - + 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 ; Yes = 3
evidence.
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ) _ _
14. Groundwater flow/discharge _ 0 1 ; 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, o r - --' 1 _
2

Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0. 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5
^-
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5-
- 19_Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1-5?
C. Biology (Subtotal
20°. Fibrous roots in channel
-- 3
- 2
;
1 0
21°. Rooted plants in channel
- - -- --- _
----
3 _ 2 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 --
23. Bivalves -- - 1 2 - - 3 ---
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0
.5 1 t5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
- ?
b _
0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
_
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1
5
29 °. Wetland plants in streambed _
AC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0 .
Other = 0

Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants _
.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Avery County Humane Society
Mitigation Plan
Background:
The Humane Society of Avery County is proposing to construct a new facility in the
Town of Newland. The site is approximately 6.25 acres and is located at 251 Vale Road
(SR 1159). The site is approximately 0.25 miles from the intersection with NC Hwy. 194
(Elk Park Highway) behind the Ingles Shopping Center. The site is bounded on the north
and east by Vale Road, on the south by White Oak Creek and steep wooded slopes, and
to the west by the Avery County fair grounds. There is an existing brick house in the
southeast portion of the site that is to remain and be used as a thrift store. There is an
existing woods road used by Avery County to access county property that runs from Vale
Road, along the northern site boundary, south across the property, the county is requiring
that this road be maintained for access.
White Oak Creek flows east to west across the southern portion of the site. White Oak
Creek is classified as WS-IV, trout and carries a 30 foot-wide Water Supply Watershed
buffer and a 25 foot-wide undisturbed trout buffer. A small un-named tributary to White
Oak Creek (UT-White Oak Creek) originates on Avery County property just west of the
site. UT-White Oak Creek flows through the central portion of the site, crossing under the
woods road, through a 12" CMP, and flowing into White Oak Creek near the south-
central property corner. UT-White Oak Creek has a drainage area of approximately 10
acres and is classified as intermittent according to the NCDWQ Stream ID Form; scores
were 29 in the upper reach, 20 above the woods road, in the impact area, and 13 below
the woods road, also in the impact area. The upper portion of UT-White Oak Creek is in
good but stressed condition with dense forested buffers and visible pool-riffle
morphology; this section scored a 53 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet. The low score is primarily due to the small drainage area and minimal flows
combined with heavy periodic sediment impacts from the property above. The lower
portion of this stream, beginning about 80 feet above the woods road and continuing to
the confluence with White Oak Creek, is in fair to poor condition and scored a 21 on the
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. This low score is due to heavy sediment
impacts and poorly defined stream morphological characteristics.
All of the proposed 240 linear feet of impact to UT-White Oak Creek will occur in the
poor quality, lower reach of this small stream. Based on an on-site meeting with Amanda
Jones (USACE, Asheville R.O.), mitigation proposed for the 240 feet of impact will
consist of relocating the lower portion of UT-White Oak Creek on-site. The proposed
length of relocated stream will be approximately 260 linear feet.
Design:
Design parameters, including dimension, pattern, and profile for the relocated channel are
based on reference data collected from the upper reach of the existing channel and
appropriate off-site reference reaches. The proposed reach is divided into three sub-
reaches, each a different stream type. Sub-reach- A begins at the upper end of the
Avery County Humane Society 1 06/04/2009
Mitigation Plan
relocation and extends approximately 40 linear feet to station 0+40. This sub-reach has an
average slope of 18% (stream type Aa+). Sub-reach-B follows and extends approximately
145 linear feet to the beginning of the proposed 66 foot-long 36" CMP culvert (station
0+40 to 1+87). Sub-reach-B has an average slope of 5.5% (stream type A). Sub-Reach-C
extends from the outlet of the proposed culvert to the confluence with White Oak Creek,
approximately 75 linear feet (station 2+53 to 3+28). The average slope of this reach is
3.6% (stream type B). See sheets SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, and Design/Reference Table for
details of design.
The proposed channel dimension will provide for increased energy in the channel over
the existing condition. While there are three reaches designed, each a different stream
type, the proposed channel dimensions change only minimally due to the very small
drainage area (10 acres) of the reach and greater variability of morphological
characteristics observed in such small streams. The proposed channel will closely
resemble the stable cross sections used for reference in the reach immediately above the
impact area. The proposed channel will be more confined than the existing channel but
will have a defined bankf ill bench and an entrenchment ratio reasonable for the reach
and stream type. See typical cross sections and design cross sections on sheets SR-1 and
SR-2.
There will be minimal sinuosity in the type Aa+ and type A reaches. Small bends and
shifts, within the overall pattern, will be installed during construction to add variability
and to take advantage of natural features encountered during excavation. The type B
reach at the lower end of the relocation project will have moderate sinuosity. See sheets
SR-1 and SR-3 for details.
Channel Stabilization:
Channel stabilization for all three reaches of the proposed relocated channel will be
accomplished through a series of design features including appropriate dimension, pattern
and profile, rock. grade control structures, rock vanes, erosion control matting on the
lower banks, and establishment of dense vegetation on the lower and upper banks. See
sheets SR-1, SR-2, and SR-3 for details.
Buffer and Planting Plan:
A minimum 25 foot-wide buffer will be established along the entire length of the right
bank of the relocated channel. The left bank of the relocated channel, in the upper reach,
has been located as close to the proposed building as practicable in order to minimize the
amount of grading into the adjacent hillside. A natural buffer ranging in width from 8 to
15 feet will be established along the left bank above the proposed culvert. Planted buffers
will consist of native species similar to those in the surrounding wooded area. The lower
reach will buffered with existing trees and shrubs that will not be disturbed during
construction and a native seed mix for ground cover. See sheet SR-3 for details.
Construction Sequence:
The construction of the relocated reach of UT-White Oak Creek will be accomplished in
the dry. The existing channel will be left intact throughout the construction and
Avery County Humane Society 2 06/04/2009
Mitigation Plan
stabilization of the new channel. The initial phase will involve installation of erosion
control measures along the existing channel followed by clearing and grubbing of the
relocation corridor. The upper part of the corridor will be rough graded according to the
construction plans. The 36" by 66' CMP will be installed, then the upper reaches (Sub-
Reach-A and B) will be brought to final grade and stabilized. Sub-Reach-C will be
constructed last. Following stabilization of the channel and lower banks for the entire
reach is, completed, flow will be diverted into the relocated channel and the existing
channel will be filled. Final planting of the channel banks and buffer area will be
completed when the entire site is ready for landscaping, at the completion of the project.
Monitoring Plan:
Due to the small size of the drainage area and channel proposed, and the poor quality of
the impact reach, we are proposing an abbreviated long term monitoring plan we feel will
be adequate and appropriate to the scale of this project. The elements of this plan are as
follows:
1. Within 3 months of completion and final stabilization of the relocated stream
channel an as-built survey will be conducted and will include the following
elements: profile of entire reach, 6 cross sections including one pool and one
riffle in each sub-reach, pebble count, vegetation assessment including plot
counts of woody species and ground cover evaluation, and the establishment of
at least 9 photo points with at least 3 in each sub-reach.
2. Approximately 1-year following the as-built survey conduct a qualitative
assessment of the entire reach including: visual assessment of channel bed and
banks, visual assessment of vegetation establishment and success, and photo
point documentation. If any problem areas are discovered, photo documentation
and written description will be provided for each area. Coordinate with NCDWQ
to repair or otherwise remedy each problem as necessary.
3. Approximately 2-years following the as-built survey conduct a qualitative
assessment of the entire reach as described for year-1.
4. Approximately 3-years following the as-built survey conduct a quantitative
assessment of the entire reach as described for the as-built survey. If the channel
is determined to be stable at this time, this would complete the long term
monitoring.
Avery County Flumane Society 3 06/04/2009
Mitigation Plan
Avery Humane Society: Mation Plan --
UT White Oak Creek Design/Reference Table

UT--White Oak UT-White Oak UT-White Oak UT-White a
Reference Reach UT-White Oak Flat Branch P5-U Proposed Reach Proposed Reach Proposed Reach
Reach Name 1 Reference Reach 2 Reference Reach 3 A B C
River Basin _
French Broad French Broad Yadkin French Broad French Broad French Broad
Stream Type A3 __
__
A3a+(1) - _
--- B4 - Aa+ - A - B _
Drainage Area -
10 acres -
10 acres 35 10 10 10

Bankfull Width 4.36 - -4.2 9.3 - --- 4.5 4.5 - 5
-
-- --
Bkf mean depth 0.54 0.7 0.76
----
- 0.6
--- 0.6 0.4
W/D -- - 8.07 -- 6.2 --
- - 12.24 7.5 7.5 12.5
-
Area, bkf 2.35 2.8 7.02 2.7 2.7 2
mean Velocity _ 7.2 ft/s
bkf Q 294 cfs --
_
I
max depth bkf 0.91 _ 1.24 _ 0.97
1
28 1
67
1 1
1
67 0.8
2
d-max/d-bkf 1.68
-- 1.62 . .
_ . 1
bank height ratio 1
_ 1 1.63 1
9 1
12 40+
Width fpa 10 ----- --- 16 -
1
72 2
2 2
6 >6
Entrenchment Ratio 2.99 . . .

Meander Length - ---- ----- ---- 34.5 (27-42)-- 18
Belt Width - --- - ------- 15.5 (11-20) _ 6.5
Radius of Curvature --- -_- - _-^_ __ 11.54(10-13) _ 9
Lm/Wbkf ---- - 3.71
Rc/Wbkf ---- ------- -- 1.25
-
WbIUWbkf - ------------ ---- 1.67 -
Sinuosity -
Valley Slope

Avg_Slope

-
----

- ---- --

---

.055

_0_0 -
man: 0.0385 mean:.092 range:
0
09
025
0
02
0
Pool Slope rance:.026-.05 _ .06-.13 ---0.014 . . .
mean: 0.1015 mean:.33
Riffle Slope range: A56-_12 rangel. 19-.50 0.3 0.07 0.05
Glide Slope
Run Slope
Sp/Savg 5 0.67
Sr/Savg - ?_?- - -- - 1.65 - - ---- 2.11 --- -- -
S Savg -- - -- - - ----- -- -- - - -
Srun/Savg ---- -- -- ------- - 1.08
max pooll depth 1.89
-
- 2 1.6 1.3
6
6 1
2
2.49
_
Amax-p/Dbkf 1.11
- 2 .
.
5
5.81 9.5 _
Width-pool - 5 5
W-pNV4*f 1.33 - --_1.03
01
9
1
3
3.1 3.2
.
Area-pool _ 2.02 .
A-p/A-bkf -- =4 -- - - -- - ----1.29
mean: 6.7 range: mean 8.5, range mean 12, range mean 12 range
4.5-7.7 18.38 (11-29)
14.7
P-P spacing 7 to 15 10-15 - 10-18
_
_
P-P spacin bkf- _ 2.4 - 1.6 -- 1.98 1.75 2.6 2.4
Channel Materials
D16 0.15 0.15 0.34
D35 4 4 1.7
-
-
D50 11 11 3.2
----
D84
68
68
------- 9- - - -- -
----
D95 185 -- --- 185 ----- -- 15 ----
----- ----- -
- -
Riffle Count ---
-
D35 ---------- ---
----
D50 -- -- - --

--- ----------

Sub-Pavement ----
D16 - --
D35 --- -- - ---- - --
D50 - --- ---- ---- --
D84 ---- -- --- -
D95 --- -- ------- - - -
- -- ---- ---- ------ -- ---
Bar Sample - ---- --------------------- ----------
D16 - ---- --- - - - ---

D35 ---------- --
----
----
-
650 - ---?-- -- - - --- -- -- - -
D84 - -
695 -- - ----
Avery County Humane Society
Newland, NC
Stream Mitigation
Reference Reach, Pebble Count
Date Sampled: May 5, 2009
100 Samples - 10 Cross-sections
.ire (mml
D50 = 11 mm
D75 = 35mm
D84 = 68mm
D90 = 92mm
Type
Silt/Clay: 8%
Sand: 20%
Gravel: 52%
Cobble: 14%
Boulder: 4%
Bedrock: 2%
100
90
80
C 70
ca
L 60
N
tr= C
50
i-+
C
U 40
L
CL 30
20
10
0
Particle Size (mm) Total # Item % % Cum.
<0.062 8 8% 8%
0.062-0.125 2 2% 10%
0.125-0.25 4 4% 14%
0.25-0.5 5 5% 19%
0.5-1 7 7% 26%
1-2 2 2% 28%
2-4 2 2% 30%
4-6 5 5% 35%
6-8 4 4% 39%
8-12 7 7% 46%
12-16 5 5% 51%
16-24 9 9% 60%
24-32 5 5% 65%
32-48 8 8% 73%
48-64 7 7% 80%
64-96 3 3% 83%
96-128 8 8% 91%
128-192 1 1% 9206
192-256 2 2% 94%
256-384 4 4% 98%
384-512 0 0% 98%
512-1024 0 0% 98%
1024-2048 0 0% 98%
2048-4096 0 0% 98%
4096+ 2 2% 100%
TOTALS 100 100% 100%
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
1( F
I
4C
.I
-r 12E
15
1 C
S
F r
17 5
-- 0
0.01 0.1
1
Cumulative percent
finer than
10 100 1000 10000
Particle size (mm)
Number of particles
Q sampled in size range
bouwaer
bearocK
77 15C
Z
C
Cr
CD
O
0
CD
Cn
L co Y N cn
U s m a d
s o ? ? O + X
0
v
v
10
C
C
cc c
0
U r-
L ?
a -6 ?-?
0
L
m
CL C:
N ; V
U- U
t n.
cc
V (D v
M
cc
a x
v E
ffy x
w
v
U N
cc 0
? a
N
4)
2
d E
N r a E"O
CD
cc 70
V 0 N
LL 0 un o Ln o cn o ?n
o
N N O
M M Q
m co co to co tD co co
m M M M M co M M
(4) UOIIEA013
0
O
M

O
G
0
ca
0
0
+----? o
o un
61 aD
Li l 4[]
M M
?1
X
LpJ
I
I C,n
,-1 X
Q)
C I
C=
CO S-
? U
U co
? r--
0-) Cr f
E +
04-J U
r
- i Q co
I-XF= 41
DWF-Ic
4-J

I I Oj

i
a

v- M of O M M r-- CD
N C?j C?j C?j C)i " ti
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CO
O
O
CO
O 4-
L)
O (D
"q u
O
M
O
O CD
O
(q;) U014PA91-?
U
-
U S m CL Q- CL CL

U
N
N
U
C
L
LJ?
O
1
O
o
0
T-
0
0
00 %%w-'
o E
L
O -?--+
O
L
0
0 CU
o U
co C:
cu
o -'-'
N
0
O
Ir-
O
M co co co M co M c0 M
(4) U01jLna13
T
OD
N
N II
U
cc 4-4

L Cl)
d?+

a?
a- ?

t 44

L
Q
Q

ca
m N
? d:
.,N
c II

? a x

C?z
C?
O
O
r
W
cu
cu
LO 4-0
O
N
O

O
(4) uogenal3
(.0
co
co co co M co co
C)
lq
N
(D
N
U II
In
J I 4-I
V)
{ L fn

?' II

N
?
?o 4-a
x
Q
C? U
m
00

Cl)

c
n
J ?
4° a :
r? o
C?
O
LO
r
U
m
o 4-0
r
0
co
N
L-
O
0
(4) uoiJen91'A
M M to to
co M co M
00
N
V)
M
X
d
t ?
U
1 V
Ln
(Y')
N
U II
L (n F:?
ca 'o
3: 0- Ln
No.
LH
L
?oQ
Y U_
c
m C
m
Cl)
n
0
rV
O
O
C%4
LO
r
0
V-
LO
O

U
to
Cl)
0
t?
4-a
O
N
O

(4) uoiJen913
M M M M
g a81"
e e
? ?§ o? ? ??yypfra ??? ? E # ?€ ay r?8
iAa 0 .8Ea58 ia8',111hca e$ u- Eao68

+£
010

Z+£

W 0+£

8+Z

4+Z,

W 7,+Z

z O+Z

z B+(
Q
9+L p

U 4+L Q
cn
0 Z+(
W
0+t
O B+0

O 9+0

4+0
Z+0

0+c

Z+0-
1 M
m m n ! e
(1333) NOUVA 3?3

0
U
p ? w
w
a ? U
>
w O Y
w a
p
J
w
Y
f m r
a Z

m w
F
z

F
W
a
~

Z
O J
0

w
F O
om
w
a°

0 w
Y
0 ? m3 ?
O w
m
ow

O
a c? a

N m ? ? N O O 00

? M M e?j M M M 10 O O O O

M M M M O

M > OI ?

M M N O np
M ?

M 00
U)

µ

n ? d

i
o §
O ?

U
w
O w
(n ` p
O

U Z
O
J + ~
c o
O
W F-
V)

J
Q
-

U N
o
+
o

F- -

?. a
N ? M N O Of ? +
O O O O O p p? p? ?
NOIlbA3?3

V) C
00 CC,
C1 30
O 00
U N ? ,
U M
N ?
c-
c N ?
? t I
L O
r .-
l
1
V ?
ct?

z cn
O
o
I z0
F- O

Q ? -

<` '
2
w w
cn ? ? I^L
-
J Q - (n
Z ?c? O i'°1
U
W

?
w ?• a
z

} $ i
? s 'd

V
zw
J LL
Q O
ry
U? n
wJ
w
5; z
zz
oa
? U
U
wo
cn w
I Cf)
cn U
cn n
OO
ry f-K
U n
0
+
O
O
n
t
O
O
O
+
O
0
+
TiiAiFi?HAi?4?
Nourn313
a
0
0
+
0
O
0
0
FTI
No¢rA3t3
x

?
? a
Aa
8

nn?eNnnN nq???n ?vi r?
NairA3ri

n ? NNN- N„q tW N, -1 Nn N
ys? O Mf H H ? ?????
NOUVA3l3
n mo
00
Nourn3a
Hn npN NhNNn pN$N? N NI?n?
NOUVAM
ipiilipplip
NOUVAn
NOUVA-TO
?i 11111111idi?
NOUVATO
- Ai s
e
FJ 16-T:? J - I ? % 11 ? I I A ; i 1% - I - ? 1 91 ?ev 1 1, 11 I'llt
?E
ls;t s? s ? ? ? c ? E i

0
- J
U

N
v
? Z
ry
N dL Q)

Z
nQ
L.L
z I,
O
H
U
C]
W
ry
Q
L,J
r?
V I
?1lllIIl?
L?JJ Q O a Y PRD DRPI
C)0 a
Z W >H Q d ° // y
ZW >s /
?ry
? J
W
LLJ
LA sadois uamoi aid*W pun t4:)u1g
-
Lj- > }uaunuuad_xiW 33 paaS Xiuog }yak ,
:D LJ
Pa -?
w
0
f. j C

PG
'
sadois uaMOi aidoW
youig
.ax, aaj}ua uoJpuapopoyb
}uauouuad_xlW 33 paaS oiuog : yOjd
C'dJXl) ?Id13G
a d3Qd3ddS -13A3-1
a
wz
a z
N -I

w w n'

\ \ O' 'd01 301M HONI 9
HLIM ONOI 1331 04 A8 d330 1333 Z N104
830V38ds 13A31 31380N00 030d03N138
w w \
?
C w
D

K
_
• ?
830V3dd5 13A31 3H1 01 MDl3
H
1, } 3
1 TJ
r?
N3A3 803 d 3
1 331 01

a, m Z 0_ O •
- If
• C
1N30VfOV 31VM S 301M 301M , £ d330 9
O W Z
V
ip

w 83AOO SSVNO 35830 H11M O31NVld
53HONI > H1 d3O XtlW V3dtl NOIlV81113
w
O ONV 0NI1113S 831 VMW801S

/
w
O Z6S£ NOI1VA313
w ry
Z dll d30V38d5 13A31
W ?
0 -
C5 O y
dr
w e
L
IA a
IA V
Z
> O
O y
1 (U M.
? a
3
L N?
.v
?o
O
L ?
Q) 4:5 ?a a
0! m u
x 4,
UOJ: nO aBaA Bu1}s? anroa-1}uaunuuad-xIw ?gaasa
'd1l 3138DNOO 3H1 HIM
13A31 3ND1S 03HSVM LS# 30 „b
° „£ HLIM 0383AO H101D d31113
N3AOM-NON 10 HIDN37 301M C
p
d181S 831113
SStl80 3SN30 ONIISIX3
9 'Z69£ N014VA313 WN38