20041923 Ver 2_COMPLETE FILE_20060425

Re: [Fwd: EEP Project 06-0749 Ratcliff Cove Restoration]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: EEP Project 06-0749 Ratcliff Cove Restoration]
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:19:31 -0400
To: Lin Xu <[e-mail]>, Laurie J Dennison <[e-mail]>
':.yes
i
u wrote:
Cyndi,
Thanks for the permit. ?s the permit for Farmville Golf and Country Club project
also deemed issued since I submitted the permit application at the same time as
the Ratcliff Cove project? hanks again for your help.
Have a good afternoon!
Lin
Cyndi Karoly wrote:
Lin - hi, I hope you are doing well. Please note that per recent guidance we
will record this file as "deemed issued" in our database. Please note the
concerns expressed by staff in our Asheville Regional Office. These issues
will be recorded in our permanent files for future reference, should
construction or maintenance problems arise in the long term.
Lin Xu
Environmental Engineer
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
,Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1652
x;[phone] (Phone)
;[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
I www.nceep.neu
I of 1 6/27/2006 1:53 PM
review
Subject: review
From: Kyle Barnes <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:39 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
04-1923 Farmville Golf and Country Club/Stream restor Pitt
4/27/2006 06/07/06 EEP/restoration issue normal conditions
?05-0962 Windmill Point Pamlico 5/1/2006 06/09/06 CAMA/MJ Express
Hold:Fee required, this project needs a written 401 with buffer approval
05-0962 This project will need the associated fee. I misread the impacts as being
non vegetated on my first review. You can indicate that there is an Express Program
if he wants to pay the fee.
6/8/2006 8:23 AM
Date: 84Y 01, .20G
To: ? ARO
? FRO
? MRO
? RRO
Triage Check List
,Ile
Golfr Couafry Club She m
Project Name: rnrrny,
DWQ#: 0 Ozl- 9a3
County: A W-.
Barnett
Ken Averitte
Alan Johnson/Barry Love
Eric Kulz
From: 4_ MueNer'" d
0 WaRO Kyle Barnes
? WiRO Noelle Lutheran/Joanne Steenhuis
? WSRO Daryl Lamb
Telephone : [phone]'30
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination r 1.s are,
proposed -pr r re5,6-rlion al rerJy a wef6d ?
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching enhaixemPn{ 1
A resf?'afia? ?l esf?ori or er)hancrn
1Z A??-e the stream and or wetland ? sites neco r-
? .?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments:
. aWacAed N
e,rrn o 4or queS-'ions or CO/7CQr•!7S
o??? war?RQ?
7
r
i-A.Z7 -I
o lqii? -c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kyle Barnes
FROM: Central Office Triage (via Amanda Mueller)
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DATE: May 4, 2006
RE: Farmville Golf and Country Club Stream and Wetland Restoration (DWQ #v2 04-1923)
The central office has reviewed this application for a 401 certification for a NWP 27. Several aspects of
the application require a site visit for the verification of the information provided. Upon visiting the site
please observe and make determinations on the following features.
Stream Enhancement and Restoration:
1. If any or all of this project is approved will they be able to ensure that the golf course has no
negative impacts on the restored or enhanced areas (sediment or nutrient loading, pedestrian
impacts, etc).
2. Why is the bridge and cart path at the top of the reach being relocated? If it is because of the
bank erosion immediately downstream, will relocation of the bridge and path merely cause
the same problem farther downstream?
3. Does Little Contentnea creek need enhancement and will bank stabilization and the addition
of in-stream structures be sufficient to allow enhancement credits.
4. Where on Little Contentnea creek is the 300' of restoration? If it is the removal of the weir
and the upstream sediments, is this sufficient for restoration or would it constitute
enhancement?
5. The application states that the upstream portion of the UT to Little Contentnea creek was
recently restored. What impact if any will this have on the proposed restoration reach.
6. Is restoration necessary on the UT to Little Contentnea creek? If it is necessary, is the
number and tightness of meanders proposed on the restoration plans appropriate?
7. The aerial photo shows a portion of the proposed restoration reach for the UT to Little
Contentnea creek crossing a fairway. Is a woody vegetated buffer going to be able to be
established along this section of the creek?
Wetland Restoration:
1. Please verify that the areas proposed for wetland restoration are not already wetlands. Based
on the aerial photograph, at least portions of the area proposed for wetland restoration appear
to have wet areas or distinct vegetation characteristics.
2. They have proposed grading the areas for wetland restoration. How will this impact the
current trees on site?
/? Ai Carolina
a V ? Atur411
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Memo for Farmville Golf and Country
May 4, 2006
Page 2 of 2
If the site is viable for stream and wetland enhancement and restoration some conditions that need to be
included in the certification are:
1. Monitoring must be conducted on the enhanced and restored areas for the stream. Therefore,
more cross sections will be necessary in Little Contentnea creek to assess the enhancement
areas as well.
2. The monitoring plan should include the number, location, and data to be collected in the
vegetation plots for the stream enhancement and restoration areas.
3. On page 19 and 20 of the restoration plan the Wetland monitoring should state, "Monitoring
efforts will be performed for five years or until success criteria are satisfied, whichever is
longer."
4. All restored wetland areas need to contain at least one monitoring well.
5. Hydrologic success should be inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface
for a number of consecutive days to equal or exceed 12.5%0 of the growing season. The
references gauges within the Riverine wetlands should be included for comparison data in the
event that the success criteria are not met, but they should not be included as part of the
success criteria.
6. Vegetation surveys should be conducted during the growing season.
7. The location of all monitoring wells and vegetation surveys need to be shown to ensure
representative monitoring locations.
If you have any questions or concerns with these comments, please contact Amanda Mueller at
[phone].

Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ?. O 1 R S
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
i
II.
i
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation),check here: 0 < t1'
??
Applicant Information APR 2 5 2006
1 ENR - "tz'11FEk QUALITY
1. Owner/Applicant Information WE ILAN1 °,,iyND STcyPM4'ATEI?BR,ncra
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Telephone Number: 919-715-7571 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: lin.xunncmail.net
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation: N/A
Mailing Address: N/A
Telephone Number: N/A
E-mail Address: N/A
Fax Number: N/A
Page 5 of 13
di . .,
III. Project Information
A RTT,','vicin!ty, 1nap,,' 1early showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
U SACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Farmville Golf and Country Club Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Pitt Nearest Town: Farmville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The Farmville Golf and Country
Club is an active zolf course located off U.S. Hieliway 258 in Farmville. North Carolina.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N/A
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Forest and pasture
7. Property size (acres): 24 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little Contentnea Creek
9. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream enhancement and restoration, wetland
restoration, and buffer restoration
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Forestry and pasture
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
j
V. Future Project Plans
f
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
N/A
4
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands. and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 13

1. 'Wetland Impacts (\o Impact)
j Wetland Impact I
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
I
I
?
i
I
i
1

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditchin&drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(Fn',I), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:U«uw.femaagov.
** List a «etland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 1.3 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (please seci )
Grading and
Little Contentnea earthwork to 1,258 Little Contentnea Creek 40 feet Perennial
Creek restore existing
stream
Grading and
UT to Little earthwork to
68' UT to Little Contentnea
16.5 feet
Perennial
Contentnea Creek restore existing Creek
stream

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it floes. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
??z?zv.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
-,vN'.-w.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 1,941 LF
Page 8 of 13

3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. (No Impact)
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N//A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The proiect is involved with enhanciniz and restoring streams and wetland in the Farmville
Golf and Country Club in Pitt County to serve EEP's protiram obiective and mitization
needs. The project is a mitigation effort and does not impact adjacent streams and
wetlands. See Farmville Golf and Country Club stream and wetland restoration plan for
specific information re2ardin2 the restoration design.
Page 9 of 13
li ? T
N7111. :Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:.Iili2o.enr.state.ne.us/nc,,vetlands/strm2ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The restoration plan is attached. The plan indicates the conservation easement
acquired by the state, plan views, cross section view and proposed method of
enhancement and restoration.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at hgp:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/wr2/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Page 10 of 13

Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
X'.
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers as with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify Catawba Buffer Requirement )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Page 1 I of 13

1 Impact Required
Zone{ ! r--., Multiplier
1 I 0 j 3
2 0 1.5
Total 1 0
Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NN CAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Stream restoration is an exempt activity under the Tar-Pamlico Buffer rule (15A NCAC 213
.0259)
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XH. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
Page 12 of 13
.1
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

4425/ob
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
t
,
I
Page 13 of 13
1
1 ?
1 ?
C)
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATION SITE
1 RESTORATION PLAN
PITT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
I
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
.., 0s ys rem
Kill
ixocxnrn
I
10
March 2006
FINAL A
?.? K pd
PREPARED BY:
HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN & MATTERN, INC
1305 Navaho Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina
919-878-5250
919-878-9187 Fax

Project Manager: Emilio Ancaya

FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE
RESTORATIONPLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goals and Objectives
The Farmville Golf & Country Club is an active golf course located off U.S. Highway 258 in
Farmville, North Carolina. The goals of the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site are 1)
to enhance approximately 1,330 feet and restore 300 feet of Little Contentnea Creek, 2) to restore
approximately 680 feet of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Little Contentnea Creek to a stable
stream system with abundant aquatic and terrestrial habitat, 3) to restore approximately 1.2 acres
of a filled riverine wetland to its original wetland elevation and revegetate with native woody
species, and 4) to preserve approximately 1.3 acres of an existing wetland.
Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Farmville Golf and Country Club Mitigation Site
Mitigation Reach / Station Restoration Priority Existing Designed
Note
Area Range Type A roach LF or AC LF or AC
Reach 1 10+52- Bridge replacement,
Enhancement NA 412 LF 412 LF bank stabilization, and
Little Contentnea Creek 14+64 in-stream structures
Reach 2 17+14- Enhancement NA 303 LF 303 LF Bank stabilization and
Little Contentnea Creek 20+17 in-stream structures
Reach 3 22+19- Enhancement NA 243 LF 243 LF Bank stabilization, and
Little Contentnea Creek 24+62 in-stream structures
Reach 4 23+53- Weir removal, bank
Restoration P3 300 LF 300 LF stabilization, and in-
Little Contentnea Creek 26+53 stream structures
UT to Little 10+00- Restoration P1 588 LF 683 LF Approx. 620 LF of
Contentnea Creek 16+83 channel relocation
Grading to original
1.2 AC wetland elevation, spoil
Wetland NA Restoration NA of filled 1.2 AC berm breaks, invasive
wetlands plant removal, and
reforestation
Coastal Plain Small
Wetland NA Preservation NA 1.3 AC 1.3 AC Stream Swamp
Blackwater Subtype)
NA -not applicable
Neuse River Buffer Mitigation Acreage
Stream Total TOTAL
Little Contentnea Creek 5.1
6.7
UT to Little Contentnea Creek 1.6
EEP Executive Summary
March 2006
•
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE
General Site Conditions
The hydrological features on the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site include the
project reach of Little Contentnea Creek, two UTs, a riverine wetland, and various small
drainages. The wetland area appears to be the historical location of Little Contentnea Creek, prior
to channelization. The drainage area for the main stem of Little Contentnea Creek is
approximately 55.2 square miles and 100 acres for the UT.
There are two terrestrial communities (defined by plant composition) located within the project
study area. Community boundaries within the study area are generally well defined without a
significant transition zone between them. The observed communities are the Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype), and the Disturbed Mesic Mixed Hardwood (Coastal Plain
Subtype). Two soil series are mapped within the project study area: Bib (Bb) and Tuckerman
(Tu) (USDA 1974). Both soil series are classified as hydric.
There are four federally protected species listed for Pitt County, North Carolina: bald eagle, red-
cockaded woodpecker, West Indian manatee, and the Tar spinymussel. As of February 2004, the
Natural Heritage Programs database of threatened and endangered species (NHP) reported no
individuals or populations of any federally protected species within 1.0 mile of the Site.
RESTORATIONPLAN
EEP
Executive Summary
March 2006
FARM VILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MIYYGATIONSITE
RESTORATIONPLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 1
2.0 LOCATION INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 1
3.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION .................................................................. 1
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 1
4.1 Hydrological Features ............................................................................................ 1
4.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................ 1
4.3 Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................................ 1
4.3.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) ................................... 1
4.3.2 Disturbed Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) ..................... 1
4.4 Federally Protected Species ................................................................................... 1
4.5 Existing Condition Stream Geometry and Substrate Data ..................................... 1
t 5.0 STREAM AND RIPARIAN AREA REFERENCE REACH .......................................... 1
5.1 Stream Reference Reach ........................................................................................ 1
5.2 Riparian Area Reference Reach ............................................................................. 1
6.0 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN .................................................................................... 1
6.1 Project Narrative and Recommendations ............................................................... 1
6.2 Morphological Characterization for Design .......................................................... 1
7.0 TYPICALS ........................................................................................................................... 1
8.0 RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING PLAN ......................................................................... 1
8.1 Riparian Planting Location and Methodologies .......... 1
8.2 Tree Species for Riparian Buffer Planting Plan ..................................................... 1
8.3 Shrub Species for Riparian Buffer Planting Plan .................................................. 1
9.0 STREAM MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................... 1
9.1 Schedule and Methodology .................................................................................... 1
9.2 Success Criteria ...................................................................................................... 1.
10.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ................................................................................ 1
10.1 Wetland Restoration ............................................................................................... 1
10.2 Soils ..........................
10.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 1
10.4 Wetland Preservation ............................................................................................. 1
11.0 WETLAND MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................1
11.1 Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 1
11.1.1 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 1
11.1.2 Success Criteria ........................................................................ ......................... 1
1 11.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 1
11.2.1 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 1
11.2.2 Success Criteria ..................................................................................................... 1
11.3 Report Submittals ................................................................................................... 1
11.4 Contingency ........................................................................................................... 1
12.0 LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................1
EEP i March 2006
•
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATION SITE
RESTORATIONPLAN
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location Map ............................................................................................................................. I
Figure 2. Soils Ma
Figure 3. Plant Communities ..................................................................................................................... I
Figure 4. Proposed Stream and Wetland Restoration ................................................................................ I
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Pitt County .................................................................. 1
Table 2. Existing Condition Data for Classification .................................................................... 1
Table 3. Reference Reach Morphological Characterization ........................................................ 1
Table 4. Design Calculations for Little Contentnea Creek .......................................................... 1
Table 5. Design Calculations for UT to Little Contentnea Creek ................................................ 1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A ................................................................................................................Mussel Survey Report
............................... Existing Condition Survey Data
Appendix B ..................................................
Appendix C ................................................................................................................Reference Reach Data
Appendix D ............................... .................. ............................................................... Site Photographs
EEP H March 2006
•
FARM VILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATION SITE RESTORATIONPLAN
i
L 0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals of the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site are 1) to enhance approximately
1,330 feet and restore 300 feet of Little Contentnea Creek, 2) to restore approximately 680 feet
of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Little Contentnea Creek to a stable stream system with abundant
aquatic and terrestrial habitat, 3) to restore approximately 1.2 acres of a filled riverine wetland to
its original wetland elevation and revegetate with native woody species, and 4) to preserve
approximately 1.3 acres of an existing wetland.
2.0 LOCATIONINFORMATION
The Farmville Golf & Country Club is an active golf course located off U.S. Highway 258 in
Farmville, North Carolina (Figure 1). The proposed restoration area includes two streams: Little
Contentnea Creek and one UT to Little Contentnea Creek; and one riverine wetland located
within the Little Contentnea Creek floodplain. Little Contentnea Creek's main channel reach
totals approximately 1,630 linear feet and the tributary reach totals approximately 680 linear feet.
The proposed wetland restoration area encompasses approximately 1.2 acres. The drainage area
for the main stem of Little Contentnea Creek is approximately 55.2 square miles and 100 acres
for the UT. The following information is in reference to the proposed restoration reach:
River basin
USGS 8-digit Catalog number
County
Nearest town
Stream name and classification
Site identified on USGS quad sheet
Location map
Neuse
03020203
Pitt County
Farmville
Little Contentnea Creek, Support rating of Impaired
Figure 1
Figure 1
3.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION
Drainage area: Approximately 55 square miles for main stem
Approximately 100 acres for UT
Dominant land use: Agricultural
Relative distribution of land use:
Estimation land use change:
>50% agricultural; other land uses include forest, low-
density residential, and commercial
Estimated very little changes in land use over the next
10+ yrs; possible changes may include increased
residential areas
EEP
1
March 2006
1244
25
i
rt`
US264 * r
?f
T I
? -max. _. _a` ? / i,x?- a? 4? .y.? " , ,z' l ,e? 77 "??`L. k'.. r...'^"'. .: '? t
?y
(I F201
#i .". i P R+n Y 1.
0,7
r
US258
_.}• `mot `1 `s
~ `? +1 t~r`f `---
Course- Golf Project Study Area
_ s
F." T
.
CO I? t
--:.
. r Substation • Existing
'' y • M + . Wetland
UT to Little
• + r t Contentnea Cr.
z4 +ti r -B - . ?.
W r,
didO,
(WA
r Y .,
11
/20" ?? 400 0 400 800
Farmville
Scale ft
"Rti".•%?'.T^VJ al. ?i.
LOCATION MAP
cows ?Ym Farmville Golf & Country Club
1.1 11 Figure 1
?_al ? 1t .?-'J ti,'/?'A O 1. tAJ Mitigation Site
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 Hydrological Features
The hydrological features on the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site include the
project reach of Little Contentnea Creek, two UTs, a riverine wetland, and various small
drainages (Figure 2). The wetland area appears to be the historical location of Little Contentnea
Creek, prior to channelization.
4 4.2 Soils
Two soil series are mapped within the project study area: Bib (Bb) and Tuckerman (Tu) (USDA
1974) (Figure 3). Both soil series are classified as hydric.
4.3 Terrestrial Communities
There are two terrestrial communities (defined by plant composition) located within the project
study area. Community boundaries within the study area are generally well defined without a
significant transition zone between them. The observed communities are mapped in Figure 3
and described below.
4.3.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) is found in the floodplains of
small blackwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too
small or poorly developed to distinguish (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community is
typically found on various alluvial or organic soils and may resemble brownwater communities
in areas where agriculture has increased stream sediment loading.
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) observed within the project study
area is located within the Little Contentnea Creek floodplain. It appears to be the relict channel
of Little Contentnea Creek prior to channelization of the existing reach. Dominant canopy
species observed in this community included red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), American elm (Ulmus americana), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodifolia). The
observed shrub/sapling species included ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, and
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Observed herbaceous and woody vine species included
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), grape (Vitis sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and rattan vine (Berchermia scandens).
EEP 3 March 2006
y
y
led
e
Tt. r?
., xt
f ? N? nT
-
l
iMl
h. ? ? ? x k
•. ice.
f I F ??
k'
„i-
d
Project Study Area q `
Little Contentnea Creek T%
?q
and UT ??r--
Plant Community 100 0 100 200
ALL, Boundary Scale (ft)
PLANT COMMUNITIES
?? LL Figure 3
Farmville Golf & Count Club
'al laI'itCI I tcI
", -I A?,,, Mitigation Site
•
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
4.3.2 Disturbed Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
The maintained/disturbed community represents the most extensive plant community in the
project study area and is located within the golf course greens-fairways, and wood edges. These
areas are regularly maintained and include herbs, saplings, and other plant species typically
found in early successional communities. The canopy stratum includes scattered cherry bark
oak, sweetgum, bald cypress, red maple, and American elm. The observed herbaceous species
includes fescues (Festuca spp.), violets (Viola spp.), cress (Cardamine sp.), water pennywort
(Hydrocotyle americana), sourgrass (Oxalis sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and clover (Trifolium
sp.).
4.4 Federally Protected Species
There are four federally protected species listed for Pitt County, North Carolina. As of February
2004, the Natural Heritage Programs database of threatened and endangered species (NHP)
reported no individuals or populations of any federally protected species within 1.0 mile of the
Site. Table 1 includes all federally protected species listed for Pitt County. A discussion of the
findings pertaining to suitable habitat and the presence or likely presence of individual organisms
or populations is provided below.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Pitt County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus Bald eagle Threatened*
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Endangered
Elli do steinstansana Tars in mussel Endangered
*Proposed for delisting.
Bald Eagle Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as threatened on the USFWS list of
threatened or endangered species (March 11, 1967). Adult bald eagles can be identified by their
large white head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in
color. In flight, bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to
the water, in the largest living tree in that area, and having an open view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald
eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
EEP 6 March 2006
•
•
•
•
t
•
t
t
t
r
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
•
t
•
t
t
•
•
•
1
•
•
t
t
t
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
Habitat in the form of large living trees with a clear flight path (within a half mile) to a large
stream or lake is not found within the project study area. Additionally, no eagles or nests were
observed at the time of the surveys. Consequently, construction of the Farmville Golf & Country
Club Mitigation Site will have "No Effect" on the bald eagle or its preferred habitat.
Red cockaded woodpecker Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) has plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. Distinctive color patterns
for the red-cockaded woodpecker include a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap,
nape, and throat; black and white horizontal stripes along the back; and a white breast with
streaked flanks.
{
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker consists of old-growth open stands of southern pines,
which are utilized for foraging and nesting grounds. The red-cockaded woodpecker shows a
particular affinity for stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). Inhabited stands typically contain
more than 50 percent pine, lack a thick understory, and are contiguous with other suitable stands.
The red-cockaded woodpecker nests exclusively in living pine trees that are greater than 60 years
in age and are contiguous with pine stands that are at least 30 years in age.
Habitat in the form of old-growth open stands of pines lacking a thick understory and contiguous
with a pine stand at least 30 years in age is not present within the project study area. Therefore,
the project study area did not meet the habitat requirements for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Consequently, construction of the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site will have "No
Effect" on the red-cockaded woodpecker or its preferred habitat.
West Indian Manatee Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The West Indian Manatee is listed as Endangered on the USFWS list of threatened or
endangered species. They are large gray or brown aquatic mammals with adults averaging about
10 feet long and weighing 1,000 pounds. Manatees have no hindlimbs, and their forelimbs are
modified as flippers. Their tails are flattened horizontally and rounded, with sparse hair covering
their bodies and stiff whiskers covering their muzzles. The sexes of manatees are distinguished
by the position of the genital openings and presence or absence of mammary glands. They will
spend about 5 hours a day feeding, and may consume aquatic vegetation equaling 4 to 9 percent
of their body weight. Although primarily herbivorous, they will occasionally feed on fish.
The habitat for manatees includes both salt and fresh water of sufficient depth (4.9 feet to usually
less than 19.6 feet) throughout their range. They may be encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine
EEP 7 March 2006
r
r
r
r
r.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
!r
r
r
r
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
habitats, saltwater bays, and on occasion have been observed as much as 3.7 miles off the Florida
Gulf coast. Between October and April, West Indian manatees concentrate in areas of warmer
water. When water temperatures drop below about 21 to 22 degrees Centigrade, they migrate to
south Florida or form large aggregations in natural springs and industrial outfalls. Severe cold
fronts have been known to kill manatees when the animals did not have access to warm water
refuges. During warmer months they appear to choose areas based on an adequate food supply,
water depth, and proximity to fresh water. Manatees may not need fresh water but they are
frequently observed drinking fresh water from hoses, sewage outfalls, and culverts.
Habitat in the form of salt and/or fresh water canals, rivers, estuarine habitats, or saltwater bays
with depths ranging from 4.9 to 19.6 feet were not observed within the project study area.
Consequently, construction of the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site will have "No
Effect" on the West Indian Manatee or its preferred habitat.
Tar spinymussel Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is listed as endangered on the USFWS's list of
threatened or endangered species (July 29, 1985). This mussel grows to an average length of 2.4
inches and has short spines arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve
and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as 12
spines that project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult
specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature. The Tar spinymussel is distinguished by its
shiny periostricum, parallel pseudocardinal teeth, and the linear ridges on the inside surface of
the shell.
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar River system, currently occurring
in relatively short stretches of the Tar River and three creeks (Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Little
Fishing) in the Tar drainage. Historically the Tar spinymussel was collected in the Tar River
from near Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt County (approximately 78 river
miles). In 1983 the Tar spinymussel was located in only a 12-mile stretch of the Tar River in
Edgecombe County. Recently (1998) the Tar spinymussel was found in the Little River of the
Neuse River Basin. The preferred habitat of the Tar spinymussel in Swift Creek was described
as relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant
swings in water velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or
coarse sand.
Habitat within the project reach is generally unsuitable for the Tar spinymussel. However, a
mussel survey was conducted on June 14, 2005 but no individuals of Tar spinymussel were
EEP
g March 2006
•
•
•
•
t
t
•
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
1
t
t
1
t
t
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
found (see Appendix A). Consequently, mitigation activities within the Farmville Golf &
Country Club Mitigation Site will have "No Effect" on the Tar spinymussel or its preferred
habitat.
4.5 Existing Condition Stream Geometry and Substrate Data
The project reach of Little Contentnea Creek on the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation
Site is classified as an "B5" channel with very low sinuosity. The profile of the channel is
currently devoid of any significant pool habitat other than one large scour hole immediately
downstream of the bridge crossing at the upstream end. The bridge crossing is also creating
extensive bank erosion downstream. The project reach is lacking in woody debris, which is
typically a major contributor to in-stream habitat in coastal plain streams. At the end of the
project reach a low weir is creating some backwater and causing sediment to deposit upstream.
The geometry of the existing channel is as follows:
Table 2. Existing Condition Data for Classification
Width/De th Ratio 10
Entrenchment Ratio 12.5
Cross-sectional Area 160 square feet
Sinuosity 1.1
The substrate of the channel is sand with some organic/mucky material. There is just enough
clay or silt present in the bank material to allow for excavation without collapsing banks. This
will allow for installation of in-stream structures.
The UT to Little Contentnea Creek is classified as an "B5" channel, however, the project reach
has been severely altered by dredging and erosion. Excavation and clearing operations have
resulted in a channel dimension that is excessively enlarged and has only limited in-stream
habitat. The channel pattern has been straightened and the profile lacks significant pools. There
are several locations where erosion has resulted in bank failure.
The existing condition stream geometry and substrate data for the main stem of Little Contentnea
Creek and the UT to Little Contentnea Creek is located in Appendix B of this report.
EEP 9 March 2006
•
FARMVILLE GOLF& COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE
5.0 STRE"AND RIPARIANAREA REFERENCE REACH
RESTORATIONPLAN
5.1 Stream Reference Reach
Bear Creek was surveyed by HSMM and is used as the reference stream for the channel design
for the main stem and UT of Little Contentnea Creek at the Farmville Golf & Country Club
Mitigation Site. Appendix C contains the graphs and associated data depicting the dimension,
pattern, and profile of the reference reach. Below is the morphological characterization
summary table for Bear Creek. The reach of Bear Creek surveyed is classified as an E5 stream
type.
Table 3. Reference Reach Morphological Characterization
Variables Bear Creek Variables Bear Creek
1. Stream Type E5 20 Valley Slope 0.11%
2. Drainage Area (mil) 57.7 21. Avg. Slope (Sval/K) 0.06%
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 37.7-45.3 22. Pool Slope (Spool) 0
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) 4.4-5.0 23. Pool Slope Ratio (Spool/Savg) 0
5. Width/Depth Ratio 7.6-10.3 24. Max Pool Depth (dpool) 5.8
6. Max Riffle Depth Ratio (Dmax/Dbkf) 1.5-1.9 25. Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool/Dbkf) 1.3
7. Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf) 187-198.3 26. Pool Area Ratio (Apool/Abkf) 1.3
8. Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 2.7 27. Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/Wbkf) 2
9. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) 530 28. Pool Width (Wpool) 45.7
10. Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmax) 6.6-9.5 29. Pool Width Ratio (Wpool/Wbkf) 1
11. Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa) 1001-1200 30. Pool/Pool Spacing (p-p) 93-235
12. Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) 22.1-26.5 31. Pool Spacing Ratio (p-p/Wbkf) 3.5
13. Meander Length (Lm) 421.3 Materials: -
14. Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) 9.3 1. Particle Size Distribution of Channel -
15. Radius of Curvature (Rc) 421.3 d16 0.279
16. Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rc/Wbkf) 1.1-1.4 d35 0.32
17. Belt Width (Wblt) 126.8 d50 0.4
18. Meander Width Ratio (WbIYWbkf) 2.8 d84 0.45
19. Sinuosity (K) 1.9 d95 0.5
5.2 Riparian Area Reference Reach
The existing vegetative community at the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site was
used as the reference vegetative community for the purposes of this report. Native species found
on-site provided a variety of woody and herbaceous plants that are specified in the Riparian
Buffer Planting Plan.
EEP
10
March 2006
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
6.0 STREAM RESTORA TIONPLAN
The conceptual stream restoration plan includes the following information:
• Project Narrative and Recommendations
• Morphological Characterization table showing:
o existing conditions
o proposed conditions
o reference conditions
Figure 4 provides a scaled plan view of the project study area showing existing channel location,
proposed channel location, proposed in-stream structure locations, and the adjacent buffer areas.
6.1 Project Narrative and Recommendations
It is the recommendation of HSMM that the reach of Little Contentnea Creek at the Farmville
Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site be enhanced in its present locations with the replacement
of the upstream bridge crossing, installation of in-stream structures for aquatic habitat, riparian
plantings, and removal of the low weir and portions of the spoil berm. The constraints on-site
include the FEMA restrictions for a No-Rise certification, a significant adjacent wetland, mature
woody vegetation, and channel crossings at both the up and down stream ends of the project.
This reach of Little Contentnea Creek was straightened and channelized over seventy (70) years
ago and has since remained in its current location.
The adjacent wetland area may have previously been the location of multiple channels which
carried the water through this reach. Consideration was given to possible diversion of the
existing channel back into these relic channel features. However, the cross sectional geometry of
the relic is significantly smaller than the current bankfull geometry of Little Contentnea Creek.
This is in part due to deposition in the relic section but also attributable to the likelihood that the
historic geometry consisted of multiple channels of which the relic is only a portion. As a
consequence, re-diversion of flow back into this reach would require significant over-excavation
of the section. Currently that area is a well vegetated, thriving wetland which provides excellent
habitat and flood storage for the project reach during high flow conditions.
The banks of the existing channel are generally stable, except immediately downstream of the
upstream crossing. We recommend replacing this crossing with a prefabricated single span type
bridge which would significantly increase the opening area and reduce the back-eddy affect that
is resulting in these bank failures. The portions of the channel banks that are adjacent to the
existing bridge will need to be reconstructed and stabilized. The majority of the stream banks
along the project reach can remain in their current state, with the exception of removal of select
EEP 11 March 2006
P
1
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MI77GATIONSITE
6.2 Morphological Characterization for Design
Table 4. Design Calculations for Little Contentnea Creek
RESTORATIONPLAN
Variables Existing Proposed Reference
1. Stream Type E5 E5 E5
2. Drainage Area (mil) 55 55 57.7
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 40 40.0 45.3
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf 4 4.0 4.4
5. Width/Depth Ratio 10 10 10.3
6. Max Riffle Depth Ratio (Dmax/Dbkf) 1.5 1.5 1.5
7. Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf) 160 160.0 198.3
8. Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 2 2 2.7
9. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) 320 320 530
10. Bankfull Ma)amum Depth (Dmax) 6 6.0 6.5
11. Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa) 500 500 1000
12. Entrenchment Ratio (WfpaNVbkf) 12.5 12.5 22.1
13. Meander Length (Lm) - - 420
14. Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) - - 9.3
15. Radius of Curvature (Rc) - - 55
16. Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rc/Wbkf) - - 1.2
17. Belt Width (Wblt) - - 125
18. Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) - - 2.8
19. Sinuosity (K) 1 1 1.9
20 Valley Slope 0.06% 0.06% 0.11%
21. Avg. Slope (SvaVK) 0.06% 0.06% 0.06%
22. Pool Slope (Spool) 0 0 0
23. Pool Slope Ratio (Spool/Savg) 0 0 0
24. Max Pool Depth (dpool) 13*/7.5 9.6 11
25. Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool/Dbkf) 3.25*/1.25 2.4 2.5
26. Pool Area Ratio (ApooUAbkf) 2.4*/1.3 1.3 1.3
27. Pool Length Ratio (LpooWVbkf) 2.5*/1.9 1.3 1.3
28. Pool Width (Wpool) 55*/40.2 40.0 45.7
29. Pool Width Ratio (Wpool/Wbkf) 1.38*/1.01 1 1
30. Pool/Pool Spacing (p-p) 150 130.0 150
31. Pool Spacing Ratio (p-pNVbkf) 3.75 3.3 3.3
Materials:
1. Particle Size Distribution of Channel
d16 0.279
d35 0.32
d50 Sand Sand 0.4
d84 0.45
d95 0.5
* Max pool depth at scour hole below bridge crossing; Not indicative of other shallow pools
along the project reach.
EEP 14 March 2006
•
•
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITTGATIONSITE
Table 5. Design Calculations for UT to Little Contentnea Creek
Variables Existing Proposed Reference
1. Stream Type E5 E5 E5
2. Drainage Area (miz) 0.16 0.16 57.7
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 16.5 5.5 37.7-45.3
4. Bankfull Mean Depth Dbk 1.2 0.6 4.4-5.0
5. Width/Depth Ratio 7.9 10 7.6-10.3
6. Max Riffle Depth Ratio Dmax/Db 1.75 1.8 1.5-1.9
7. Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area Abk 19.5 3.0 187-198.3
8. Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkt) 2.7 2.7
9. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) 8.1 530
10. Bankfull Ma)amum Depth Dmax 2.1 1.0 6.6-9.5
11. Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa) 220 1000 1001-1200
12. Entrenchment Ratio (VvTpa/Wbkf) 13.3 181.8 22.1-26.5
13. Meander Length Lm 367.0 49.5 421.3
14. Meander Length Ratio LmANbk 22.2 9 9.3
15. Radius of Curvature Rc 230 11.0 421.3
16. Radius of Curvature Ratio RcNVbk 13.9 2 1.1-1.4
17. Belt Width k 110 16.5 126.8
18. Meander Width Ratio (WbRANbkf) 6.7 3 2.8
19. Sinuosi K 1.1 1.5 1.9
20 Valle Sloe 0.20% 0.20% 0.11%
21. Avg. Slope SvaVK 0.20% 0.13% 0.06%
22. Pool Slope (Spool) 0 0
23. Pool Slope Ratio S ool/Sav 0 0
24. Max Pool Depth d ool 2.2 1.375 11
25. Pool Depth Ratio D ooVDbk 1.8 2.5 2.5
26. Pool Area Ratio (Apool/Abkf) 1.2 1.2 1.3
27. Pool Length Ratio L ooVWbk 2 2
28. Pool Width ool 18.7 5.5 45.7
29. Pool Width Ratio (WpooWVbM 1.1 1 1
30. PooVPool Spacing - 27.5 93-235
31. Pool Spacing Ratio (p-p/Wbkf) 5 3.5
Materials:
1. Particle Size Distribution of Channel
d16 0.279
d35 0.32
d50 sand/silt sand/silt 0.4
d84 0.45
d95 0.5
2. Particle Size Distribution of Bar N/A
d16 NIA
d35 N/A
d50 N/A
d84 N/A
W95 N/A
Largest Size at Toe of Bar N/A
RESTORATIONPLAN
EEP
15
March 2006
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
7.0 TYPICALS
Included in the plans are typical sections for the proposed streams.
8.0 RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING PLAN
The riparian planting plan details the species list for recommended riparian plantings along the
project reach, in addition to the location and methodology for such plantings.
8.1 Riparian Planting Location and Methodologies
The proposed restoration areas will be planted with trees in the form of bare-root stock. All
plantings will be performed between December 1 and March 15 while stock is dormant.
8.2
All trees will be planted within the proposed riparian buffer area to provide a minimum stem
count of 680 stems per acre. This translates to planting on approximately 8-foot centers. Tree
species to be planted will be consistent with those species located within the reference riparian
buffer and derived from the following list (as available):
Tree Species for Riparian Buffer Planting Plan
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
Swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodifolia)
River birch (Betula ngra)
Sweet bay (Magnolia Virginiana)
Water Oak (Quercus Nigra)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
8.3 Shrub Species for Riparian Buffer Planting Plan
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
Wax myrtle (Myrica certifera)
9.0 STREAMMONITORING PLAN
The final monitoring plan for the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site stream
restoration component will include the following:
o Introduction
o Project Summary
o Monitoring Schedule and Methods
EEP 16 March 2006
•
FARMYILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE
o Success Criteria
o Mitigation
o Maintenance and Contingency Plans
o References
9.1 Schedule and Methodology
The proposed monitoring schedule and methodology presented are per the current guidelines for
monitoring mitigation projects set forth by the regulatory agencies, including the NC DENR
Division of Water Quality and the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. This
information was obtained from the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
Upon completion of construction of the mitigation project, an as-built survey will be completed.
This survey will determine the permanent cross-sections, photo points, vegetation plots, and
benchmarks necessary for future monitoring efforts. The surveying methodology will follow the
USDA Forest Service Manual "Stream Channel Reference Sites" (Harrelson, et al, 1994). This
information will be used to document the dimension, pattern, and profile of the restored channel.
The permanent cross-sections will be installed every twenty (20) times the bankfull width, with
50% located in pools and 50% located in riffles. It is also recommended to try and identify
locations that may have problems in the future, and locate cross-sections there if possible. The
Farmville Golf and Country Club Site will have a total of two cross sections located within Little
Contentnea Creek and six cross sections located within the UT to Little Contentnea Creek (3 in
pools and 3 in riffles). The photo documentation should also target possible problem areas, and
focus mainly on in-stream structures and be located at permanent cross-sections. Photos should
be taken twice a year to show the site with and without vegetation that has leafed out.
Additionally, the as-built survey should result in data that can be exhibited as a plan view
diagram of the project site. The length of the longitudinal profile for the project should be 3,000
linear feet or 30 % of the project length, whichever is longer. If the project is shorter than this,
the profile should be for the entire length of the site. Pebble counts should be conducted at six
permanent cross-sections or all if fewer are present. The duration of monitoring efforts is a
minimum of five (5) years and should include at least two bankfull events. If more time is
needed to achieve the flow requirements, it will be decided on a case-by-case basis whether or
not to extend the monitoring period.
9.2 Success Criteria
The following information will be used to evaluate the success or failure of a project. This
information is taken directly from the current US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, as found on:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitication.html
RESTORATIONPLAN
EEP
17
March 2006
1
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE
Photo documentation shall be utilized to assess channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, effectiveness of erosion control measures, and the
presence or absence of developing instream bars. Ecological function will be assessed by
determining the health and survival of vegetation and by determining if the restoration reach
mimics reference conditions. Channel stability will be evaluated on the basis of channel
alterations relative to the as-built dimensions and whether any alterations represent a movement
in the direction of instability (e.g. increased width to depth ratio or a decreased width to depth
ratio with decreased entrenchment ratio).
Annual monitoring forms will require as-built plans and current data. Monitoring reports shall
contain a discussion of any deviations from as-built and an evaluation of the significance of these
deviations and whether they are indicative of a stabilizing or destabilizing situation.
The table below is from Appendix II of the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines document. It
details the potential remedial actions necessary if a mitigation project indicates failure of a
component.
Appendix H. General criteria used to evaluate the success or failure of activities at mitigation sites and required remedial actions to be
,...,te..,e,.?e.t ?t,.,,a.t ,.,....;...a.,.. ;., a;...... c.,:t,.,.e .,r .. ...........,,or.
3liti2atiou Component Success (requires no action) Failure Action
(L) Photo Reference Sites No substan6al* ag°radation, Substantial abgradatiou. lNFeu substantial aggradatioq, ,
Longitudinal photos degradation or hank erosion. degradation or bank er onion. degradation or hank erosion occurs,
Lateral photos remedial actions lull be planned,
approved, and implemented_
(2.) Plant Survival 75° o Coverage in PLoto Plots < '5q* coverage in phuto plots Areas of less than 751 . coverage '
Survival plots for herbaceous cover. bill be re-seeded and or ferfilized,
Stake counts Smcival and grotivth of at least 320 live stakes and bare tooted trees SEill
Tree counts treeslacre through year 3, then Survival of less than 320 trees be planted to achieve desired
100,o mortality allowed in year d per acre through year 3 and densities.
(234 treesracre) and additional then lets than the success
IV o mortality in year 5 for 260 criteria foi ? ears ,i and 5.
treesfacre through rear 5.
3. Cllaunel stability Minimal evidence of instabilit2V Substantial` evidence of When Suhstantial e6dence of
Cross-sectiuns (dower-cutting, deposition, bank imtabihn% instability occurs. remedial action;
Longitudinal profiles erasion, increase in sands or finer hill be planned, approved, and
Pebble counts substrate material). implemented.
(.Y.) Biological Indicators Population measurements remain Population measurements and Reasons for failure rsilt he evaluated
Invertebrate popttLitions the same or improve, and species species composition indicate a and remedial action plans
Fish populations composition indicates a positive negatii e trend. developed, approved, and
trend. implemented.
*Substantial or subjective determinations of success will be made by the mitigation sponsor and confirmed by C OE and tmziew agencies.
Mona )rm2 Level I mill include items 1, 1 and 3, and may include item 4 based on the project revie:a.
Monitoring Lecel 2 will include items I and 2, and may include item 3 based on the psoject we iew:
Nfonitonng Level 3 will include only item 1.
RESTORATIONPLAN
EEP
18
March 2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATION SITE RESTORATIONPLAN
10.0 WETLAND RESTORATIONPLAN
Site performance and success criteria for the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site will
be based on the successful establishment of wetland hydrology and vegetation. All wetland
restoration monitoring efforts will be performed for a minimum of five years or until the success
criteria are satisfied.
10.1 Wetland Restoration
Wetland restoration efforts for the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation Site will consist of
approximately 1.2 acres of riverine wetlands (see Figure 4) located in select areas adjacent to the
existing Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) wetland. The proposed
restoration efforts include removing invasive exotic plant species (Chinese privet), grading the
existing elevation to the original wetland elevations, soil preparation (ripping/disking), and
revegetating with native canopy species. Additionally, select portions of the Little Contentnea
Creek dredge pile will be excavated to Little Contentnea Creeks top of bank elevation allowing
overflow events to directly influence hydrology within the proposed wetland restoration areas.
The goal of the restoration efforts is to restore wetland vegetation and hydrology to the
previously filled Bib and Tuckerman soils.
i
10.2 Soils
All soils utilized for construction activities within the Farmville Golf & Country Club Mitigation
Site will consist of in situ soils. Prior to planting wetland vegetation, all restoration area soils
will be analyzed to ensure appropriate nutrient concentrations and pH is present. Appropriate
soil amendments will be added, if necessary, to ensure successful growth of all planted
vegetation.
f
10.3 Vegetation
The proposed restoration areas will be planted with trees in the form of bare-root stock. All
plantings will be performed between December 1 and March 15 while stock is dormant.
All trees will be planted within the proposed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater
Subtype) area to provide a minimum stem count of 680 stems per acre. This translates to
planting on approximately 8-foot centers. Tree species to be planted will be consistent with
those species located within the reference wetlands and derived from the following list (as
available):
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
EEP 19 March 2006
P
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATIONSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
10.4 Wetland Preservation
The preservation component for the Site will consist of preserving 1.3 acres of an existing
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) wetland system.
11.0 WETLAND MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until success criteria
are satisfied. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, hydrology and vegetation.
11.1 Hydrology
Automated monitoring gauges utilized to monitor the Site's groundwater hydrology will be
designed and placed in accordance with specifications in the Corps of Engineers' Installing
Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August, 1993).
The monitoring gauges installed will consist of Remote Data Systems, Inc. model EcotoneTM
j WM Series automated groundwater monitoring gauges, or acceptable equivalents. These gauges
will continuously record water level data along a 40-inch gradient.
11.1.1 Monitoring
EcotoneTM WM Series (40-in) automated groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within
the restored wetland areas to determine hydrologic success. Following installation, the
automated groundwater gauges will be adjusted to record data once daily. The gauges will be in
E operation throughout the year, and data will be downloaded at intervals sufficiently spaced to
provide effective monitoring and assessment of success criteria for wetland hydrology.
11.1.2 Success Criteria
Wetland hydrology success criterion will be satisfied in the restoration areas during average
climatic conditions when saturated soil conditions occur within 12 inches (30 centimeters) of the
grounds surface for
• 12.5% of the growing season, or if the hydroperiod is within 20% of the average for
reference gauges within the riverine wetlands.
EEP 20 March 2006
s
FARMYILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGAY70NSITE RESTORATIONPLAN
11.2 Vegetation
Monitoring methods for vegetation within mitigation areas have been developed in accordance
with Corps of Engineers Branch Guidance for Wetlands Compensation Permit Conditions and
Performance Criteria (1995). A general discussion of the compensatory vegetation-monitoring
plan is provided in the following sections.
11.2.1 Monitoring
Five 20-foot x 20-foot quantitative sampling plots for vegetation will be established in the
wetland restoration areas. Upon completion of planting, an evaluation will be performed to
determine the initial species composition and density. Subsequent quantitative sampling of
vegetation plots will be performed after each growing season until vegetation success criteria is
achieved. Permanent photography stations will be established at selected vantage points to
provide a visual record of vegetation development over time. All vegetation monitoring plots
will be correlated with hydrological monitoring sites where possible to allow for point-source
data of hydrologic and vegetation parameters.
11.2.2 Success Criteria
Wetland vegetation success criterion is defined by a minimum mean density of 320 trees per acre
of approved target species surviving for the first three years. The required success criteria will
decrease by 10% per year after the third year to 290 stems per acre for year four and 260 stems
per acre for year five.
11.3 Report Submittals
As-built plans will be submitted within 90 days following the completion of mitigation
construction. The as-built plans will show final site grading along with a description of post-
planting site conditions. Additionally, a discussion of the planting program will be provided that
includes the species planted, species densities, and number of stems planted. The report will also
provide a map of groundwater monitoring gauge locations, proposed photographic monitoring
stations and proposed vegetation sampling plots.
The first year monitoring report will be submitted to EEP in pdf format. The report will follow
the most current version of EEP's monitoring report format requirements. Subsequent
monitoring reports will be submitted by EEP annually to the resource agencies following each
growing season. Submitted reports will include (1) sample plot data, (2) water level data from
automated groundwater monitoring gauges, and (3) a discussion of substantiated problems and
proposed recommendations for problem resolution. Density, survival and percent composition
of targeted tree species will be reported. The duration of wetland hydrology during the growing
season will also be calculated at each monitoring gauge location and extrapolated to each
EEP 21 March 2006
. FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATION SITE RESTORATIONPLAN
restored community. The above mentioned monitoring features, monitoring data collection, and
monitoring data summarization will be conducted in accordance with the most current version of
the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring
Reports".
• 11.4 Contingency
• In the event that vegetation and/or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, appropriate
contingency measures will be implemented in coordination with the Resource Agencies.
Examples of such actions include replanting and extension of the monitoring period if
community mitigation types do not fulfill minimum species density and distribution
requirements. Hydrologic contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and the
Resource agencies in the event that predicted hydrology is not achieved during the monitoring
period. Recommendations for altering hydrology to establish wetland hydrology will be
implemented and monitored until the hydrology success criteria are achieved.
IZO LITERATURE CITED
Harrar ES, Harrar JG. 1962. Guide to Southern Trees. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. 709
PP.
t
Harrelson CC, CL Rawlins, and JP Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated
guide to field technique. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245. 61 pp.
. N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Element Occurrence Search Report: Pitt County, North
Carolina. http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html. Updated July 2005.
Radford AE, Ashles HE, and Bell CR. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Schafale MP and Weakley AS. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the
North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. Preliminary Soil Survey of Pitt County, North
Carolina. 1974.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Branch Guidance for Wetland
Compensation, Permit Conditions and Performance Criteria. 7 December 1995.
EEP 22 March 2006
i
P
FARMVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB MI77GATIONSITE
RESTORA77ONPL4N
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. April 1995.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1: Installing
Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. August 1993.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services.
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Pitt County. Updated 5 February 2003.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Farmville, North Carolina, Quadrangle (7.5-minute
series). 1 sheet.
Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1999. U.S. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual. Glenwood, NM. WTI 99-1. 143 pp_
EEP
23
March 2006
e
e
e
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
APPENDIX A
MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• I
•
•
•
•
• F
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY
Little Contentnea Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Pitt County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
HSMM
1305 Navaho Drive, Suite 303
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
July 6, 2005
tom' • Du
Thomas E. Dickinson

INTRODUCTION
i
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to
.
restore impaired sections of Little Contentnea Creek of the Neuse River Basin within the
f
confines of the Farmville i
Course near Farmville in Pitt County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is listed
by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as occurring in Pitt County. Historically,
the Tar spinymussel is known from the mainstem of the Tar River (of the Tar River
Basin) in Pitt County at Falkland. The Tar spinymussel is also known from the Neuse
River Basin in Johnston County. While not listed for the Pitt County, the federally
. endangered dwarf wedgemussel is documented from the Tar River Basin (Chicod Creek)
in Pitt County (Johnson 1970) and is known from tributaries to the Contentnea Creek
subbasin in Nash, Johnston, land Wilson counties (Moccasin and Turkey Creeks). Thus,
the dwarf wedgemussel is addressed in this report as well. In addition to the Tar
spinymussel and dwarf wedgemussel, there are several other rare freshwater mussel
species that may occur in the Neuse River Basin in Pitt County. These include the
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), yellow
lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), triangle floater
. (Alasmidonta undulata), creeper (Strophitus undulatus), and eastern lampmussel
(Lampsilis radiata). The Atlantic pigtoe, yellow lance, yellow lampmussel, and green
floater are Federal Species of Concern and are considered Endangered in North Carolina.
. The triangle floater, creeper, 'I nd eastern lampmussel are considered Threatened in North
. Carolina.
WATERS IMPACTED: Little Contentnea Creek

. The proposed project will impact Little Contentnea Creek, which arises
approximately 13 river miles ?RM) to the northwest of the project crossing in Wilson
County, North Carolina. Approximately 19 RM downstream and southeast of the project
. crossing, Little Contentnea Creek joins the mainstem Contentnea Creek which joins the
mainstem Neuse River south of Grifton, NC. Within the surveyed reach, Little
Contentnea Creek ranges from%5 to 6 meters (16-20 feet) wide with 1-2 meter (3-7 foot)
high banks. The substrate in the surveyed portion of Little Contentnea Creek is
dominated by shifting sand with incised clay banks.
I
The stream runs through the Farmville Country Club Golf Course, which is where
the proposed restoration reach occurs. Little to no riparian vegetation occurs adjacent to
. the creek within the proposed restoration reach. The left descending bank is unstable and
severely eroded in places throughout the restoration reach. The right descending bank
has a narrow strip of riparian vegetation through much of the proposed restoration reach.
This bank shows moderate signs of erosion throughout most of the restoration reach, but
. is severely eroded in places, particularly near golf cart crossings of the creek. Water
depth within the restoration reach is fairly constant and was approximately 1 foot deep
during the site visit.

TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
i
t
Li
tle Contentnea Creek Stream Restorat
on, Pitt County, NC

1
1

r

a r ti
-04
C`

ii sl
\•214 ? $'? ??? v„'?w.. ? , y ? '? , {
r , • tj}
/?T` ?? Z: ?
'•
,
{
SId1B• If,
,?"' ry t? pbfZM1 T u. ?- { t' =,x vs." °'?? ?' ({ 1
?
^?

s ( 1 s? , `,

20
It
S,kw ``
4

?tSK` { I 711i o"
y? a VA _ g?\
a }, It

r C1 1 _ ?11 7 -? ??4?^ 1, Survey Reach J
+--_I,
Road
Stream
A r' o o-us azs os Mum
.

The

Group
P
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Little Contentnea Creek aaio: June 2005

Scale. As Shown Figure

1
Stream Restoration Site
11 Pitt County, North Carolina Job No.: 3151

TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
2
r
1
An approximately 400 meters reach of the stream was surveyed downstream of the
proposed restoration reach. The stream in this reach is forested on both sides of the creek,
with similar dimensions as the restoration reach. The banks are fairly incised in this area,
but with only limited amounts of erosion. A small beaver (Castor canadensis) dam
occurs within the lower 1/3 of this reach. Maximum water depth at the time of site visit
was 2.5 feet near the dam.
A 100 meter section of the creek upstream of the proposed restoration reach was
also surveyed. The stream is forested on both sides of the creek in this section, and is
approximately 16 feet wide with 7 feet high banks. The stream is fairly incised, with
moderately eroded banks. Water depth ranged from 2-5 feet in this reach at the time of
the site visit. A large amount of woody debris and detritus occurs on the stream bottom
in this section of the creek.
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel)
Status: Endangered
Listed: 7/29/85
Characteristics
The Tar spinymussel (TSM) grows to a maximum length of 60 millimeters. Short
spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and
symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as
12 spines that project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally.
However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature (USFWS 1992c). The
TSM is distinguished by its shiny periostricum, parallel pseudocardinal teeth, and the
linear ridges on the inside surface of the shell.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992a),
however, nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which
involves a larval stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a
fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts which must be present to complete
their life cycle. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted for
a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar River system,
currently occurring in relatively short stretches of the Tar River and three creeks (Shocco,
Sandy/Swift and Fishing/Little Fishing) in the Tar drainage. Historically the TSM was
collected in the Tar River from near Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt
County (approximately 78 river miles). Clarke (1983) located TSM in only a 12-mile
stretch of the Tar River in Edgecombe County. Recently (1998) the TSM was found in
the Little River of the Neuse River Basin. The preferred habitat of the TSM in Swift
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 3
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC

•
•
t
t
•
•
•
•
A
t
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
Creek was described as relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water
in sites prone to significant swings in water velocity, with a substrate comprised of
relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or coarse sand.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. The remaining populations
of TSM are generally small in numbers. The low numbers of individuals and the
restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human
influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including
agricultural, forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by
direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment
accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),
because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the
diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988)
found that recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below
points of chlorinated sewage effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented
(USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic
habitats, which results in changes with aquatic community composition. The changes
associated with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as
fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia.
Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for
naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with
19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of the river basins within the
DWM's range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major factor contributing
to the species decline (Master 1986, USFWS 1993).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 4
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
{

supporting surviving populations of the TSM. Concern has been raised over competitive
interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at
the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The zebra mussel, native
to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel
h
t
at was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range
into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and
. MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space with native
mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20 freshwater mussel
species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS
1992b). The zebra mussel is not currently known from any river supporting TSM
populations.
0 Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedgemussel)
. Status: Endangered
. Family: Unionidae
Listed: March-14-1990

. Characteristics
The dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) (DWM) was originally
described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914) subsequently placed it in the
genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1914) placed it in a monotypic subgenus Prolasmidonta,
based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller (1977) believed the
characters of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and renamed the
species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name Alasmidonta
and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus Pressodonta
(Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon, refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of
. this species, which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has
two lateral teeth on the right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other
laterally dentate freshwater mussels in North America normally have two lateral teeth on
the left valve and one on the right. The DWM is generally small, with a shell length
. ranging between 25 mm and 38 mm. The largest specimen ever recorded was 56.5 mm
long, taken from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire (Clarke 1981). The periostracum
is generally olive green to dark brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or
salmon colored towards the umbonal cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with
the females having a swollen region on the posterior slope, and the males are generally
. flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed description of the species.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the DWM; however nearly all
. freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involves a larval
stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel
species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based
i upon laboratory infestation experiments, Michaelson (1993) determined that potential
fish hosts for the DWM in North Carolina include the tesselated darter (Etheostoma
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 5
i
L
ttle Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
1

1
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
1
1
t
t
1
t
t
t
1
1
t
t
1
t
1
t
•
t
t
t
t
1
1
1
t
t
t
t
olmstedi) and the Johnny darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak
(1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive
biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM was confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the
Peticodiac River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina.
Occurrence records exist from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in
11 states and 1 Canadian Province (USFWS 1993). It is currently believed to have been
extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina (USFWS 1993).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range-wide assessments of remaining DWM populations,
and assigned a population status, to each of the populations. The status rating is based on
range size, number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20
populations assessed are considered "poor", and two others are considered "poor to fair"
and "fair to poor" respectively. In North Carolina populations are found in portions of the
Neuse and Tar River basins.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately 2
meters wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been
described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In
North Carolina they often occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks.
The wide range of substrate types used by this species suggests that the stability of the
substrate is likely as important as the composition.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the
Neversink River population in New York, which has an estimated population of over
80,000 mussels, all of the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted
to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted
range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation
from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may
consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events
such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads. Other threats are similar to
those described above for TSM.
SURVEY EFFORTS
Little Contentnea Creek is a perennial stream that could potentially provide
habitat for the Tar spinymussel and dwarf wedgemussel, thus surveys for these and other
freshwater mussel species were conducted for NCEEP.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
6
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
Pre Survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) systematic inventory (database) was consulted to determine if
there are any records of rare plant and animal species within a one-mile area around the
proposed project study area. This review indicated there are no known occurrences of
any federally protected species within the project study area.
Mussel Surveys for this Project
Tim Savidge, Shay Garriock, and Steve Melin of The Catena Group, Inc. visited
the project crossing on June 14, 2005. Mussel surveys were conducted from a point
approximately 400 meters downstream of the project site to a point approximately 100
meters upstream of the site.
Methodology and Results
Visual (using batiscopes and mask/snorkel) and tactile methods were used to
survey for mussels within the entire reach. Water levels during the survey ranged from
less than 1 foot to 5 feet deep. Mussels were identified, counted and returned to the
substrate. The surveyed reach was divided into 3 portions, downstream of the proposed
restoration reach, within the proposed restoration reach, and above the proposed
restoration reach. Data points were taken at the starting point and ending point within
each surveyed reach. Timed searches were conducted in each survey reach for a total of
12.5 person/hours. At least three species of freshwater mussels were found during survey
efforts (Table 1). The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and the aquatic snail
pointed campeloma were common throughout the surveyed area. The Tar spinymussel
and dwarf wedgemussel were not found during the June 14, 2005 survey.
Tnhle 1 _ CPITF. fnr Mnscels in Tittle Cnntentnea Creek: Downstream Reach
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE #/ person hr
Elli dos elli do mussels 682 124.0
P anodon cataracta eastern floater 33 5.5
Utterbackia imbecillis paper ondshell 3 0.5
TahlP '7._ f PTTF. far Mnccelc in i.ittle. Cnntentnea Creek: Restoration Reach
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE #/ person hr
Elli dos elli do mussels 703 127.8
P anodon cataracta eastern floater 10 1.8
Utterbackia imbecillis paper ondshell 3 0.5
i Because of the taxonomic uncertainty of the genus Elliptio, all elliptio mussels of the Elliptio
complanata and E. icterina complexes were lumped into 1 group. Several distinct forms were
noted, with gradation between each form, making separation difficult. It is very possible that two
to three species comprise the elliptio fauna Little Contentnea Creek.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 7
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
•
Table 3. CPUE for Mussels in Tittle Contentnon Creek- UnctrPam Rpneh
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE #/ person hr
Elli do com lanata eastern elli do 5 3.3
P yp,anodon cataracta eastern floater 2 1.3
Discussion
The survey results indicate that a viable mussel population of each of the species
found exists in the surveyed portion of Little Contentnea Creek. Mussels are abundant
and fairly evenly distributed in the creek within the downstream and resoration reaches of
Little Contentnea Creek. Mussels are fairly sparse in the upstream reach, which is likely
a function of the abundant woody debris covering the substrate in this section of the
I creek. The creek has obviously been channelized and straightened the enire length of the
surveyed reach, and is generally unsuitable for the Tar spinymussel and dwarf
wedgemussel. It can be concluded that project construction will have "No Effect" on
these species.
The freshwater mussel species present in the stream are wide ranging habitat
generalists that can tolerate a wide range of habitat conditions. In-stream construction
activities associated with the proposed restoration will likely result in loss of individuals
of these species. However, given their adaptability to a wide range of habitat conditions,
and their abundance downstream, they should be able to quickly recolonize the stream
segment once the restoration is complete. Measures should be taken to avoid/minimize
impacts to the water quality of Little Contentna Creek in order to protect the mussel
populations and other aquatic fauna downstream from project construction.
LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages
98-107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds.
1997. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis,
Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Illinois.
293 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spinymussel. Final report to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (326), 101
pp-
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
8
r
R
1
Fuller, S.L.H. 1977. Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks. In: J.E. Copper et al., (eds.),
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. NC State
Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. pp. 143-194.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia.
Final Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of new genus of the family of Naiades (etc.). Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, new series. 3:403-456.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock
Island IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and A.E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp. 331-429. In: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American
freshwater invertabrates. 2nd edition. Academic Press.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal
to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
Michaelson, D.L. 1993. Life history of the endangered dwarf-wedge mussel,
Alasmidonta heterodon (Lea 1830) (Pelecypoda: Unionidae), in the Tar River,
North Carolina and Aquia Creek, Virginia. MS Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 122 pp.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K. S. Cummings, A.C.
Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island
IL. 189 pp.
Neves, R.J., and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull.
1(5):1-7.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):
an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact
Sheet. New York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1914. Studies in najades. Nautilus 28:41-47.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
Little Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
9

0 Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
•
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades or pearly freshwater mussels,
Vol. 1-3. Bryant Walker, Detroit.

Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiads, or pearly freshwater mussels,
Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus., 22: 501-1044.

. Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual.
Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.

. Strayer, D.L., S.J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of
populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalva:Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.

. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. Atlanta GA. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf-wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash.
r D.C. 1,070 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992c. Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.

i

' TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 10
i
ttle Contentnea Creek Stream Restoration, Pitt County, NC
L
1

APPENDIX B
EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY DATA
LITTLE CONTENTNEA CREEK
PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
r
r

MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE.

Variables Little
Contentnea
Creek UT to Little
Contentnea
Creek
1. Stream Type E5 E5
2. Drainage Area mil 55 0.16
3. Bankfull Width bk 40 16.5
4. Bankfull Mean Depth Dbk 4 1.2
5. Width/De th Ratio 10 7.9
6. Max Riffle Depth Ratio Dmax/Dbk 1.5 1.75
7. Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abk 160 19.5
8. Bankfull mean velocity Vbk 2 -
9. Bankfull Discharge Qbkf) 320 -
10. Bankfull Maximum Depth Dmax 6 2.1
11. Width of Flood Prone Area f a) 500 220
12. Entrenchment Ratio Wf a/Wbk 12.5 13.3
13. Meander Length Lm 0.0 367.0
14. Meander Length Ratio Lm/Wbk - 22.2
15. Radius of Curvature Rc - 230.0
16. Radius of Curvature Ratio Rc/Wbk - 13.9
17. Belt Width blt - 110
18. Meander Width Ratio bltANbkf - 6.7
19. Sinuosity K 1 1.1
20 Valle Sloe 0.06% 0.20%
21. Avg. Slope Sval/K) 0.06% 0.20%
22. Pool Slope (Spool) 0 -
23. Pool Slope Ratio (S ool/Sav 0 -
24. Max Pool Depth (d ool 13*/7.5 2.2
25. Pool Depth Ratio D ool/Dbk 3.25*/1.25 1.8
26. Pool Area Ratio A ool/Abk 2.4*/1.3 1.2
27. Pool Length Ratio L ool/Wbk 2.5*/1.9 -
28. Pool Width (Wpool) 55*/40.2 18.7
29. Pool Width Ratio (Wpool/Wbkf) 1.38*/1.01 1.1
30. Pool/Pool Spacing - 150 -
31. Pool Spacing Ratio p-p/Wbk 3.75 -
* Max pool depth at scour hole below bridge crossing; Not indicative of other shallow pools
along the project reach.
APPENDIX C
REFERENCE REACH DATA
BEAR CREEK
LENOIR COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
•
•
•
•
i
- s

M
Stream: =
Watershed: '
Location:
Latitude:
Longitude:
County:
Date: r a
Observers: =
Channel Type. ?
Drainage Area (sq mi): v
Notes:
salm J
Dimension
typical min max
Size: x-area bankfull 198.3 187.0 198.3
,
width bankfull 45.3 37.7 45.3
mean depth 4.4 4.4 5.0
Ratios: Width/Depth Ratio 10.3 7.6 10.3
Entrenchment Ratio 22.1 22.1 26.5
Riffle Max Depth Ratio 1.5 1.5 1.9
Pool Area Ratio
Pool Width Ratio 1.3 -- --
1.0 --- ---
Pool Max Depth Ratio 2.5 --- -
Bank Height Ratio 1.0
Run Area Ratio -- ---
Run Width Ratio -- --- --
Run Max Depth Ratio
Glide Area Ratio - --- --
Glide Width Ratio --- --- ---
Glide Max Depth Ratio
Hydraulics: riffle pool run
discharge rate, Q (cfs) 530.0 530.0 530.0
velocity (ft/sec) 2.7 2.0 ---
shear stress @ max depth (lbs/ft sq) 0.24 0.41 ---
shear stress (lbs/ft sq) 0.15 0.18 --
shear velocity (ft/sec) 0.28 0.31 ---
unit stream power (lbslft/sec) 0.438 0.438 0.44
relative roughness 2981.4 3934.4 - .'
friction factor u/u' 9.5 6.5 -
threshold grain size @ max depth (mm) 13.6 24.7 -
threshold rain size mm 9 11 ---
R
Pattern i
typical min max
Sinuosity 1.9
Meander Width Ratio 2.8 ---
Amplitude Ratio --
Meander Length Ratio 9.3 -- --
Straight Length Ratio - --- ---
Radius Ratio 1.2 1.1 1.4
arc angle (degrees), , - ---
Profile
typical min max
channel slope (
%) 0.060
0
measured valley slope (/o) --
valley slope (/o) 0.111
Riffle Slope Ratio -- -
Pool Slope Ratio -- -- - - I',
Run Slope Ratio -- -- ---
Glide Slope Ratio -- - ---
?__ Pool Spacing Ratio 3.3 2.2 5.1 1
,? _
1

1

f

A
?

V
?

t

U
O E 2
___
------------ ------- ----
----------- _ ___ ___ ___ ________ N
a ?o
--- -------------------- --- ----------- 40
0 0
o ? ?
-------------------- - --------
--- --------------
--- -
-------- - ------------ --- -- -- --- -- CL
w o
--- --- -------- --- --- I -----------
------- m
o E > > o
------------------------------ ° 5 (a
E o
- - - --- - -- --_-- - _ U m
- - -------- --- -----------
CD
a 1..1 ___ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ -----------
N _ _ O
------- _ _ _ N p
_ _ ___
----------------
______ __ _ _ _
---
----------
------- ------------ ___ _ _______ .y
N
__ --------
a E o O
-------------------- --- --- ----------
------- ----------
N
O
E O O
m p
-------------------------
-- m
a m
e cc J
-----------
A2
= =- ----- - -- = -------
0 ---0 0
a m -- -- - --- - ------------ -- - ------------
-------- -------CL Ul) 04
N co Cl)
O O
0
e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o O
d)
O 0) co ? C OO U) O V M N 0
O
UeyiJOUij;UOOJOd O 0
xt st st st It at st at xt xt a xt * rm at xe xt x at xt
c
0 °o °o
U ?
N CD co O CD N N V' co CO 7
E O ?- Nit CO W ;:0N m-Zi 00NOO NM0N O O U
E O O O N "t m
O U
CA C
d
m CND V LO 'r M OIDNN 't co
000 ?? N SCOW ?cO N M ''V 0-,r CD 0) N C0 LO
NO •-
04 O N O
C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N CU m m CYj
> > > > > > > > > 0 d d d 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O O
mmmmmmmc?c?anna
C Co y m N N N pp pp pp pp 7 7 7 7 .O
U CU N N N CT CA O CA CA CA Of 0 U U U CJ O O O m
3 y 4- 'O mmp Q m w w w. 3 Co p mp Co oom E O m E
N E " Z' N N 8 U 8 U N N ma E E :? CO f0
E E
a > > „ E
> > E >
MAOJILLL
t
{

a

?w

? a

'i

0
0
0
N

t

------

------

------

-- Q
•
C
O Y
m
O ?

? Q
d
•

O
O )(
i • N

?
• N
w

O N
}
C
•

-----

10

r o?

o
• L
------ - ----- --- --
-- ------- - ---- --- -- ------ --
m

m ---
o
- - ---- -- -- - - - ------
M
0
N

O

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

4
r
r
0
O
0 t
M
o W
W
Q

s (g) uo geAOIB
r
r
r
r;
r
r
r
r
r
r
r '
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r '
r
r
r
r
r
r
Bear Creek
Longitudinal Profile Survey Data
Bear Creek
Cross Sectional Survey Data & Plots

•
XS#1 Riffle Bear Creek r
112 -
110
--
108 -- -
v 106
0 104
102
W 100 -
98 -- {
-

--- --
--
- -

-

- --
-- -
---

- - -
-

- - ---- -
-- -

- -

-
96 -
i
94 1
0 -
20
40 60 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
100
120
section

escription:
_ height of instrument (ft):
Riffle
Bear Creek
Rural

? • ?

?•

MMIM

notes , it distance
pt. (ft)
?

? FS
elevation
103.13
102.75
103.11 FS
bankfull
?:
102.94 FS W fpa
top of bank (ft)
?: ??? ?
102.94 channel
slope (%)
? ?. Manning's
"n"
? ?
103.82
01. 103.68
102.84
101.65
101.12
? ? 99.99
• 98.82
97.51 hydraulics
c
97.02
2.7
velocity f
96.85 527.8 discharge rate,
• ? 96.98
96.56 0.28 shear velocity
96.4 0.436 unit stream power
96.76 0.05 number
97.67 9.5 factor u/u"
? 98.14 9.3 threshold rain size mm
• 98.88
100.24 check from channel material
101.32 0 measured D84 mm

• 102.28
? ?: 102.94

v

: ?
•?
? ?

? 102.87
102.89
102
101.73
102.36
101.4
dimensions
198.3 x-section area 4.4 d mean
45.3 width 48
.4 wet P

6.5 d max 4
.1 h yd radi
6.5 bank ht 10.3 w/d ratio
1000.0 W flood tone area 22.1 ent ratio

tlsec
Q cfs
0.15 shear stress ((Ibs/ft s
ft/sec
Ibslft/sec
Froude
friction

2981.5 relative roughness 22.6 fric. factor
0.015 Mannin 's n from channel material
XM Riffle Bear Creek
114
112
110
_ 108
106
c
104
102
w
100
98
96
94
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
60 70 80
Riffle
Bear Creek
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
315 2.8 000.0?1.0•
0 4.17 102.44
0 3.04 103.57 103.46 103.81
M 16.5 2.5 3 104.08
20 2.825
103.785
23.7 3.49 103.12
102.34
27.1 4.27
102.01
27.8
100.79
28.8
99.34
30; ?7.27

59:5 3.15 ?
61.5 2.8 ®.
63.5 2.82 MUIPF M,
66 3.6
69 4 M
dimensions
187.0 x-section area 5.0 d mean
37.7 width 43.0 wet P
8.3 d max 4.3 h yd radi
8.6 bank ht 7.6 w/d ratio
1000.0 W flood prone area 26.5 ent ratio
hydraulics
2.8 velocity ft/sec
517.8 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.16 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.29 shear velocity ft/sec
0.514 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.05 Froude number
9.6 friction factor u/u"
9.8 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
3379.7 relative rou hness 22.9 fric. factor
0.015 Mannin 's n from channel material
XS#3 Pool Bear Creek
106 _. ,
104
102-
9100-
0 98 - -
w 96 .: _
- -
sa
92-
90-
0 _
20 40 60 80 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Pool
Bear Creek
description: `
,
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS
notes Pt. (ft) (ft) elevation
102.04
103.31
103.86
103.56
104.02
102.34
101.26
99.5
98.27
97.46
95.44
93.23
92.56
93.12
93.7
101.74
103
103.71
103.59
103.07
103.66
F5 -b cn
bankfull top of bank sloj
?MMMMIM
103.52 103.71
120
140
dimensions _
264.4 x-section area 5.8 d mean
45.7 width 53.8 wet P
11.0 d max 4.9 h yd radi
11.2 bank ht -7-09
n:10 Y
hydraulics
O.Q
E.9
0.18 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.31 shear velocity ft/sec
JAM-)
0-u v
8-0
10.8 threshold rain size mm

1
?y"t- 'J 1 5
n?
? l
? i
APPENDIX D
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

j
i y.
Little Contentnea Creek looking upstream from upper bridge.
?u
R'..
A;d
Little Contentnea Creek directly downstream from upper bridge.
Little Contentnea Creek looking downstream midway along reach.

'sit tR - - ?I
l i

r?r?[[ fi r
UT to Little Contentnea Creek looking downstream from begining of reach.
tau
4.r^
UT to Little Contentnea Creek looking downstream near end of reach.
Confluence of UT to Little Contentnea Creek and Little Contentnea Creek.
Existing wetland within the Little Contentnea Creek floodplain.
Existing wetland within the Little Contentnea Creek floodplain.
Existing wetland within the Little Contentnea Creek floodplain.