20060898 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060525

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Chapin, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cyndi B. Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit Jr=
NCDWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch l5 ' •-= a 1JJ ?IVI?
tzA (JU
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator JUN 1 `'J06
Habitat Conservation Program DENR - VVAT Ek TY
MWDS AND STQRPhWATER BRANCH
DATE: June 13, 2006
SUBJECT: DWQ No. 20060898, Cleveland County Landfill Stream Relocation, Cleveland County
The Cleveland County Health Department is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our
staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed stream relocation is indicated as necessary to stabilize a portion of Long Creek near its
confluence with Buffalo Creek. Current erosion is encroaching into the landfill and an existing roadway.
The relocation will involve 149 linear feet of channel. Invasive species will be removed and buffers will
be reestablished using autochthonous plants.
Based on the information provided by the applicant and our knowledge of the project area, we do not
believe this project will cause significant effects to waters. Therefore, we do not object to the project as
proposed. We recommend that stormwater evaluations be provided for upstream areas of the watershed
and that appropriate stormwater management strategies be instituted to reduce downstream degradation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Ec: Alan Johnson, DWQ-MRO
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Te1ephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Triage Check List
Date: 6/07/06 Project Name: Cleveland County Stream Relocation
DWQ#: 06-0898
County: Cleveland
Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
To:
30-day Processing Time: 5/25/06 - 7/23/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minim ization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
Carolina Y.'eL'and Services
550 E WESTINGHOUSE BLVD.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
704-527-1177(v)
704-527-1133(fax)
May 24, 2006 !_) `? k?9 adR p
Mr. Steve Chapin MAY 2 5 2006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 7
+.? UENR - WATER QUALITY
151 Patton Avenue y1Ziuu,'DSAND sTO>;fAtvpTER BRANCH
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
Cleveland County Landfill Stream Relocation
Shelby, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2005-1113
The Cleveland County Landfill project is located in Shelby, North Carolina. The project area is limited
to approximately 800 linear feet of Long Creek, upstream from its confluence with Buffalo Creek (see
attached Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report). The Long Creek watershed is
approximately 3 square miles in size and extends from Buffalo Creek north to the Sanders Road -
Plainfield Drive intersection. The purpose of this project is to relocate a portion of Long Creek away
from a maintenance road to stop further encroachment on the existing county landfill. Cleveland
County Health Department has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide
permitting services for this project.
CWS has prepared a Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report to assess the existing
conditions of Long Creek. This report has been attached. The results of the on-site field investigation
conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional perennial stream channel (Long Creek)
located within the proposed project limits. The Cleveland County Health Department is requesting
written verification of the jurisdictional determination of Long Creek (See Request for Jurisdictional
Determination Form, attached). On behalf of The Cleveland County Health Department, CWS is
submitting a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application with attachments in accordance with
General Condition Number 13, and pursuant to Nationwide Permit Number 27 (See PCN, attached).
Applicant Name: Cleveland County Health Department, Mr. Sam Lockridge
Mailing Address: 351 E. Grover Street, Shelby, NC 28150
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-480-5478
Street Address of Project: N/A (linear project)
Waterway: Long Creek
Basin: Broad River (HU# 03050105)
City: Shelby
County: Cleveland
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: N35e 19' 44", W81° 28' 38"
USGS Quadrangle Name: Waco, North Carolina, 1973
CHARLOTTE • COLUMBIA • RALEIGH
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
May 24, 2006
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 2 of 4
Channel Geomorphic Conditions
The study reach is approximately 800 linear feet in length and discharges into Buffalo Creek
(see attached report). The Level H classification for Reach 1 was identified as E4. This reach exhibited
substrate consisting of medium gravel (D50 = 8.0 - 11.3 nnm). The drainage area for this reach equaled
approximately 3 square miles, channel slope equaled 0.011 ft/ft, and sinuosity equaled 2.0. Mean
bankfull width and depth for this reach were 27.2 feet and 2.79 feet, respectively. The average flood-
prone width for the riffle portions of the reach was approximately 131 feet.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On February 28, 2006, CWS biologists investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.' using the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is
defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual? No jurisdictional wetland areas
were identified within the project limits. A Routine On-Site Data Forln representative of on-site non-
jurisdictional upland areas is attached. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were classified according to
recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)3 and USACE guidance. A NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet for Stream A have been
enclosed (SCP1).
The results of the on-site field investigations indicate that there is one jurisdictional perennial stream
channel (Long Creek) within the project limits (See Existing Conditions Report, attached). Long Creek
is in the Broad River basin (HU# 03050105).' Long Creek and its tributaries are classified as "WS III -
Critical Area (CA)" waters by the NCDWQ. The Cleveland County Health Department is requesting
written verification of the jurisdictional determination of the on-site jurisdictional features (Attachment
B).
Long Creek (Stream A) generally flows northwest across the project area (See Existing Conditions
Report, attached). Long Creek exhibits a 5 to 10-foot average ordinary high water width, diverse
stream substrate and habitat complexity, and a moderate presence of crayfish and fish. This channel
also exhibits severe erosion, lacks stabilizing stream bank vegetation, and is incised on the meander
bends. Long Creek scored 46.5 out of a possible 71 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification
Form and 51 out of 100 possible points on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 18, 2006 requesting
a detennination of the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, of archaeological significance
that would be affected by the project. As of the date of this submittal, there has been no response
from the SHPO.
Protected Species
A letter was forwarded to the NCNHP on May 18, 2006 requesting a determination of the presence of
any federally-listed species or critical habitat located within the project area. As of the date of this
submittal, there has been no response from the NCNHP.
1 "Jurisdictional waters of the U.S." includes essentially all surface waters such as: all navigable waters and their tributaries, all interstate
waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters.
2 Environmental Laboratory, 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Watenvays Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
3 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1999 Stream Classification Method. Version 2.0.
4 "HU#" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
May 24, 2006
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 3 of 4
Purpose and Need for the Project
The proposed project will relocate a portion of Long Creek near its confluence with Buffalo Creek.
Currently the meanders near the confluence have become too extreme and are encroaching on the
Cleveland County Landfill and an existing maintenance road. Long Creek is severely eroding in these
areas and is therefore causing property loss and sedimentation to Buffalo Creek. By relocating and
stabilizing this portion of Long Creek, the project proposes to improve water quality within this local
watershed.
Avoidance and Minimization
The relocation will not result in a net loss greater than 150 linear feet of channel. The use of hard
stabilization will be necessary at the outside meander bends to inunediately stabilize the new channel to
prevent encroachment on the landfill and maintenance road. Appropriate sediment and erosion control
practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual" will be designed, installed, and
maintained properly to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. All
sediment and erosion control measures placed in stream channels will be removed and the natural
grade restored after construction completion.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Temporary impacts associated with Nationwide Permit No. 27 include relocation, channel bank
grading, riparian plantings and channel bank stabilization. A Conceptual Design for the relocation
with planting plan details is attached.
The Cleveland County Health Department proposes to relocate approximately 800 linear feet of Long
Creek near its confluence with Buffalo Creek (See Conceptual Design, attached). These activities will
improve the channel dimension, pattern and profile. Please see the attached Conceptual Design for
relocation and planting plan details. A 30 foot wide buffer on either side of the channel is required to be
established along WS-III-CA waters. Approximately 24500 square feet of 30-foot buffer will be
temporarily cleared for the relocation. Currently the riparian buffer is dominated by invasive species.
The 30 foot buffer will be re-established along the newly relocated channel. The buffer will be planted
with native species.
Compensatory Mitigation
This project will result in a net increase in aquatic resources functions and values within the project
area. Therefore, no compensatory mitigation is proposed. In addition, no compensatory mitigation
credit is requested.
May 24, 2006
Mr. Steve Chapin
Page 4 of 4
Please do not liesitate to contact Gregg Antemann at 704-527-1177 or [e-mail] should you
have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
rG egg C. Antemaifn, P?VS Ron G. ohnson, ;?;
Principal Biologist Project Biologist
Attachments: Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report
Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 27
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCPI)
Stream Relocation Conceptual Design
?J)
Carolina Wetland Services

Channel Geomorphic Conditions
and Evaluation Report
Cleveland County Landfill Project
Shelby, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2006-1113
March 21, 2006
Prepared For:
Mr. J. David Wallace, PE
SHIELD Engineering, Inc.
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone]
Prepared By:
Gregg C. Antemalm, PWS
Ron G. Johnson, WPIT
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
[phone]
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Cleveland County Landfill March 21, 2006
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2006-1113
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................2
Methods ..................................................................................................................................................2
Results ....................................................................................................................................................2
Bankfull Verification ..........................................................................................................................2
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Enclosures
Figure 1 - USGS Site Location Overview
Figure 2 - Channel Reach and Cross-Section Locations
Figure 3 - North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curves
Table 1 - Stream Reach Data Sutntnary
Longitudinal Profile
Channel Cross Sections (CSI-CS4)
Pebble Count Data
Pfanuch Channel Stability Worksheet
Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) Data Sheets
Representative Photographs
1
Cleveland County Landfill March 21, 2006
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2006-1113
Executive Summary
The Cleveland County Landfill project is located in Shelby, North Carolina. The project area is
limited to approximately 800 linear feet of Long Creek, upstream from its confluence with Buffalo
Creek (Figure 1). The Long Creek watershed is approximately 3 square miles in size and extends
from Buffalo Creek north to the Sanders Road - Plainfield Drive intersection. A geomorphic
survey was performed along the reach and included longitudinal profiles, cross-sectional surveys,
substrate sampling (reach-wide pebble count analysis), Bank Erosion Hazard Inventory (BEHI)
assessments, and photographic documentation. This data was used to classify each reach using
the Rosgen Level 11 system.
Based on this evaluation, CAWS believes the best option to reduce the erosion and limit further
encroachment on the landfill is to relocate a portion of the stream to meander away from the
maintenance road.
Cleveland County Landfill March 21, 2006
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2006-1113
Introduction
The Cleveland County Landfill project is located in Shelby, North Carolina. The project
area is limited to approximately 800 linear feet of Long Creek, upstream from its
confluence with Buffalo Creek (Figure 1). The Long Creek watershed is approximately 3
square miles hi size and extends from Buffalo Creek north to the Sanders Road - Plainfield
Drive intersection. (Figure 1). This portion of Long Creek was assessed using Rosgen
Level II Classification methods. SHIELD Engineering has contracted Carolina Wetland
Services, hie. (CWS) to provide a Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report
for this project. Portions of Long Creek within this reach are experiencing severe bank
erosion and are encroaching on the landfill. The following assessment was done to
evaluate the existing conditions of the reach and to identify potential strategies to stabilize
the reach. The following report describes the existing conditions of the stream.
Methods
A geomorphic survey was performed by CWS Biologists Ron Johnson, WPIT, and Matt Jenkins
from February 28 to March 1, 2006. The survey included a longitudinal profile, four cross-
sectional surveys (2 riffles, 2 pools), substrate sampling (reach-wide pebble count), Pfankuch
channel stability evaluation rating, Bank Erosion Hazard Inventory (BEHI) assessments, and
photographic documentation. This data was used to classify each reach using the Rosgen Level
11 system. A visual assessment of the riparian area was also performed to identify any possible
opportunities to evaluate its condition.
Results
Banldull Verification
Bankfull Cross-Sectional measurements were verified using the North Carolina Piedmont
regional curve (Figure 3). Indicators of bankfull levels were identified in the field and included
scour lines, floodplain benches, and the backs of depositional bars. The observed bankfull
widths and calculated bankfull cross-sectional areas were verified using the drainage area for the
reach. All the observed widths fall between the urban and rural regression lines. This verifies
that the bankfull widths observed by CWS for the study are consistent with those of similar
streams in a semi-rural watershed. The data for the study reach has been plotted on Figure 3
Cleveland County Landfill March 21, 2006
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2006-1113
(Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area vs. Drainage Area and Bankfull Width vs. Drainage Area).
Locations of cross sections were chosen at areas that represent the overall character of the reach.
Cross-Sectional measurements were not taken within two bankfull widths of a culvert or other in-
stream structure based on current methodology. Ili-stream structures alter the flow and velocity
of the channel causing the presence of non-representative bankfull indicators.
Geomorphic and Stab ility,4ssessinent
The study reach is approximately 800 linear feet in length and discharges into Buffalo Creek
(Figures 1-2). The Level H classification for Reach 1 was identified as E4. This reach exhibited
substrate consisting of medium gravel (D50 = 8.0 - 11.3 nun). The average drainage area for this
reach equaled approximately 3 square miles, channel slope equaled 0.011 ft/ft, and sinuosity
equaled 2.0. Mean bankfull width and depth for this reach were 27.2 feet and 2.79 feet,
respectively. The average flood-prone width for the riffle portions of the reach was
approximately 131 feet.
The Pfankuch channel stability evaluation rating for this reach was poor primarily due to
homogenous, unstable streambed substrate severe bank erosion on the outside meander bends,
and extensive deposition of fine particles along the lower banks and in pools. This reach
displayed an average bank height ratio of 2.42 and an average entrenchment ratio of 4.86. The
upper and lower banks near the outside meander bends are compromising the access road at the
base of the active landfill. The BEHI index for this reach was moderate, scoring between 17 and
48 due to a high bank height ratio and low root density. The BEHI index for the outside meander
bends is classified as extreme. The banks are nearly vertical and have no vegetative coverage.
The causes for the observed channel instability are primarily local to the outside meanders bends
adjacent to the active maintenance road. A lack of significant, stabilizing vegetation on the bank
slopes in the riparian zone is causing stress on the lower banks and is resulting in large amounts
of mass wasting and sediment deposition downstream of the erosion. This mass wasting is
causing increased turbidity and increasing embeddedness of the chatmel substrate. The
embeddedness is causing the loss of aquatic habitat within the substrate.
Cleveland County Landfill March 21, 2006
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2006-1113
Discussion
Ili North Carolina, stream restoration and enhancement are defined in the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines Report, dated April 2003 and prepared by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District (USACE) as
follows:
Stream Restoration - The process of converting an unstable, altered, or degraded stream
corridor, including adjacent riparian zone (buffers) and flood-prone areas, to its natural stable
condition considering recent and future watershed conditions.
Enhancement Level I - Category that generally includes improvements to the stream channel
and riparian zone that restore dimension and profile.
Enhancement Level II - Category for activities that augment channel stability, water quality
and stream ecology in accordance with a reference condition but fall short of restoring both
dimension and profile.
In general, the Cleveland County Landfill has some opportunities for "stream restoration" in
accordance with this definition. CWS identified numerous design constraints associated with
restoring the channel to a natural dimension, pattern, and profile. These constraints include the
following:
• Proximity to the landfill and railroads
• Sewer and other utility conflicts
• Existing natural resources (existing trees)
• Difficulty in obtaining easements from nearby property owners
CWS believes that the Cleveland County Landfill has opportunities combine Restoration and
Enhancement Level I and Level II channel work. This section will summarize the opportunities
and present our recommendation for the level of enhancement within the reach.
Based on this evaluation, CWS believes the best option is to relocate a portion of this reach away
from the active landfill. The relocated areas will be graded to match the existing cross section
4
Cleveland County Landfill March 21, 2006
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2006-1113
near CS-1. This area has low erosion, a high entrenchment ratio, and access to its floodplain.
The relocated area can be graded to include floodplain benches, native riparian vegetation which
will help to improve the water quality within this channel. The meanders near the confluence of
Buffalo Creek have become too extreme and will continue to cut toward the landfill area.
Relocating these areas back into the floodplain can alleviate further property loss to the landfill.
Once in place, the outside meanders of the relocated reach will need to be stabilized using hard
stabilization to prevent the stream from reverting back to its current state.
The upper stream banks and surrounding riparian areas are currently dominated by kudzu
(Pueraria Montana). Kudzu is a very rapidly growing invasive vine. Kudzu damages other
plants by smothering them under a solid blanket of leaves, by girdling woody stems and tree
trunks, and by breaking branches or uprooting entire trees and shrubs through the sheer force of
its weight. Once established, kudzu vines can grow a foot a day. An invasive management plan
will need to be implemented once the relocation is complete to control the kudzu. This can be
accomplished though a combination of cutting, hand-pulling, and spraying herbicide while the
vine is in flower. CWS will submit a conceptual design for this relocation and once finalized
will apply for the necessary state and federal approvals for the project.
Cleveland County Landfill
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2005-1113
.:r'.' -<_ ?----^`>? r ? _ • o - +,t? )? ^? ?? , 1
? ? ( 111111 103
r
(1416
'
i
Approximate Landfill Boundary
Now Prospect Church Road
•/ ?ck % ?? s grr
\
N. Post Road
•? V• / , ' i v Study Res Ch
1.
ISO,
•?r , 2 Friendship Road Y a... , ?t j (?,
Ba afar.
Airport Road
P •..,, i. _ Fj CharryviMe Road
Trader ' .y•' } .. ' I ?1 r a ;?? .r`. r
j
Pa#k 9iI {! r ?. l
., c Bs
gg I 9C) i ` / '?'-• ` tli -1 s \ 7?' + , 4 ` 1 i fu'•:'),L?'?.1 Mrs k
'?tr? , • ?- r Er ' 77 Image Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Waco, North Carolina Quadrangle, dated 1973.
Approximate Scale 1" = 2000'
oe&
cl Of
v
to
r
ow ;o
G U N
o ?
ri u c o
W a>iVU
U
w o
U
a ? A
a ? ? o
z O 0 d
? o
A z o 0 0 :.
u °C4 a
u
U
I I I u o

i\ 'T d I = ti??
V)
U
N 7t
,
U
N ?, I i C ?•?
NO
C:LLi
t
4:3

?I
Q4y?
2S
n
?'yjfl
I }!
?? I, l _- .'_ ® ' I- _!i!? _ AAA
+1 _ rI- _
ci
.. (? ? aa•nh laseµ}aS-syo ? >l>t#Sfil?'8
Ste.
4
8
f
a
h
v
tw Y
4 (y
+T G
•W I
R a.+
A
a
A
0
I?I??U

11 P4 II

III ( i ? ?i `i i I I

.
. !
II,II I I lil

l I
1
III. ? 1 !
' j I '1 I
Summary of Existing Conditions
Parameter Existing Condition
Reach Reach1
Length of Reach Studied (ft.) 800
Channel Dimension
Average Bankful Width (ft.) 27.2
Mean Bankful Depth (ft.) 2.79
Average Width/Depth Ratio 9.87
Average Bankful Area (sq. ft.) 72.8
Average Bankful Maximum Depth (ft.) 4.26
Average Width Flood-prone Area ft.) 131
Average Entrenchment Ratio 4.86
Max Pool Depth (ft. 4.5
Ratio Max Pool Depth to Bankful
Depth 1.06
Pool Width (ft.) 8.0-10.0
Ratio Pool Width/Bankfull Width 0.33
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft.) 27-134
Ratio Pool to Pool Spacing
to Bankful Width 1.0-4.92
Bank Height Ratio 1.0-3.5
Channel Pattern
Meander Length (ft.) 234
Meander Length Ratio 8.6
Radius of Curvature (ft.) 45.41
Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.67
Meander Belt Width (ft.) 229.93
Meander Width Ratio 8.45
Sinuosity 2
Channel Pro file
Valley Slope (ft./ft.) 0.011
WS Slope (ft./ft.) 0.012
Pool Slope (ft./ft.) 0.005
Ratio Pool Slope to WS Slope 0.42
Channel Materials
Bed Material Distribution Material Size
d16 (mm) 0.062-0.125
d35 (mm) 0.5-1.0
mm 8.0-11.3
d84 (mm) 45-64
d95 (mm) 64-90
Rosgen Stream Type E4
Longitudinal Profile - Reach 1
751.0
749.0
747.0
745.0
w
743.0
0
w
741.0
W
739.0
737.0
735.0
733.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -
c .-; o 00 r ri c? er -F e?i ri c+i o
co t- in
Station (fcct)
Reach 1 - Cross Section 1 - Riffle
744-
743 -
742
z?o 741
® 740
739
738
737
736
735
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft.) - - - - Bankfuli Width
Leach I - Cross Section 2 - Pool
752 -
750
748
746
744
742
-0:- cu - Z7
740
0 738
736
734
732
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (ft.) - Bankfull Width
Leach I - Cross Section 3 - fool
748 -?
746
744
742
r. 740
--------------------
738 -
736
LIJ 734
732
730
728
20 40 60 80
0
- - - - Bankfuli Width
Distance (ft.) - - - Flood-Prone Width
Reach I - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
Distance (ft.)
REACH 1 Pebble Count

Metric (mm) Particle Count Tot 4 % Tot % Cum
<0.062 Silt/Clay s 22 207.0 10.6 10.63
0.062 - 0.125 Very Fine Sand A 0 207.0 0.0 10.63
0.125 - 0.250 Fine Sand 21 207.0 10.1 20.77
0.25-0.5 Med. Sand N 10 207.0 4.8 25.60
0.5- 1.0 Coarse Sand D 19 207.0 9.2 34.78
1.0-2.0 Very Coarse Sand 1 207.0 0.5 35.27
2-4 Very Fine Gravel 0 207.0 0.0 35.27
4 - 5.7 Fine Gravel 1 207.0 0.5 35.75
5.7 - 8 Fine Gravel G 21 207.0 10.1 45.89
8 - 11.3 Medium R 2 207.0 1.0 46.86
11.3 -16 Medium A 16 207.0 7.7 54.59
16 - 22.6 Coarse v 2 207.0 1.0 55.56
22.6 - 32 Coarse E 26 207.0 12.6 68.12
32 - 45 Very Coarse L 10 207.0 4.8 72.95
45 - 64 Ve Coarse 16 207.0 7.7 80.68
64 - 90 Small c 18 207.0 8.7 89.37
90 - 128 Small b 10 207.0 4.8 94.20
128 - 180 Large ; 6 207.0 2.9 97.10
180 - 256 Large e 1 207.0 0.5 97.58
256 - 362 Small B 1 207.0 0.5 98.07
362 - 512 Small u 0 207.0 0.0 98.07
512- 1024 Medium 1 2 207.0 1.0 99.03
1024 - 2048 Large - Very Large c 0 207.0 0.0 99.03
Bedrock Bedrock 2 207.0 1.0 100.00
Reach-Wide Pebble Count Particle Size Distributions - Reach 1
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
0
60.00
x.
u
50.00
w
u
u
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00 ? HII
0.00 o o O
o
0 0 ., ? o
0
Particle Size (mm)
25.0
20.0
a 15.0
U
i.
U
F. 10.0
5.0
0.0
Reach-Wide Pebble Count Analysis - Reach 1
Particle Size (mm)
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0 c
60.0
U
50.0
40.0 C?
L:
30.0 U
20.0
10.0
0.0
N in O N O O rf' r- GO fn ti ?" .? ?O Q? N O N 1?0
?p N
N N M N
p ti N ? M N ?n et
O O O fA O C N 7 ?. C N GO N NV' N p
V N N M .ti N
N 1n O
O O
Modified Ptankuch Channel Stability Rating Procedure Summary
Stream: tMI Cw- Reach:
Date:` Observers: KGJ VALI Comments: 5QVe(V6I elVdtd ba?kS
v
F
ir
Poor
Location Key Category Excellent
i Rating Good
Description Rating a
Description Rating Description Rating
on
Descript 4 nt 40.60%
di
l
k 6
60:0+.
Bank slope gradient
8
1 Landform Slope Bank slope gradient <30%. '
gradient 2 Bank slope gradient 30-40%. .
ope gra
e
Ban
s
t
l
N ti
W past or future mass wasting.
No evidence 3 Infrequent. Mostly healed over. Low future 6 Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly 9 y
neat
Frequent or large, causing sedimen
f
d
12
-1 2 ng
as
Mass .
potential yearlong. same.
anger o
yearlong OR imminent
C
t from immediate channel
b
i
ll Present, but mostly small twigs and limbs. 4 Moderate to heavy amounts, mostly larger 6 Moderate to heavy amounts, predominantly 8
3 Debris Jam sen
a
y a
Essent sizes. larger sizes.
rH
Q Potential area.
or and variety
Vi
t densit
l
90%+
3
70-90% density. Fewer species or less vigor
6
50-70% density. Lower vigor and fewer
9
<50% density plus (ewer species & less vigor
ll
d
h
4 Vegetative Bank y.
g
an
p
dense soil binding root
t
d suggest less dense or deep root mass. species from a shallow, discontinuous root ow
s
a
indicating poor, discontinuous, an 12
Protection eep,
sugges
a mass. root mass.
mass.
2
Occasional
resent
eaks
ntains
B
l
3
Inadequate. Overbank flows common. W/D
5 l resent plus some increases.
le for
Am 1 Adequate. Bank overflows are rare. W/D p
.
y co
p
are 4
Channe p
p ratio = 8-15 overbank floods. W/D ratio = 15-25. ratio > 25.
Capacity Peak flows contained. W!D ratio <7. .
k e angular boulders. 12"+
65%+ w/ lar 2 40-65%. Mostly boulders and small cobbles 4 20-40%. With most in the 3-6" diameter 6 <20% rock fragments of gravel sizes, 1-3" or
O
fA 6 Bank Roc g 6-12" Gass. less.
7 Content
Obstructions to common.
Rocks and logs firmly imbedded. Flow 2 Some present causing erosive cross 4 Moderately frequent, unstable obstructions 6 Frequent obstructions and deflectors cause
Sediment traps full
earlon
sion
k
b
8
M
(Y] Flow pattern w/o cutting or deposition. Stable bed currents and minor pool filling. Obstructions move with high flows causing bank cutting .
g.
y
an
ero
channel migration occurring.
fewer and less firm. and pool filling.
L
(J

ks <6"
t
b

4

intermittently at outcurves and
Some

6

Significant. Cuts 12-24" high. Root mat

12

Almost continuous cuts, some over 24" high.
?? 8 Cutting an
.
raw
Little or none. Infrequen ,
constrictions. Raw banks may be up to 12". overhangs and sloughing evident. Failure of overhangs frequent. EE )
O
J
9
Deposition
Little or no enlargement of channel or point
4
Some new bar increase, mostly from coarse
8
Moderate depostion of new gravel and
b
12
Extensive deposit of predominantly fine
Accelerated bar development.
articles

16
b gravel. ars.
coarse sand on old and some new .
p
ars.
2 es well rounded in 2
d ed
C 3 Well rounded in all dimensions, surfaces
10 Rock Angularity Sharp edges and corners. Plane surfaces 1 Rounded corners and edges, surfaces g
orners an smooth
rough.
t
ll
1 smooth, flat.
but may have <35% bright
dull
Mostl
2 dimensions.
Mixture dull and bright, ie 35-65% mixture
3 .
Predominantly bright, 65%+, exposed or
11 Brightness y no
Surfaces dull, dark or stained. Genera ,
y scoured surfaces.
bright. 2 surfaces.
Moderately packed with some overlapping. 4 range.
Mostly loose assortment with no apparent 6 No packing evident. Loose assortment, easily /?
`?
12 Consolidation of Assorted sizes lightly packed or overlap. moved.
E
O Particles
Si overlapping.
Stable material 80-
e evident
No size chan 4 Distribution shift light. Stable material 50- 8 Moderate change in sizes. Stable materials 12 Marked distribution change. Stable materials
13 ze
Bottom .
g 80% 20-50%. 0-20%.
+-'
O Distribution 100%.
6 .
Scour at constrictions and
5-30% affected
12
30-50% affected. Deposits and scour at
18
More than 50% of the bottom in a state of flu
C0 14 Scouring and <5% of bottom affected by scour or .
where grades steepen. Some deposition in obstructions, constrictions and bends. Some or change nearly yearlong. 24
Deposition deposition. pools. filling of pools.
15 Aquatic Abundant growth moss-like, dark green 1 Common. Algae forms in low velocity and 2 Present but spotty, mostly in backwater.
li
k
k Perrenial types scarce or absent. Yellow-
short term bloom may be present-
reen
4
Vegetation perennial. In swift water, too. pool areas. Moss here, too. c
-
s s
Seasonal algae growth makes roc ,
g
O
nt Total=
E
ll Good Total = Z Fair Total = Poor Total = Z p
e
xce
C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D3 D4 D5 D6
Stream Type
Good (Stable)
Fair(Mod.unstable
Poor(Unstable) Al
38-43
4447
48+ A2
38-43
44-47
48+ A3
54-90
91-129
130+ A4
60-95
96-132
133+ A5
60-95
96-142
143+ A6
50-80
81-110
111+ Bi
38-45
46-58
59+ B2
38-45
46-58
59+ B3
40-60
61-78
79+ B4
40-64
65-84
85+ B5
48-68
69-88
89+ B6
40-60
61-78
79+
F4 C1
38-50
51-61
62+
FS 38-50
51-61
62+
F6 60-85
86-105
106+
G1 70-90
91-110
111+
G2 70-90
91-110
111+
G3 60-85
86-105
106+
G4 85-107
108-132
133+
G5 85-107
108-132
133+
G6 f 67-98
99-125
126+
Stream Type DA3 DA4 DA5 DA6 E3 E4 E5 E6 F1 F2 F3
110 115
110 90-115 80-95 40-60 40-60 85-107 85-107 90-112 85-107
Good (Stable)
Fair (Mod. unstable
Poor (Unstable) 40-63
64-86
87+ 40-63
64-86
87+ 40-63
64-86
87+ 40-63
64-86
67* 40-63
64-86
87+ 50-75
76-96
97+ 50-75
76-96
97+ 40-63
64-86
87+ 60-85
86-105
106+ 60-85
86405
106+ 85-
111-125
126+ -
1
111-125
126+ 116-130
131+ 96-110
111+ 61-78
79+ 61-78
79+ 108-120
121+ 108-120
121+ 113-125
126+ 1108-120
121+ 1
Grand Total=
l?- I
Stream Type
1 Modified Channel 1
Stability Rating = 1
1
?C' C' "Wo Wl
6_-__--_-_J
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX: GOOD BUNK #1
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatio Upstream from erosion site
3/2/1006
Lilll"":
Bank lit Root Depth Root Densitv Bank Angle Surface Total Index
Category Ratio (ft/ft) Ratio (%) ("/o) (degrees) Protection ("/")
Value 2.0 100.0 90.0 60.0 70.0 17.5
Field Measure
Index
8.0
1.0
1.5
4.0
3.0
BANK EROSION IIAZARD INDEX: GOOD BANK 42
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatio Upstream from erosion site
'2n nnni?
L.1 LL
Bank lit Root Depth Root Density Bank Angle Surface Total Index

Cate orv
g
Ratio (ft/ft)
Ratio (%)
(%)
(degrees)
Protection ("/°)
Value 2.0 100.0 1 S0.0 50.0 70.0 17.5
Field Measure Index 8.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 3.0
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX: ERODED BANK #1
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatioi At erosion site
n...... znnnn?
..., lam.
Bank tit
Root Depth
Root Density
Bank Angle
Surface
Total Index
Category Ratio (ft/ft) Ratio (%) (%) (degrees) Protection
Value 3.0 5.0 10.0 90.0 10.0 45.0
Field Measure
Index
10.0.
10.0
8.5
8.0
8.5
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX: ERODED BANK #2
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatiot At 2nd erosion site
Bank lit Root Depth Root Density Bank Angle Surface Total Index
Category Ratio (ft/ft) Ratio (degrees) Protection ("/")
Value 3.0 2.0 5.0 90.0 5.0 48.0
Field Measure Index 10.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX: GOOD BANK #3 (Opp. Eroded Bank #2)
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatio? At 2nd erosion site
n .. :nn(nr,
Bank Ht Root Depth Root Density Bank Angle Surface Total Index
Category Ratio (ft/ft) Ratio (`%) (%) (degrees) Protection
Value 1.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 17.0
FieldMcasu?e Index 1.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX: ERODED BANK #3
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatio? At 3rd erosion site
D t • 3//2006
a e.
Bank Ilt
Root Depth
Boot Density
Bank Angle
Surface
Total Index
Category Ratio (ft/ft) Ratio (%) (%) (degrees) Protection (%)
Value 3.5 60.0 55.0 60.0 70.0 24.5
Field Measure In
d cx 10.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0
BANK EROSION HAZARD INDEX: GOOD BANK #4 (Opp. Eroded Bank #3)
Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill
Project Locatio? At 3rd erosion site
Date• 3//2006
Bank [It Root Depth Root Density Bank Angle Surface Total Indcx
Category Ratio (ft/ft
( )
Ratio % (/o°) (deg droes)
Protection
)
Value 2.5 55.0 30.0 70.0 20.0 30.5
Field Measure Index 8.5 4.0 6.0 5.0 7.0
Cleveland County Landfill
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2005-1113
. L-,-r'r
Photograph B. Upstream view facing Cross Section 1.
Cleveland County Landfill
Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report Project No. 2005-1113
Photograph C. Upstream view near Cross Section 3.
a
Mv- 24. 2006 1:21PM
Cleveland County Landfill
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
No,9557 P- 1
I, Sam Lockridge, representing The Cleveland County Health Department, hereby certify
that I have authorized Gregory C. Antemann of Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. to act on
my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of
this Nationwide Permit No. 27 and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
ti..
Applicant's signature
5 a %4 - D?
Date
Agen 's signature
s
lla e
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: Mav 24.2006
COUNTY Cleveland Countv. North Carolina TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT N/A linear proiect
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Cleveland County Landfill Stream Relocation
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Cleveland County Health Department
POC: Mr.Sam Lockridge, at [phone]
315 E. Grover Street
Shelby. North Carolina 28150
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services. Inc.
POC: Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS at [phone]
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
North Carolina 28273
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-,going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Stream Relocation )
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) Channel Geomorphic Conditions and Evaluation Report
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to a Nationwide Permit No
(X) Routine On-Site Data Form (DP I)
(X) NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (SCP1)
(X) USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (SCP1)
(X) Representative Photographs
(X) Stream Relocation Conceptual Design
27
Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent
Mr. Gregg Antemann, PWS
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
.i %j
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than leaving
the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: p r!n r=1 nn/]? D
® Section 404 Permit . LII VV
..J 1 . j r A
a
? Section 10 Pennit MAY 2 5 2006
? 401 Water Quality Certification UENR - WATER QUALITY
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules ?YEiW0ANDSTMAWATERBRANCH
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide Permit No. 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is not
required, check here: X
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Cleveland Counter Health Department Contact: Mr. Sam Lockridge
Mailing Address: 351 E. Grover Street
Shelby North Carolina 28150
Telephone Number: (7041480-5478 Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: sam lockridue(a_clevelandcounty coin
2. Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be attached
if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Gregg C Antemann
Company Affiliation: Carolina Wetland Services Inc.
Mailing Address: 550 East Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte NC 28273
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: greguncws-inc net
Page 1 of 7
III. Project Information
1. Name of project: Cleveland County Stream Relocation
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A linear project
4. Location: The Cleveland County Landfill
County: Cleveland Nearest Town: Shelbv
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Charlotte, travel south on Interstate
85 Merge onto US-74 W via exit 1013 toward Kings Mountain/Shelby. Turn slight right onto US-74
BR / E Marion Street Turn slight right onto NC-180 / N Post Road and right onto Airport Road.
The site is located with the property of the Cleveland County Landfill near the confluence of Long
Creek and Buffalo Creek.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N35119'44" W81128' 38"
(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:
The existing land use of the project area is residential with adjacent wooded areas and an adjacent
county landfill
7. Property size (acres): N/A linear project
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Long Creek
9. River Basin: Broad River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The River
Basin map is available at http://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The proposed project will relocate a portion of Long
Creek near its confluence with Buffalo Creek Currently the meanders near the confluence have
become too extreme and are encroaching on the Cleveland County Landfill and an existing
maintenance road Long Creek is severely eroding in these areas and is causing propegy loss and
sedimentation to Buffalo Creek By relocating and stabilizing t_his portion of Long Creek, the project
proposes to improve water quality within this local watershed.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe and typical excavation
equipment will be used for this project
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The land use surrounding the project is mainly
residential with adjacent wooded areas and a count landfill
IV. Prior Project History
This project has no prior history.
Page 2 of 7
V. Future Project Plans
There are no future project plans for this site
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
li T_.,....a T.---
Wetland Impacty
Area of Located
within Distance to
Site Number Type of
Impact
100-year Nearest **
Type of Wetland*
(indicate on *
Impact* (acres) Fooodplain** Stream linear
map) (es/no feet)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to:
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list
impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the
FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or online at littp:/hvww.fema.gov.
***List a wetland 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: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Perennial or
Site Number

di
i
Type of hnpact* Impact

(linear
Stream Name** Width of
Stream Before
Intermittent?
cate on
(
n (please specify)
ma feet Impact
Stream A Relocation 149 if Long Creek 5-10' Perennial
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 flows. USGS maps are available through the
USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at www.usgs.gov. Several interiet sites also allow direct download and
printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com, www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Page 3 of 7

Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 149 linear feet
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any other Water
l T/
Vl L. IV, V .J. 1iA
Open Water Area of Type of Waterbody
Impact Type of Impact* Impact Name of Waterbody (lake, pond, estuary,
Site Number
(acres) (if applicable)
sound, bay, ocean, etc.)
indicate on ma

N/A
* 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)
The relocation will not result in a net loss greater than 150 linear feet of channel. The use of hard
stabilization will be necessary at the outside meander bends to immediately stabilize the new channel
to prevent encroachment on the landfill and maintenance road Appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the "North
Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual" will be designed installed, and
maintained properly to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard. All
sediment and erosion control measures placed in stream channels will be removed and the natural
grade restored after construction completion.
VIII. Mitigation
This project will result in a net increase in aquatic resources functions and values within the project
area Therefore no compensatory mitigation is proposed In addition no compensatory mitigation
credit is requested.
Page 4 of 7
s
1. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that you would like to
pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be reviewed and approved
before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants will be notified early in the
review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the NCWRP is available as an option. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website
at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the
appropriate box on page three and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 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 ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an enviromnental document pursuant to the requirements of
the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If you are not sure
whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at [phone] to review
current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a copy of
the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to required state
and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide justification for these
impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly
identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not impacts
are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional Office may be included as
Page 5 of 7
appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233 (Meuse), 15A
NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer
Requirements), or other (please identify: WS III - CA - 30 foot buffer )?
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. N/A
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 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 NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
Approximately 24500 square feet of 30-foot buffer will be temporarily cleared for the relocation.
Currently tile riparian buffer is dominated by invasive species The 30 foot buffer will be re-established
along the newly relocated channel The buffer will be planted with native species.
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.
XII. 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.
Page 6 of 7

XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ?No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ?No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired construction
dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may choose to list constraints
associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work schedules (e.g., draw-down
schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or
other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Construction is scheduled to begin immediately following receipt of the appropriate pennits
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Agent's Signature

Date
Page 7 of 7
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Cleveland County , Landfill Stream Restoration Date: 02/28/06
Applicant/Owner: SHIELD Engineering County: Cleveland
Investigator(s): Ron Johnson, WPIT and Matt Jenkins, WPIT State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DPI
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 2ubus argutus Stratum
herb Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 10
3 Li[,,ustnun sinense stumb FAC 11
4 Smilax rotundifolia vine FAC 12
5 Pueria Montana vine 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
75%
Remarks:
Nlore than 50% of the dominant
plant sp
ecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydroloby are p resent.
Copy of Routine On-Site Data Ferm.xls Pave ] o 2 5/18/2006
1011 S
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toccoa loam, 0-2 % slopes Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic TV DIc Udifluvent Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No

Profile D cri do :
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon IMunsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 10YR 4/6 N/A N/A sandy silt loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2'92
Copy of Routine Cn-Site Data Form.xls Page 2 of 2 er24i2006

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 02/28/2006 Froject' Cleveland County Landfill Latitude: N 35° 19' 44"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------ -
Evaluator: RGJ and NMJ Site, SCP1 Longitude: W 81° 28' 38"
Total Points: Other Perennial Stream A
Stream is at ;east intermittent .46 C!1 CountyCiCVC1.lIld e.g. Oued '
i = 1., f or pererntiaif? „a J1?
A_ Geomorphology (Subtotal=
1". Continuous bed and bank-
>---------------------•---•---••--•--•---••--•-•-•-------------------------•------------------------------- 3.0
--------..
i 2. Sinuosity 2.0
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
------•---•------------------------------------•---•• ----------------------------- ---------------- 3A
-------
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2.0
5. Activeirelic floodplain 2.0
€ 6. Depositional bars or benches
................ ........................................................................................... 3.0
... .......
7. Braided channel 0.0
S. Recent alluvial deposits
...
- 3.6
..................................................... .................. .-......................
:
9' Natural levees
:---•------------------------------------------•------------------------------------------------------------ ........

---1=
10. Headcuts 1 Q
11. Grade controls
---------------------------------------------•--•---------------------------------------------------------- O.S
--------..
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existinn
USGS or )`MRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.0
Nlan-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. H ogv (Subtotal = 11.0
14. Groundwater flovddischarge
..-.---......- .............. ...... ---------------------------------------- .._.......-._... _...._... 3.0.
..........
15. `JVater in channel and > 43 hrs since rain. or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
---•------------------------- ------ .......................................... 3.0

+
........
16. Leaflitter
- - ---•----------------------------------
-------------------------------- _1.5
+
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0
18. Organic debris lines or piles (L^(rack lines) 1.0
.......................................... ------- ---...................--...-•----------------------..
19. Hvdric soils i,redox.imorohic features) oresent? 1 4
Absent
................................ Teak
. ............. ...
.
. Moderate
.
.
. Strong
. .......................
0
--
----------- ----------
----- ..
.
...
1
-
.
. .........
.
.......
. ...
2
: 3
.
.
.
............
-
-
-
0 ....
........... ..................
...
1 -..
...............................
2 .
.
...........
.
3
0
-------------- --- ------ 1
------------------------------ - 2
---------- ----------------- ---- 3
----------------------------
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
0
..
.
. 1 2 3
..
.
.........
....... ....
........
0 . .................................. ...

1 ...............................
....
2
........................
..
3
0 1
+
+ 2 i 3
--------------------------------
-
--
----
-- --- ------
-
- ...
---------------------------------
+-- ............................... -----
;
?
- ----------------------------

-
--
-
---
-
-
-
0 ......------ -----------------+--
1 -------------
-
------------ ----
2 -------------
-----------
3
0 0.5
• 1
' 1.5
................................
0 . ..._--•-----•--- ----------------
---
0.5 -------------------------------
-----
1 --------------------------..
1.5
No= 0
Yes = 3
0
--- --------- 1
---- ------------- ..----.....-....... _ .:....... 2
................................... J

.........
.....
0 1 2 3
............. ........ ..._..---------------------------*------ --------------------------- ------- ---------

------------ ----- - - --------------------------------- ------- --------------------------- -------- -------------
0 0.5 1 -
1.5
O 0.5 1 i.5
NO = 0 Yes= 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 10.50 )
----------- --- -------------------- ..................................................
........ -
........... --.............
. ..... -.----.............................
................
................
----------
-----------------
20-. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 .
2 :
1 0

`21`'. Rooted plants in channel -
.----------
---
--
--
---
---
--
3.0.
- 3
2 --
1 --- -_ 3
u0
-
--•
-
--
-•
-
----------------------------------•---------•-----------•--------
Cray fish
---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- -----...
1 0
-------- - -------------------------
0
-------------------------- ------ -------- ............ ...............
0.5
-------------------------------------- --- --------------- ................... ----------
1
------------------------------ ------------------------
1.5
-----------------------'
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2
24. Fish
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0
-------- - 0
------- -------- --------- 0.5
.
>----
--
- ----------
- 1
+ 1.5
.
..
..'

25. Amphibians
.......................................... ..----.--------------°----------
0,5
-<
0
...
. ---- ..._. ..............
-.
-
-
_
E 0.5 ..........
.... --------- ----
1 !
...
_.
..
..........
1.5

26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1,0 ..
0 -•---- +................................. --------------
0.5 ----------------- a-
1 - - - -
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1,0 0 1
i 2
: 3
........... ........................................ ......................................................

20. Iron oxidizing ba.cteriaJungus. ........

0.0 ......................

0
...
...
---- ....................
0.5 .. ...
-
1 ............. ......

1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 PAC = 0.5; FACVV = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SA`J = 2.0; Other = 0 I
Items .'0 and 21 focus on the presence of upland pla nts. It em 39 focuses on the presence of aquatic or yr etland plants.

Notes: (us? back side of this form fcr additional notes-)
-- Sketch:
a
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
SCP1 - Perennial Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r f
1. Applicant's Name: SHIELD Engineering 2. Evaluator's Name: Ron Johnson and Matt Jenkins
3. Date of Evaluation: 2-28-06 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: Long Creek 6. River Basin: Broad
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 3 sq. miles 8. Stream Order: Fourth
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 800 If 10. County: Cleveland
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Charlotte, travel south on Interstate 85. Merge
onto US-74 W via exit lOB toward Kings Mountain/Shelby. Turn slight right onto US-74 BR / E. Marion Street. Turn slight right
onto NC-180 IN Post Road and right onto Airport Road. The site is located with the property of the Cleveland County Landfill near
the confluence of Long Creek and Buffalo Creek.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35°19'44" W 81°28'38"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Relocation
14. Recent Weather Conditions: no rain within the past 48 hours
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 65 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed III (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3.38 ac.
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 50 % Residential % Commercial 10 ° o Industrial 10 % Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _° o Other
21. Bankfull Width: 5-10' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4-15'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10;'0) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of Nvorksltect (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score
of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date ,,r/, (0
This channel evaluation form is inten ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SCP1- Perennial Stream A
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# TERISTICS SCORE
CHARAC
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
U (no discharge = 0. springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = mar points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
w Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
a' (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = mac points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = mar points)
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3 4
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = mar points)
1 I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 4
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
?. (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

r15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
F' 1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
p
?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
.
,., (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate cntbeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
'
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = mar points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
? I
as g
Site
o f?3 i 51 7
A
?1a1°, n
., 11
Ns?d`;Ld - Ubs
6
? £4
`,
C
? _ Grid
Location Map
I `

?
1 ( I
? ??' ' Ij
?,
lf
1
\
BRUSH
?..
le
Igo / -
t?
7 490D?

Sheets 2 and 3
Pool Pod
/
O'A ` I
RM.
1

l
i-
It, VI?1°ililO'fl1? ? (
721
\\ i $ ° ? Ili I I
?o
0
MI
SCALE
DATE
FIGURE 1. Plan Overview
SHEET
'• - zoo• 5iz?os
Cleveland County Landfill
Carolina Wetland services
550 E
t W
i
h
B
l
d FLD. BK. PG. DRAIN) BY North Carolina
Shelby
as
est
ns
oasc
ou
evar
Charlotte
North Carolina 28273 RGJ ,
CWS P
N
2005
1113 OF
, roject
o.
-
JOB No, CHECKED BY 3
2005-1113 GCA
BASE DRAWING PROVIDED BY SHEILD ENGINEERING.
Cleveland County Landfill
Stream Relocation Project
Conceptual Design
Typical Riffle Cross Section
Bankfull
Bench
4.0 f/t0 0
-10.0 ft
Bottom
Typical Right Pool Cross Section
Existing Grade
Bot.o rtot -;
m
Typical Left Pool Cross Section
II - - -- - -
Existina Grade
Bench
ft.
10.0 ft.
Bench
Bottom
LEGEND

rrF??J Channel Bottom
Riffle
Pool
Rip Rap
Existing Channel
New Channel Location
Scale 1" = 50"
Not to Scale
Design Parameters
Parameter Existing Condition
Drainage Area (square miles) 3
Reach Length (linear feet) 485
Channel Dimension
Bankful Width (ft.) 30
Bankful Depth (ft.) 4
Width/Depth Ratio 7.5
Bankful Area (sq. ft.) 80
Bankful Maximum Depth (ft.) 4.5
Width Flood-prone Area (ft.) 130
Entrenchment Ratio 4.3
Max Pool Depth (ft.) 4.5
Ratio Max Pool Depth to Bankful
Depth 1.125
Pool Width (ft.) 40-60
Ratio Pool Width/Bankfull Width 1.33-2.0
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft.) 65-120
Ratio Pool to Pool Spacing
to Bankful Width 2.16-4.0

Channel Pattern
Meander Length (ft.) 217-238
Meander Length Ratio 7.2-7.93
Radius of Curvature (ft.) 50-72
Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.7-2.4
Meander Belt Width (ft.) 120
Meander Width Ratio 4
Sinuosity 2
Channel Profile
Valley Slope (ft./ft.) 0.011
WS Slope (ft./ft.) 0.012
Pool Slope (ft./ft.)
Ratio Pool Slope to WS Slope
Riffle Slope (ft./ft.)
Ratio Riffle Slope to WS Slope
Channel Materials
Bed Material medium gravel
d50 (mm) 8.0-11.3
Rosgen Stream Type E4
,• 50•
? UA S/z/GB FIGURE 1. Channel Relocation and Typical
Cross Section SHEET

Cleveland
County Land 2
Gasoline
Wetfand S
les FLD. BK. PG. DRAWN BY Sh
lb
N
th C
li

ate,;.. sM.,Y tin
u
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte
North Carolina 23273

RG,1 e
or
aro
na
y,
CWS P
t N
2005
1113
OF
, rojec
o.
-
JOB NO.
2005-1113 CHECKED BY
GCA 3
BASE DRAWING PROVIDED BY SHEILD ENGINEERING.

1
Typical Bioengineered Stream Bank
Exis in Gr de
ti
n Z-
4.0 ft t D00 tt. 0'7 17 7 0 7
1-10.0 ft.-i 17 0 0 0 17 0 7 0 7
VV 17 7
V p -7
0 0 7
0 7 0
0
7
I o 0 7
I
17
7
7
0 ? I
I
I
0
D 0
V 0 0
0 0 0 17
0 0 0 4 IV 0 7 1 0 V V 0 0 V
17 0 717 7 1717 7 0
17' Q
0 / 0 0
rian Seed Mix
Live Stakes (1/2" - to 3" diameter)
Slope surface
6" Minimum
.?? Depth
rr,
" v
Note:
Rooted/leafed condition of the
?.: ::;r..`C`• '- living plant maLerial is not
representative of the time of
installation.
F-) L'a ?1W,JXe Ci ur 9) ', aLS
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMNION NAME QUANTITY
SALDI SERICEA I SILKY WILLOW 1 500
I CORNUSA.MOASUb1 I SILKYDOGWOOD I Soo I
I nPnTrrD A ms I CORALBERRY 1 499 1
?J rrEAVIRGINICA I VIRGD41AWILLOW 1 498 1
U nrrmonrrerrc I B=ONBUSH 1 249 1
CALLICARPAAMERICANA B [?E?RRY 124 ('? i w?w?wit CarolinavVctlandSavices
Common Name Scientific Name %by Weight
Soft Rush Juncus effusus 20
Deeaongue Panicum clandestimum 20
Ironweed Vemonia noveboracenis 10
Virginia Wild Rye Elymus Vrginicus 20
Fox Sedge Carex vulipinoidea 10
Joe Pye Weed Eupatoruum fistulosum 5
Cardinal Flower Lobelia cardinalis 5
Black Eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 5
Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpurea 5
T:.,,. e"„l.,. I L ?%.VVUa]550East Westinghouse Boule,ud
SCALE DATE
1" = 30' 5/2/06
FLD. BK. Pe. DRAM BY
ar..i
EC? MMUM
Live Staking ...............................
Stream Bed ................................. 07&-!
vavvv
Riparian Seed Mix Rip Rap ......................................
F EJa-KNT" F4ic1 r-ITIG2''Mia?+
Harvesting: Only healthy, well-branched, and disease-free
stock from species approved by the Project Manager shall b
accepted Live growing plant material at the harvesting site
shall be handled with care to avoid bark stripping and
splitting of stems. Cuts shall be made six to tweleve inches
(6" -12") from the ground or as required by the property
owner. Cuts shall be made flat or at a slight or blunt angle
to ensure that the source sites will regenerate rapidly. Each
stake shall be cleanly trimmed and cut 1" above the highest
bud.
Nursery Supplied Live Plants: The planting stock should
be grown by approved nurseries within the same
physiographic region (Piedmont) and within 200 miles of
the project site. The seed sources for the plant material
should be obtained from the Piedmont.
Soil Bioengineering Construction Requirements: Living
system acceptance shall be as follows for branch rooting (in
percent) based on inspection after the first growing season
(late summer/early fall)
Living System Percent Living
Live Stakes 85%
Live Fascines 85%
Live Stake: Live stakes shall be 1/2" to 3" in diameter, 2 to
3 feet in length, angled on the bottom and cut flush on the
top, with buds oriented upwards. Live stakes shall be
determined living based on the presence of new growth. All
side branches shall be cleanly trimmed so the cutting is one
single stem. Stems should be scarred near the base of the
live stake to incoumge root growth
Plant Layout : Plants shall be grouped in'naturalisdc' drift
A drift of a single species shall consist of (5) to (I1) plants.
The plants in each drift should be planted in a random
manner on 2' centers except Cottonwood stakes. Do not
plant in unnatural looking rows. See planting plan for total
numbers of plants.
Buttonbush Stakes : Buttonbush Stakes are to be planted
along the ordinary high water mark on 6' centers.
FIGURE 2. Planting Plan SHE
Cleveland County Landfill 3
Shelby, North Carolina
- - - t No. 2005-1113
3
SHEILD ENGINEERING.