20041994 Ver 1_Complete File_20041215

O?O? W AT ?RQG
> A

Mr. Jeffery Baker
33 Treetop Drive
Arden, NC, 28704
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
February 13, 2005
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Re: 15-acre lake in Crumpler, Ashe County
DWQ #04-1994; USACE Action ID. No. 200530483
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Baker:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3501 issued to Mr. Jeffery Baker, dated February
13, 2005. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion
Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
/-I, Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Daryl Lamb, DWQ, Winston-Salem Regional Office
DLR Winston-Salem Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Chris Huysman, P.O. Box 224, Newton, NC, 28658
Filename: 041994Baker(Ashe)401
One
N-o
r Carolina
401 Wetlands Certification Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Jeffery Baker
Page 2 of 5
February 13, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section.0500 to Mr. Jeffery Baker to fill
122 linear feet of streams and to flood 3,092 linear feet of streams in the New River Basin,
associated with the construction of a 15 acre lake in Ashe County, North Carolina, pursuant to an
application filed on the 13th day of December of 2004, received December 16, 2005.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed
work will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge
guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and
as described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new
application for a new Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be
given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions of this Certification. Any new owner must notify the Division and request the
Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland or stream fill be requested in the future,
additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6)
and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a change in stream or wetland
impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in writing and a new
application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid, compliance with
the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and
general conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other
impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved Plan Location or Reference
(Units)
Stream 122 feet fill DOA Public Notice
3,092 feet flooded
Mr. Jeffery Baker
Page 3 of 5
February 13, 2005
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version
of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and
erosion control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the
requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on
all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the
reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401Permit Application. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of
sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the
maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands
and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six
months of the date that the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
5. Mr. Jeffery Baker, shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with State
water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from,compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and
federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws ' are not being met
(including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is
being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division
may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0507(d). Before modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Jeffery Baker
and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Jeffery Baker in writing,
Mr. Jeffery Baker
Page 4 of 5
February 13, 2005
shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit
issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of
the 404 Permit for the project;
Other conditions:
6. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to
return the attached certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-165
7. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional
wetlands, waters and protective buffers in order to assure compliance for future wetland,
y water and buffer impact. These mechanisms shall: be,putdn:place prior to impacting any
wetlands, waters and/or buffers approved for impact under this, Certification Approval and.
Authorization Certificate. A sample deed notification can be downloaded from the
401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands. The text of the sample
deed notification may be modified as appropriate to suit to this project.
8. Construction moratorium:
Construction activities in the stream channel and buffer zone shall be prohibited from
May lthrough July 15 to protect fish eggs and fry produced during spawning;
9. Coldwater releases from the lake should be provided utilizing a design approved by DWQ. A
minimum flow release should be specified. NC WRC recommends a release > 7Q10. It
should be specified that this minimum flow not be reduced or disrupted at any time, including
during construction.
10. During construction, heavy equipment should not be operated in the stream channel nor on
the stream banks. Uncured concrete must not come into contact with stream water.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters
as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be
in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the
right to an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days

Mr. Jeffery Baker
Page 5 of 5
February 13, 2005
following receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be
final and binding.
This the 13th day of February 2005
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
4-L-? ('
Alan W. Klimek, P. .
041994Baker(Ashe)401
?L I
4
Wetland and Natural Resource
.-;.?-.
Consultants, Inc.
November 9, 2004
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 0 p /?
Asheville, NC 28801
DEC D
RE: Baker Property Lake 1 15
2004
Crumpler, Ashe County, North Carolina PIS aFN!-
N0` ft ST 7 -E,
4 n
Mr. Chapin: e
Attached please find an application for a Department of the Army Permit to construct a
15 acre recreational and aesthetic lake on an unnamed tributary to the North Fork New
River in association with a residential subdivision. The project area is currently wooded
and dominated with mature hardwoods and softwoods. The construction of the dam will
require the deposition of 27 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete fill for the dam; the
dam and outlet structures impacts 122 linear feet of perennial streams. The project will
result in a total of 3092 linear feet of unnamed perennial streams being flooded. Within
the application is data that demonstrates that the predominant impacts from the pond are
from flooding good quality Class C+ Streams (NC Division of Water Quality). The applicant
proposes to construct the dam in a manner that will maintain cold water base f low to down
stream reaches. I
The perennial stream channel of the project area drains an approximately 1000-acre
watershed that is currently subject to agricultural development. The existing channel is
moderately entrenched in areas to about 4 feet and exhibits bank failures with resulting
sediment loading to downstream waters. Half of the proposed impact reach is within
agricultural land while the other half is in a forested condition. Channel substrate ranges'_
from silt to large boulders with some reaches on bedrock. The 8 to 10 foot wide perennial
stream of the project area exhibits good indicators of stream function and quality.
Stream Quality Assessment Sheets are provided.
The applicant is currently proposing to mitigate for stream losses by 1) conducting stream
restoration totaling 1025 linear feet downstream of the proposed dam; 2) creating 0.3
acres of littoral wetlands in the headwaters of the lake; 3) providing 30 foot riparian
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
Fri
rn
C
4
buffers around the pond and 50 foot buffers along maintained stream corridors. The
purpose of the proposed dams is to provide recreational and aesthetical value to residents
within a proposed development. The applicant has additionally proposed to stock the pond
with game fish and provide habitat for waterfowl.
Please call me at 828 / 320-8120 with any questions that you may have.
3hri reg ards,
?sHuysman
Cc: Jeff Baker
33 Treetop Drive
Arden, NC 28704
Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-627-0051
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
APPUCATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFA 325) Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestiora for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shell be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if It does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications roust be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if Information is not provided the permit application cannot be evakrated nor can a permit
be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the Disrict Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
/TENS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
ITEM S O T B Fit IPQ BYAPPLIrAAM
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE rene9enrijmr,egwmd1

6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
S3 ?P 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
? gOx Z?4

7.. APPLICANT'S PHONE NQ ,S. W AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/A
R
EA CODE
'
a. Residence g? &O q -• 870 i /
[
^
a. Residence ?Z ?f CAS-305
b. Business CJ ? / 6 4 - 4300 b. Business 6Zg 13
Z? 91 ZO
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, 1, i.. 2
to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
L. owjk /l-/9-D
TURE
DATE '
NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE

13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN rilapp*.&.l 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS lilepdosb/el
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
COUNTY STATE
'.6. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, rseersuv rk,a/
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE

• Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity I Desviprron of pro/ecr, rncMwe ex /ecru es/
roC,ti%
gCt 1;vv t-a iC??-1 t vAri - ?'is :09?? ?M? T T?. ,c?Z U? a"L
19. Project Purpose (Desalbe me reason or pwpase of me pra)mr. see mtrucnoial
-Pei el S ABC P??'c -k?
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO Be DISCHARGED _
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
'm C :NSCQ_?C.\ A L t-t E W '\TA A\ C ?Ca2ECC I NA
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
-Z_7 (?C6,,c D'F Cc C L??TL
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (seerurrucria )
?. O ?_ Ste: ?M S ? ? LG 4LGA ?j CCC i??' +2 ; c T r i
/?N Ay?A?C-,F CIJ??? N Carr Q? \-?=-
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list),
do ?.??v L?v}?;C? P P??{ cwt s 1V_G0rrv nAc-, VQar?'9-L3oo?1 P-T'-
-(?-3-?= ?vtit?lia?-?' ;?>??P• C?2. -R-?G .SCr.G'v?(?'Q-`? ?w??Ql?C? (?l y?.
LIST- o??- P",P_-x2?eS tS IN(-wOLED
25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovaWDenials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
`Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
2e. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the a ity to undertake tho work described herein or am acting as the
duly o ized agent of the a ican
NA APPLICANT DATE f SIGNATURE OF AGEN DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than 310,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
? ( f+i ? ?, ? [ '` ?`?'V ?? ?; V? c^'? ?r? ??lr? ? o • i , ? I 1 !f + ?t ? v
1??1?++!\Cjj ?'++'i?i ??r?f`•fl ??'? t ISSB?A --
:.i
?`?. '?, (?? l It ? ? `-';? =? ? '?? ° ?- •? ? ,.?,? .°? ? , %?, ,?
o ( ?f
?71
ti_71
??? t `. ?`e l"Bij?'?I ?Jr-'??i ? ? ;rte ? i? 1?\ ,\ ? \_ w ,, r? /?\, z?S ? i 1.
57
l
_
V
1 l \
-/f /r l ???, ???_'. '?(.., ,.\ ?.1 11 }1`\ i•fs?-?' ?, jti.\ x335 ;/ C J, --'t a?.
L
C + '? Chests t H>>t
j `f t ?1 r ` vJ 30261)n feet of on ita ragorahon
,
l \J t.? t !' t l t v?• o` lleeijn=, b
j 125 Umear feet of dm and energy protection impact
a'-
?ca / ? ' _ .. a<n c ; :A, 'a`,1' _ _ ? \ ! r` `?-a` 79,6! •a, t ?e
"'A
R ?_, ? , ?S \ 3100 Linear fat of floodi act + _ -
pool ekvdim 2661 - i I , f ??? \ ;, a f -^ zero t l (? .
S;? ?>?f ??? '-'ate I8? ?:..r ¢s ,_. v ?? ? ???) ,{ :-` l i11? ??..'.v wA v`?`?r ? ?; t•??? y ?Vy?V` , ?" ,?-3?i??V'? ?.
2 \. \ l ,?1 ?' "" • / /l I ? ? r"?-h I
• y ?_??_i- 1 i y? ?? 2 j? . _ R.och B , ? I C __. ?
?/ I f %, ? , ;>?V?"?C? 111' !\ i 'I ? ?•. ' d I 8YJ ? v ? ??r?
~ RathA! l"??? d war.r.nea) J'; )i• )i?
e / \
abler ?./,,? ? ?? J ? ( ? . • l,`., ?; ?„ } , \ 1 ,,.,
,
??-. f???'?]y?r???cq?\ { cif ?'' ,I t / ?.? /?s! ? j ? ? •? ? ,+ ? _ r., - , , ;, ?/? r??-?`? ? , -•. _
,1-?fft--EEEX l ?r'?Y,
?it
^m ?/ ? _"J.''t'=_?' ??? i,? \ i i i? ?r )' , 1/Jr ?•,?, ;:,? ,+J f ? ??ft ?/ ?` .I . ff /(t /
i'
`L.
_ \tif t?/ l t f _- •e>< ?E?//? ' i\ y 1 \ 5? 3
,
`era2'` ..`" ?? `^ ?z ` ?,'` ??,1t j , t \ _ If ,\
286
i
\ (? ,\ \
3
/ ?? `?\'? ? ti9 f.?i \ l i?%{J ? `wit+???? ?f?`??,,? 1 %? (i `?;:,?. ,i -----•_- r' ` --`.??? ?? j+` i ? ? \ ` i ?? ?5 ? -J/` ` .
/??i J r'? , (?, • ? c??':..? ??---'?- ? i 1 ? : ? ; ? i ' ti ?A ?--? 1`??- t 5 ??A ,' l i ,' ? a ? i V , S ? 4 '
Name: JEFFERSON Location: 036.4978997"N 081.3781054'W
Date: 11/19/2004 Caption: Baker Property Lake
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Ashe County, NC
pvdaht (C) 1997, MaMech, Inc.
'I
Rt 3A1 ff,6°W! i ? 81. °i(v t I i 1 1 I I I 1 I I ?1.3? °? I I I I I I I
`?1C? ? _? ' R ? . ? 1 - ,,? .r? '? i f +? `e ._.y?? ?'?4'S' '` ? 1 ?•-?
? y z. t-.?'.y.r^ ??
f 3 ?
?
?
t
?
i p. i ( (i ,
t
.
1
" ?. ,r•
?
? f ,1
? e 11 1 1 " r
z i
_? r a 4 j
t

co

o

?? `'.• ?? ?:a '` '' ` i y t z
t
N 0- co
c6
1 ?.
4
1
Y C ..-.-' ??
4} ?>? S ?1°§ ? t-?
?,''t..?.r ?,>?,?..- -! ?
i
5
f }
`.
f ?
t ? 1 <' 4
_ ?
' z %
A
/
}
?''
? 4VV ti,
-,?
t
i ? s
? •
_
`
i 1
f
i
+v Y

I, S
Z4-6: .r? r `r :: f} 1,._ ? ?.. ?' `, . a.. 1
10m U. fs1 of to li'1°,ffU.N.w i ? t P' ,? {
.h
.
i
S l

1 ??
-
,
f 1 P
{ -= ± ?? tt -a`y yhrt< S\ 1 ..,-- I ?
;? ? ? F ? k tic: 5
-
! {yp ]jn 4 n
JI+? f??l? ? ??"`i ??
??
r t ?R ?+, y
t '?. \p ?_j _" j P ??rt •'
?
?p4 t
Sl *
? .+..-- -.. -....
-
j
.
_
\
y
.:..
,
r?!
.`
!
t ?. tit •1
{r E `-
?
..
?
Z J
y [
.} ?. 12fi L:w?faw °f da ?d •5+r9?A+t C.A ..?•-
< i 1
'
D r
.
'
' 4•-_a.--:
`a Z

<
ts _. R-hC t t,. ) ?t
3 t 4 4
"5.
` ?i..-
y ? 4 '.5??, •''-+? O
O 6? ' 1
4 4 i ( 34^y, f+ {y 1 ?., f
f i '(
`\ S t?? r"
(O
t:) j
i 1 - 7 L 11 r
+
3100 U. f°et °f flo°d55j wv.t '
// ??F { I Nor -d VW ekv."- 2661 1 4
. `•??G?t ?y 't.
t .
444
_
a -
'-< ..-.-
, der .J .m
i } .: +
?--..
_
+S
?
r ti f
?
"

!?
J
?
,
f
_
_-?,
.
}
... ?'
...
? 1 ' ' S t 'a?{
? -" ?--z J?
?
?
y
i ??• ? ? ?
t y
la
?
_ ?
,
-
J'
d)
•/?d-\. A
4
-

..,,
`
ft` \ i•u_..-, ,,. `
? `t • 4\ }
-w-' tl '41
i-'? fj ? _? ? ? a .
_
?
-
!
J
r ,
y
1
A
/
4
,yJ •` °
t

?
I
. 4
,
r ( ?r -

?
t0
a
dardia°z68D
?
I i
L
'..e
F W
t?
?1 f
?'
?"? 308

ar t%
+
- Z

(OO
/
'
r
f
ce.-.=
a! ?
+
, ,Y
-Rti.',. ! _
70% arkWt-ld {
,,.

Nt- -22
c6
?4i • _
e 9
' r
r'
i
y
•,•t
s t
,
S ???` \,?K.,.
p s
y 6J i..i
7°. .'+'- t 4•.1
r
t ,...
e ) ti ?4 mfr (s`" •'?i f

1 1 1 1 1 813J7j65G°w 1 I I I I I I I I 101.3133"'W 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 tn-3vbt"-w < r r I
Name: JEFFERSON Location: 036.4992565O N 081.3830651 ° W
Date: 11/1912004 Caption: Baker Property Lake
Scale: t inch equals 1000 feet Ashe County, NC
Cop1ft (C) 1997, MaptoM, inc.
T
r
LENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH RESERVOIR = 3092 FEET
LENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH DAM = 122 FEET
C a ? _
00
add'
a,,
00
?NroncEOCan?n•mw ???' _
? aotz
? oco,u,u
RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL EL. 2661.0
co,o..c,eo s.rc say cas.neu w,o»o awc. ow
0
JEFF BAKER
too 2oa 400 15 ACRE
-chnabe/ BAKER DAM LAKE ALTERNATIVE
SCALE IN FEET + Schnabel Engineering ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Ah-
TI P1 ?=+?- SE?? C1?N knlOO 200 400
&^Al IT 1\1 1"rrT
ENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH RESERVOIR = 3092 FEET
ENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH DAM = 122 FEET
ADZ
. ?r
l'"

OpSo,hnabol
Schnabel Engineering
JEFF BAKER
BAKER DAM
ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
15 ACRE
LAKE ALTERNATIVE

Jeff Baker Attachment: Project Purpose and Need
Individual Permit Application November 2004
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc
Pro ject Purpose and Need
Mr. Jeff Baker, the project proponent, proposes to construct a 15 acre
recreational / trout lake that floods perennial streams for the purpose of
developing a subdivision in the Chestnut Hill area of Ashe County. The lake
needs to be visible from at the entrance of the development to serve as an
amenity. The project proposes impacts as follows
27 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete will be discharged into
waters
122 linear feet of direct hard (primary) impacts for dam structure
• 3092 linear feet of indirect soft (secondary) impacts for flooding
150 linear feet of bank stabilization is needed on both sides of the
stream on the downstream side of the dam
The purpose of the lake is to provide a central amenity that provides
recreational opportunities for lot owners. The proponent has developed a
land plan that is based upon the numerous aquatic recreational opportunities
that the lake and the North Fork New River can jointly provide; the lake will
be for family based canoeing and kayaking while the river can provide
additional limited public access opportunities. Conceptual plans include
stocking the lake with game fish (rainbow trout, brown trout, small mouth
bass) and providing habitat for migratory waterfowl (wood duck).
Construction of the pond allows for the propagation of trout for the
residence of the proposed subdivision. The pond will be constructed with
littoral areas and thereby provide diverse habitat for terrestrial and seini-
aquatic wildlife. Fisheries habitat structures will be created for the game
fish.
The proponent needs the lake to provide a central amenity for the project.
The amenity needs to be large enough to be able to provide recreational
opportunities such as fishing, swimming and still water boating; the latter of
these water based sports occur on a limited basis in the region. The steep
valley that will support the lake is otherwise unusable; very steep topography
limits development and recreational access to the existing stream.
The proponent alternately considered either the no build alternative or the
off-line pond alternative. Neither alternative would fulfill the applicants
need to provide a large enough lake to provide recreational opportunities nor
would smaller ponds provide a central aesthetic for development.
The subject channel will be diverted while the concrete is discharged into
the stream so that there is no contact between the concrete and the water.
The 122 linear feet of impact at the base of the dam will be completed
concurrently with above the high water mark bank stabilization; there will be
no discharge into the stream as it is on bed-rock. The dam will be
constructed in 10 inch lifts until the normal pool elevation is established.
The outlet of the pond will utilize low-flow cool water design strategies.
The subject stream is an unnamed perennial tributary to the North Fork
New River; it has approximately 1050 acres of drainage measured at the
river. The NC Division of Water Quality has classified the North Fork New
River as Class C+ Water (10-02-(12)); adjacent drainages with named
streams (such as Millpond Branch) are likewise Class C+ Waters. The
subject stream has been sub-classified with three separate quality
assessments using the Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (USACE
Wilmington, Version 06/03) based on prior land use and forested cover. The
entirety of the stream has excess sediment load. All reaches are
significantly impacted by sediment and upstream land uses which include
agriculture and Christmas Tree cultivation.
Reach A is comprised of approximately 1600 linear feet of stream that has
little to no riparian cover. Current and prior agricultural uses have resulted
in vertical banks that generally do not support woody vegetation. Though
there is some meander pattern, evidence of manipulation is present based on
spoil piles. The stream has a quality index of approximately 50 out of 100
with significant reductions resulting from the lack of riparian cover and bank
stability that arises from human alteration. This reach would be flooded by
all of the contemplated lake configurations.
Reach B is comprised of approximately 1500 linear feet extending
downstream from Reach A. This classification starts at the constricting
point of the valley where floodplain is nearly absent. The steep valley has
limited alteration by humans and thus the channel is of higher quality.
Within this reach are sub-reaches that rank higher based on valley
formation,which results in minor floodplain conditions with groundwater
discharges. The stream quality index ranges from 70 to 80 depending on the
site specific region.
Reach C is downstream of Reach B and extends to the North Fork New
River. The defining characteristic of the reach are historic and current land
uses that include clearing of the riparian buffer and the subsequent mass
bank failures. Also, there is evidence of roadways within the reach as the
valley is not as steep as Reach B. The stream quality index is 60 out of a
possible 100. The stream fails to attain a higher assessment due to physical
and stability issues that could be rectified through mitigation and the
construction of a lake. Flooding this reach for the lake does not meet the
need for the project to be visible at the entrance of the project
Jeff Baker Attachment: Avoidance and Minimization
Individual Permit Application November 2004
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc
Avoidance and Minimization
The proponent has avoided hard impacts to the greatest extent practicable
by spanning stream channel crossings and proposing to construct a
reinforced concrete dam: Impacts requiring discharges to Waters of the
US are limited to the construction of a concrete dam to create additional
Waters of the US. All other access to high ground will be completed with
spanning structures. The predominant impacts of the project to perennial
streams are secondary in nature.
The proponent considered alternative development concepts and determined
that the uniqueness of the current proposal provided the best potential for
success. During the two years of pre-development consultation the
proponent has minimized the project scope from a 23 acre lake to the
current proposed 15 acre lake. Though more favorable in terms of returns
and potential sediment reduction, the 23 acre lake concept has been
eliminated dropped. The 15 acre lake has 750 linear feet less impact to high
quality streams than the 23 acre lake option. Further reduction in size is
not practical.
Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project are minimized
through the reduction in scope and through design considerations including:
• Engineered low flow/ cool water discharge orifice
• Engineered sediment collecting forebay
• Establishment of 30 foot riparian buffers along the lake shore
• Establishment of vegetated littoral zones
Jeff Baker Attachment: Mitigation Proposal
Individual Permit Application November 2004
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc
Mitigation Proposal
Summary:
Impacts can be separated into two separate classes that merit differing
mitigation ratios based upon the effect of the discharge. Impacts resulting
from the construction of the impoundment result in a permanent loss of
waters while impacts associated with flooding result in a net increase in
regulated Waters of the US. Potentially more faunal diversity will be
achieved by the stocking of the pond and the riparian edge will increase
habitat for other fauna. Furthermore, the classification of the reach into
three separate quality ratings based on site conditions intimates that the
mitigation ratios be adjusted based on the functional attributes of the
impacted stream.
The classification of the three separate reaches further supports that
mitigation is available downstream of the proposed dam and results in a
functional lift that will increase stream quality. Mitigation for impacts in
Reaches A and B will be conducted in Reach C. Reach C is in the same
drainage basin as the proposed impacts and is within the project boundaries.
Generally, the maximum available stream restoration credit allowable for
dam removal projects is the length of stream flooded. The Corps reasonably
adjusts the mitigation amount based on demonstrable impacts to water
quality, rare species, fisheries resources, riparian buffers and societal
benefits. This project incorporates design elements that ensure that water
quality will be protected through a low-flow cool-water / aerating discharge.
The applicant's commitment to stock the pond and maintain 30 foot
vegetated riparian buffers further off-set the proposed impacts. In
consideration of the factors used to assess mitigation we have developed
the following proposal.
Reach A Mitigation Proposal
Impacts to the 1600 linear feet of Reach A will result from the flooding of a
good quality stream. The flooding will alleviate sediment load from failing
banks. Stream restoration is proposed at a 1/4 to 1 ratio for the flooding
impacts because they are secondary impacts to lower quality streams. The
low ratio is in consideration of additional mitigative measures such as design
considerations and a reduction in project scope.
Additional out-of-kind mitigation will result from the establishment of a
littoral bench around the lake. The littoral area associated with Reach A
flooding will be an average of 15 feet wide with an average depth of 12
inches at 7 feet from the shoreline. The littoral area will be undercut and
backfilled with 4-6 inches off floodplain topsoil to provide an organic base
for aquatic and semi-aquatic plants. The littoral area will total
approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands.
The Reach A mitigation proposal is for 400 feet of restoration in
combination with 0.3 acres of wetland creation in the form of littoral zones.
Reach B Mitigation Proposal
Impacts to Reach B include the 125 linear feet of dam structures and 1500
linear feet of flooding impacts. The higher quality of the stream merits a
higher functional replacement. Therefore, the applicant has proposed to
mitigate for dam impacts at a 1:1 ratio and the flooding impacts at a 1/3 to 1
ratio.
Negligible amounts of littoral benches will be field designed and constructed
along the lakeshore of Reach B due to the steepness of the valley. Some
adverse impacts to water quality will be mitigated by the fact that the lake
will be flooded into an area that is currently forested such that the
resultant lake will have a forested buffer.
The Reach B mitigation proposal is for 500 feet of restoration resulting
from the flooding_ and for 125 feet of restoration for impacts resulting from
the discharge of material into waters. The total mitigation proposal for this
reach is 625 linear feet of restoration.
Sit
'?'= _ -. _?_ -°? = ?- ?r_ ? •+,? ? y ?? .tip ? ? ..
?y ,:.cam "?•- !? s•??. t. • ? ' _ ..,.. _,
1 1t ?r ? _ rr - J,r - '"y 5 "? Y 'Sy •'u ?r4 ?? •! '+ y?"l, ?? '! __
% • •+ { +?? ' 'rte t .
F%1 L ti ''.i i' • sir • •'•1 y. ti. ?.•"6 •L S. ' i
16
% 11 LL
_.. ?, ,? by ! ? ti ` 5 "i.,• Z ? . ?? fae
I ,: L y •.. _ti y tf . ire 4y "1• '!. i-? z. ?-?• z -` •..? 93'S. g . -.•
? ! ;'t. ?• ? ••'L-y,?• 1 S ,L f '••' fy1 • ? •••!! ?; is. ••.'• ,? _' 1' • t y ?' 3 s.1 • ,?
16
.,L., ??a. •' ! L' t?. ••''i ? _ is ? ?: 1 ? ••!'? ?".
91
l s - ~' s' ? ? ? ? ? ?tl •
? 1 r
.,mss .r' !•? ' 'y "y ''• ?! ti
rj•t Il1 t ?r"r rF 800
%
r . fir. Y - ? -` "-'" !r' r1 i' ? •! "t.
'''.f. .y' ?.
16
-z r
Soo
1
Name: JEFFERSON Location: 036.4981344° N 081.3835238° W
Date: 11/1912004 Caption: Baker Property Lake
Scale: 1 inch equals 500 feet Ashe County, NC
Mitigation Schematic
Copyright (C) 1997, NUptech, Inc.
Reach C: Mitigation Site / Existing Conditions:
Reach C is located immediately downstream of the project area. The reach
has an excess load of sediment, a limited forested buffer, and has a high
bank height index. The overall condition of the stream is poorer than the
area that is proposed to be impacted.
The riparian zone along Reach C includes areas that have been timbered and
a logging road provide access to the reach. Two major man-made meanders
have resulted in excess bank erosion and instability along the reach.
There are approximately 1700 linear feet of stream that can benefit from
varying degrees of restoration. The majority of the reach will benefit from
the establishment of a forested riparian zone and localized areas can be
stabilized through the placement of J hooks and rock vanes. Some new
channel will need to be designed to rectify those portions of the reach which
have been altered.
Mitigative Treatments and Restoration Plan
Within 90 days of the issuance of the requested permit and prior to the
commencement of any work within Waters of the US the applicant will
provide to the US Army Corps of Engineers a Stream Restoration Plan in
accordance with applicable guidance. It is anticipated that the plan will call
for the following treatments and present the required technical
specifications in support of the proposed work: * _
• Installation of J Hooks and Cross Vanes and other techniques to
reduce erosive energy along steep banks in Reach C
• Establishment of a 50 foot wide forested riparian buffer along both
sides of Reach C
• Installation of fisheries habitat structures within Reach C and the
proposed lake
• Installation of littoral wetlands along the perimeter of the lake.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
C I STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: ()T- 9(TX2 t +
7. Approximate drainage area: 11000 At,
9. Length of reach evaluated: _3 gan(?
2. Evaluator's name: ci-+ s l4y L4`qj?J
4. Time of evaluation: Sa'?? 7-C-04 &
6. River basin: k Jo l
8. Stream order: 2'Z:)
??7
10. County: 1? ? C&V " T 'I
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer riinJdecimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 6g (• 3 6 3 i w
Method location determined (circle): C(note Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evalunearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):??tr f CAU-1
15. Recent weather conditions: (W&-)6,a
16. Site conditions at time of visit (1 U-I- k
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES( NO J If yes, estimate the. water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES CO) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 215 % Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged 2!?% Other ( 046TW$ 'V?Z- )
22. Bankfull width:- h^ (Z i 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 211/o) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) ? Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: y Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Evaluator's Signa re V\J?-, / Yw Date 1' 1 1 ??T
This channel evalu 'on is intended to be use only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
i
IRE A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
c alb

#
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no dischar es = max points)
04
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) ! Z
'.. Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4

0-2

L
y, (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
p
" dee iv entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA' 0-4 0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0;large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of Channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
>+ (deeply incised = 0-, stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5

?-?
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) i

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

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
E (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well develo ed = max points)
Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; Ire uent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over stream bed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
- 19 Substrate embeddedness NAB.,. 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous = max points)
('> Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous Vjpes = max points)
Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
T131 , Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
p
it (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ,
< ?
100
100
100
-TOTAI: SCORE (also enter on fast page) -
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
SW '00--
0000,
?`ti
?? - 0
DA"
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
lz; ?' X -C
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0-, strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0-, contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
It (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 4 Z

6 Presence of adjaceut,floodplain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0 - 0 - 4 0 - 2
w, Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
(dee lv entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
- 0-6 0-4 02
(no wetlands = 0
, large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
I I
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA' 0-4 0-5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

?.
dee iv incised = 0-, stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
F"
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5 I
0-5 Z
a severe erosion = 0-, no erosion, stable banks = max points)
A
14 Root depth and density on banks
Q
F (no visible roots = 0- dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

E
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
•y
E.,
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0-, fiequent, varied habitats = max points)
F7
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

w
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopv = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

>4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous tvpe? = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0-, common, numerous N-pes = max points)
22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence = 0, abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 -.100
Ala

-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first p e) _
` 1 hese charactenstics are not assessed in coastal strearns.
i I
IZ 3
3
y
4 S 1?
3 ? z

1
z
l
1
ZS
77
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 r ?.(
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 4 0-5
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
a
5
Groundwater discharge

U
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4

r•. 6 Presence of adjacent.floodplain
y, (no floodpiain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2
w Entrenchment / floodplain access

p"
deg iv entrenched = 0; frequent flood' = max points) 0-5 0-4 .; 0-2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adiacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
I 1
(fine, homogenous = 0-, large, diverse sizes = max points) NA* 0-4 0-5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5 r

c
F deg Iv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
?
13 Presence of major bank failures
7

(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5

1
I
A
ms 14 Root depth and density on banks
'
0-3
0-4
0-5
E
., (
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
16 Presence of riffle-pooliripple-pool complexes 0

(no riffleshi les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) -3 0-5 0-6
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cano v = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = O; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous mpes = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
21 Presence of amphibians

O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
O 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

r23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max. points)
_ Total Points. Possible 100 100 .100 .
-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
1 rlese cnaracterrsucs are not assessed m coastal streams.
?s
0
1
4
YOW
cc?
2
3 ?b 3 ? ? Z
i
.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# CHARACTERISTICS' ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0
5 0 1

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) - -4
-5
0-5 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
a 5 Groundwater discharge
d (no discharge = 0-, springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4
rU..
U2
6 Presence of adjacerit.floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
w Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
dee iv entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
S Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) v
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization = 0-, natural meander = max oints)
10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
1 1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large. diverse sizes = mac points) NA' 0-4 0-5
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

a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
Ca
ms 14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
E
,, (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

1 S Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ Ies or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
(little or no habitat = 0-, frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed

w
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cano v = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA' 0-4 0-4
dee Iv embedded = O; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 t Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points: Possible - 100 100 100:..
-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on Page)
' i nese cnaractert'tics are not assessed m coastal streams.
I 3 6=?,
to L?' Z? ?? ? Z
1 Wetland and
,1?Lc Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
L'q ?. r g
Facsimile
Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Phone: 828 / 465-3035
Fax: 828 / 465-3050

To: Cyndi Karoly From. Chris Huysman
Pages:
Date: December 14, 2004
Re: Baker Lake Project M.
? Urgent ® For Review ? Please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle
Cyndi:
Attached is a copy of the first page of the public notice for a lake. We represent Mr Baker.
T have attached seven copies of the application package that we submitted to the Corps.
Additionally, a check is attached for the 401.
Chris Huysman
RECEIVED
L! q
DEC 15 2004 (?
T2 R- M ?AA?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
(http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/notices.html)
Action ID No. 200530483
December 13, 2004
MR. JEFFERY BAKER, 33 TREETOP DRIVE, ARDEN, NORTH CAROLINA 28704, has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO DISCHARGE FILL MATERIAL
INTO 122 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL, TO CONSTRUCT A DAM, AND
TO FLOOD 3,092 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL ON AN UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY TO THE NORTH FORK, NEW RIVER, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 15 ACRE LAKE, IN CRUMPLER, ASHE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the construction of a 15-acre recreational and aesthetic lake
on an unnamed tributary to the North Fork, New River in association with the construction of a
residential subdivision. The project area is currently wooded and in agricultural land. The
wooded portion of the area is dominated with mature hardwoods and; softwoods. The
construction of the dam will require deposition of 27 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete fill
for the dam impacting 122 linear feet of perennial stream channel. The project will result in the
flooding of 3,092 linear feet of perennial stream channel. The applicant has provided data that
the predominant impacts from the pond construction are to good quality Class C Streams (NC
Division of Water Quality). As part of the dam construction, the applicant proposes to maintain
cold water base flow to downstream waters.
The perennial stream channel in the project area drains an approximately 1,000-acre watershed
that is predominantly in agricultural use. The existing stream channel is moderately entrenched
in areas to about 4 feet and exhibits some bank failures. Channel substrate ranges from silt to
large boulders with some reaches on bedrock. The 8 to 10 foot wide perennial channel exhibits
good indicators of stream function and quality.
The applicant is currently proposing to mitigate for stream losses by: (1) performing restoration
on 1,025 linear feet of stream channel downstream of the proposed dam. Restoration will be
done utilizing J-Hooks, cross vanes, fisheries habitat structures, and other techniques to reduce
erosive energy along steep banks and will include a 50-foot forested buffer on each side of the
channel; (2) creating 0.3 acre of littoral wetlands at the head of the lake; (3) providing a 30 foot
wide vegetated riparian buffer around the lake (approximately one-half will be forested and one-
n?° ?6L?OMC n
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers DEC 6 2004 U
Asheville Regulatory Field Office pENR _ WATER
151 Patton Avenue Room 208 WET(APll)sANDSTOR&A
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
(http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/notices.html)
Action ID No. 200530483
December 13, 2004
MR. JEFFERY BAKER, 33 TREETOP DRIVE, ARDEN, NORTH CAROLINA 28704, has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO DISCHARGE FILL MATERIAL
INTO 122 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL, TO CONSTRUCT A DAM, AND
TO FLOOD 3,092 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL ON AN UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY TO THE NORTH FORK, NEW RIVER, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 15 ACRE LAKE, IN CRUMPLER, ASHE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the construction of a 15-acre recreational and aesthetic lake
on an unnamed; tributary to the North Fork, New River in association with the construction of a
residential subdivision. The project area is currently wooded and in agricultural land. The
wooded portion of the area is dominated with mature hardwoods and softwoods. The
construction of the dam will require deposition of 27 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete fill
for the dam impacting 122 linear feet of perennial stream channel. The project will result in the
flooding of 3,092 linear feet of perennial stream channel. The applicant has provided data that
the predominant impacts from the pond construction are to good quality Class C Streams (NC
Division of Water Quality). As part of the dam construction, the applicant proposes to maintain
cold water base flow to downstream waters.
The perennial stream channel in the project area drains an approximately, 1,000-acre watershed
that is predominantly in agricultural use. The existing stream channel is moderately entrenched
in areas to about 4 feet and exhibits some bank failures. Channel substrate ranges from silt to
large boulders with some reaches on bedrock. The 8 to 10 foot wide perennial channel exhibits
good indicators of stream function and quality.
The applicant is currently proposing to mitigate for stream losses by: (1) performing restoration
on 1,025 linear feet of stream channel downstream of the proposed dam. Restoration will be
done utilizing J-Hooks, cross vanes, fisheries habitat structures, and other techniques to reduce
erosive energy along steep banks and will include a 50-foot forested buffer on each side of the
channel; (2) creating 0.3 acre of littoral wetlands at the head of the lake; (3) providing a 30 foot
wide vegetated riparian buffer around the lake (approximately one-half will be forested and one-

t
half will be planted with shrubs and grasses) and 50 foot wide forested buffers along the restored
channel (1,025 linear feet); and (4) installing fisheries habitat structures in the lake. The
applicant's stated purpose of the proposed lake is to provide recreational and aesthetic value to
residents within the proposed residential development. The applicant has additionally proposed
to stock the pond with game fish and provide habitat for waterfowl. Plans showing the work are
included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the applicant
to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will be
issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by
this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-
500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state,
with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the
extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of
the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity will
affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case.
The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and
if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the
outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive
Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
2
>_ 1
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply
with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding
sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies
and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA)
permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Wetlands/401 Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2321
Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Copies of such materials will be
furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) plans to take final action in the
issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after January 5, 2005.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650, on or before
January 5, 2005, Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this office,
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin, until 4:15 p.m., January 12, 2005, or telephone [phone],
Extension 224.
3
I I I I I 811.3P1d66¢°Wj I I I I I V I I 1811• 33?*W I I I I I I I I I I 1.3175 Q°WI I I I I 11 1' s
)^" 'mot
_

:I
1 L4
Z q
( ?- - - } 3 ti. ? Z

i '

'
.
NN
j`
i
".FT! io
1
'
? ( -
f of / f
! ?t ??? -
4 3025 UrAw f-t Of M Yif .ff}pMipl i - /f` ;

,
' `
f ,
+ • r !
l
-'
. •
y
+}
_
!_ f 126 ?11Rf ftff Of di\ OId l1l?j/ plOllCf101111?K'f ?.
?1 ?I
`
am
-
,l
,? -
,•
•'-3 9 '
? - • Reach C 4; , \
_
-? f
? p

O ' tt i 5 1 `tl'• { II
,
• I t +?
;
y ;,
O
C'
') 1
?.-. Z``"` ! r
i I '.._
1 (?"3100 Line: fact of flaedny i°pocf
+ t . -
?4..^.
v
1 Naned yad ekratian 2561 ,

a- ti•
Rath °
2
1 $ `.? /
IJ
R
h A
f eac
s
F >?/ ?y \
py? ir
"o,

co r 1

.'
co
tau -.'k'* ..
?. 4 ??X f ` 1.A ` 26% ethf

r 1+

• O)
ffpp 1 ? 'r- I
f
v l c v ?1 _; _ ? _ 4` 1 j?v'N
P ,? s
em) V

7°w 1 s„
t t t t i 81.391 666 ° W i t t t t t i t i i 8t a W i t t t i 1111181.37 ow I I I I I 1 1
Name: JEFFERSON Location: 036.49925650N 081.3830651 ° W ACT,oo 2D. 200S30`t
Date: 11/19/2004 Caption: Baker Property Lake S H EST o F tlt-f
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet Ashe County, NC
`t LENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH RESERVOIR = 3092 FEET
LENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH DAM 122 FEET
%us
C 8? ?? •?
M
ol"
4f Gaz
Oft
uV?
0 W
d;o
r
oaomru
nw, mw, r,r. B its
cw..a=s.n.a . ca...c,®wowow.?. RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL EL. 2661.0
vc.r n.ann.
f4a
"NP1G?. 5ECCI4N
100 200 400 ' JEFF BAKER 15 ACRE
DAM .Jochnabe/ BAKER DAM LAKE ALTERNATIVE
SCALE IN FEET + Schnabel Engineering ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
AcTioi•? 1 ? . 2 ooS3o483
- - --- SHeeT 4a pF' ?4-

1
w.
?+. -5
r . ?Ii• ! ? ? i i "q ? ??
%
MIR ssa -L ! f
-t , •% by
Rea. ,? •? ' . " .,?'tl '.1,•fi it i '•? t
Is
%
3 ; ? ? 1? ?? •• •' •• 1 Sl r ••1 ??''•? yy"'?'-- t ?' -•?
? ?? ? ,y'? ,
3 9 11 .I ! '• 1 •+ i•,? '• 1 1 i"1 ---,5 •-,1,- ?l••y; 'S,"--s•-
%
y
j ? ? 7 , ?l ^., i 37?- 1, y '! ?,] 5 1 ~7, y9 , •' s.i ,y
%
jj ; 1?? l *?r. i •s ti f f + r
L? it
r' • ' ? ? -. ? ? ]( 1 ? ? ?
ryL 2®1?'?-rd-i??'
•err _?' 1•, •- •y ? ?i'? ` i f Pf? l? • --:?i9.Y? ?
yi
! i
' _ ._.
%
%
i
' Ai
j _ a •ti, z _
%
-......-. " a °"" al ? '•? ?1 ? i _ rte
. 1 d
l
%
~ • 3 • ?.
f,
J .
1 ?
• Name: JEFFERSON Location: 036.4981344° N 081.3835238° W /}cZ704 ID. 200S30q 83
Date: 11/19/2004 Caption: Baker Property Lake St{&E-/ ¢3 OF Y'
Scale: 1 inch equals 500 feet Ashe County, NC
Mitigation Schematic
Copyright (C) 1997, Wptech, Inc.
EVF
DSO . r TsD+k
1 ? `EvE
100 T } 5 ?tc r?`,' Y ,?. ? ? , :sw ? f \ 556 ?P .*`'?. Q.? # ?, - -.
EyF t. \l 1 ?v : `
,15 •, fi ?` , , ' S a'., Lea :?-.::+?. r 1•
?O ?YR •. '.tip c+ ?.`° r \ '?. ? f . a??.! f2
r t " , 1557 ?a?? ,
To 1 ?v?' ' ?
35 1
y i - ; _? .qn u S- WaE+
•f •?a ? . ? ?` co •+x ? 4 ? ? ?? }?\ ; ' fnE' . ??, - WaF' C.?
•
P ??„ + ,? Co ' Ts? ? r
Y s i'GV Y}r er 6 ?. q
,r x 4 r: -, ,16. WaE S
S . TO , s. WlaFw' +? t k s / " jiilo Co a r. ti
s• WaF rt Y t! ,aE
ex?i.:1 r \ `.h WaF` i ?4
s. st e i {' j rk ys°? - - * ?5 EvE
S
?542 • WaE
i A7
w a, d? c? 1 • WeF7 a act r
/ `\ J 1573 -WaF
Ac.rdN Zoos 3 o s' 8 3 WaF
$ (? WaE c^ UW.F YI!aF
5?? O t "T 16 WaF Td WaE
WaF /
WaE
WaE WaD
WaD WaE /
Co FnD / T
WaD .4 Waq
S O f - 166
'aE \ t WaF 1568
. WaE
S v rVC 1(l 1 r WaF WaF
r
CfD ? ,i1 K ? t? "r Ty
FnD WaE WaE
t Fo +
1' r WeF, O t+ Est
WaF WaE WaF rsa``r" `: WaF.
c "
Fn
FnE £ / ?dF
« x a'. 1647 r y? - \
FF1D ( ; r EsF
1
Wa WaD j r !
a n4 r,`
?'" F•s?'' EvF E4
EvE a ?. a? f ls?osr'
Rrn
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATMMONOF: December 13, 2004
Regulatory Division
Action ID No.` 200530483
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetland/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
off/99q
F(?;:WROYgo
DEC 1 6 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
1 AN MID STOWWA*? CFI
Dear Ms. Karoly,
Enclosed is the application of Mr. Jeffery Baker for Department of the Army authorization
and a State Water Quality Certification to construct a 15-acre lake on an unnamed tributary to
North Fork, New River, in Crumpler, Ashe County, North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter
verifies your acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section
325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 'days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by February 11, 2005, the District Engineer will
deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Division, at [phone], extension 224.
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure/as
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31. 2004
Ina Public burden for this collection of information is $estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if It does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act. Section 404. 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit- Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if Information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instnwtions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is rot completed in full will be returned.
IITFM-q 1 T"P11 L rn RC Cn I Cn nv rvc w......,..
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
J'TEWS OW T FILL B APPLIC
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
3E-5Fe 9-1s'v 1? B. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE rare agerr snot requ redJ
G?kzvS v S I L
S. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
?P Dg-iv C 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
7--? gC)x 7-24

7.. APPLICANT'S PHONE NO . W/AREA CODE
a. Residence 070 i 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence aZ?3 e4 65- -205
b. Business 9 ? 6? - 300 b. Business 8 2?3 1320 i
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, ,e\?_:L{Z w , to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
//- J f-0
DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (a kuv.ctio w,
fX`?? ? t?-Lti L•Y?? 1?*t-'?
13. NAME OF WATERSODY, IF KNOWN &.pp&vbw 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
Nc(?-fl? RV-Y, Wed?) Q,i,V%2.
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT f
?`?? ? 1VlJ
COUNTY STATE
DEC 16 2004
DENR.
EnANDSAN ST?A7 RIena
1.6. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (mrnarrucrio,al
i. urnc%. I iUNb I U I HE 51TE

CJ Cali
ENG FORM 4345, Jul EDITION OF FES 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (oesa ptr n t p.oecr,;.? ea1esnoesj
C?1?-C1Z?C 11C:1.? Urr L?{ 12L l ???Q:'C1 t Qr::tikj\
D:441A 70ra,,,L_ I -Z-2- L-A MCP,4- ACT 4v tT A
pj?U'Vv 1-1 iCal-? 1NAr?C-.? • ?U•=l?S7i?? $`1?1??r??S 1L.?cV ?,GiZ l???Gi'.i?.
19. Project Purpose foesalbe rte ressm or pipue a rte proea, see #wfLctmw
C1?-cfil? ?G??
( o; A Q+??-nG&-??1., ACS
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge

21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Z-T C U e)*1 L ?-AOAQID?> G'F Cc?cce-rL
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled /saerew.taai

23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No Y, IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
b4li?J-12 A?C?GrN
AAA c2 n?c szcti?l??2y ?w??a?c- r2?r?.
4 use v- P"Q?'axT cs is 1N(-k'Q'0eU
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
28. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. 1 further certify that ) possess the % sty to undertake work described herein or am acting as the
on ad agent of e a scant.
RE OF APPLICANT DA E SIGNATURE OF AIGEN DATE
The applicati must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
INNS
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants Inc. trY
November 9, 2004
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Baker Property Lake
Crumpler, Ashe County, North Carolina
Mr. Chapin:
Attached please find an application for a Department of the Army Permit to construct a
15 acre recreational and aesthetic lake on an unnamed tributary to the North Fork New
River in association with a residential subdivision. The project area is currently wooded
and dominated with mature hardwoods and softwoods. The construction of the dam will
require the deposition of 27 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete fill for the dam; the
dam and outlet structures impacts 122 linear feet of perennial streams. The project will
result in a total of 3092 linear feet of unnamed perennial streams being flooded. Within
the application is data that demonstrates that the predominant impacts from the pond are
from flooding good quality Class C+ Streams (NC Division of Water Quality). The applicant
proposes to construct the dam in a manner that will maintain cold water base flow to down
stream reaches.
The perennial stream channel of the project area drains an approximately 1000-acre
watershed that is currently subject to agricultural development. The existing channel is
moderately entrenched in areas to about 4 feet and exhibits bank failures with resulting
sediment loading to downstream waters. Half of the proposed impact reach is within
agricultural land while the other half is in a forested condition. Channel substrate ranges
from silt to large boulders with some reaches on bedrock. The 8 to 10 foot wide perennial
stream of the project area exhibits good indicators of stream function and quality.
Stream Quality Assessment Sheets are provided.
The applicant is currently proposing to mitigate for stream losses by 1) conducting stream
restoration totaling 1025 linear feet downstream of the proposed dam; 2)-creating 0.3
acres of littoral wetlands in the headwaters of the lake; 3) providing 30 foot riparian
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
buffers around the pond and 50 foot buffers along maintained stream corridors. The
purpose of the proposed dams is to provide recreational and aesthetical value to residents
within a proposed development. The applicant has additionally proposed to stock the pond
with game fish and provide habitat for waterfowl.
Please call me at 828 / 320-8120 with any questions that you may have.
Best regards,
Chris Huysman
Cc: Jeff Baker
33 Treetop Drive
Arden, NC 28704
Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465.3035 828-627-0051
828-465-0050 Fax [phone] Fax
v a +
r?
0 f
rY -7
IN _ I + i f ?\ ??(`.• ?'6/' I _ 8 +? ??,jl SS ``. 0 t _? rr t. \J rI . \ ' _
L6J , 1 ? ?? ( ? _ -
4
i JJJ .f r 285 j,/
1026 Unaafeef of en oie resTxoHan ?''? , ` i ?le LlStl? Hill -S ?f
+-., ,` ;1 nil .- ?t'vi / r?•a Ileali?S ? ti, - i \ ,j ( ? ??- 1
?( lS,li i -? ! ! 2t(/ `.,. .? \ I I 126 Unsae feel of dm sd enaW p-fair inpxt
J ? 5
"Cem
1 ?? \ Cti _ I lr ?- 11? 4 . j r `l? f I t 5 3100 Linear feet of flooding i?oct
1 ! 1 , f NernW pod elevation 2666 j f 1l r(`? r ?' ,Blo r i -F + {
S ? ? 7(a:ip C , ?.
y (?'^- -!^ `? -?/?? // f -? Reach B I II/ i/ _ 2800 \ y ?? ,
-
11
960 1 J ' l y / O. waterdma:
I ?f gfAl' 75%agicultied g ?1 °?
25% th.,
e t `?. < - elevation 2660 J }i J ! f ` ?.
C- 00
?J
/ ?1025 x 1
J j1 'T? k
?? ?//?i1 ? ??!// - ????4?'?• fl ?1f /r+fl ?3`r?`,.1tr Jr J t /-I.!j i6
X12681??-++i/lL f? t.1'?J?
842 ?? ?l x + l ,' !
P - i 'f' ?V z86A P
-'s" lit
Irf l = ? ? ... i vll` s,, _ _ ! / ? + f \ J ? ?/?/ '? r ?3{:•?i • ?' .... a .,...-: ?`? ?\ ,,.../ E . _
Name: JEFFERSON Location: 036.4978997* N 081.3781054O W
Date: 11/19/2004 Caption: Baker Property Lake
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Ashe County, NC
+e ? 4 P
H
lost' + b
? # YV
I
O
4 4
V' v
o`
V
r
N +
? V
P 4
s:
¢+aY e m
0
0O ° o
0 0 --,
yooOo
M +
{.? 15A17 -?{
SPILLWAY CREST I
12-INCH
CONCRETE
FACING
lRCC
'011
COMPACTED SILTY SOIL -"'"'"""""•~?----------
SHEET PILE CUTOFF
Secrow
TWVA ;sc 200
RX LE I N FEET

400 , 40
ENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH RESERVOIR = 3092 FEET
ENGTH OF STREAM BENEATH DAM = 122 FEET

?z
Q'1

Oeohnabe/
Schnabel Engineering
1 ~
t v?
0
Wa
szcz
RESERVOIR NORMAL POOL EL. 2661.0
0.
coo
JEFF BAKER 15 ACRE
BAKER DAM LAKE ALTERNATIVE
ASHE COUNTY. NORTH CAROUNA
Jeff Baker Attachment: Project Purpose and Need
Individual Permit Application November 2004
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc
Project Purpose and Need
Mr. Jeff Baker, the project proponent, proposes to construct a 15 acre
recreational / trout lake that floods perennial streams for the purpose of
developing a subdivision in the Chestnut Hill area of Ashe County. The lake
needs to be visible from at the entrance of the development to serve as an
amenity. The project proposes impacts as follows
• 27 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete will be discharged into
waters
• 122 linear feet of direct hard (primary) impacts for dam structure
• 3092 linear feet of indirect soft (secondary) impacts for flooding
• 150 linear feet of bank stabilization is needed on both sides of the
stream on the downstream side of the dam
The purpose of the lake is to provide a central amenity that provides
recreational opportunities for lot owners. The proponent has developed a
land plan that is based upon the numerous aquatic recreational opportunities
that the lake and the North Fork New River can jointly provide; the lake will
be for family based canoeing and kayaking while the river can provide
additional limited public access opportunities. Conceptual plans include
stocking the lake with game fish (rainbow trout, brown trout, small mouth
bass) and providing habitat for migratory waterfowl (wood duck).
Construction of the pond allows for the propagation of trout for the
residence of the proposed subdivision. The pond will be constructed with
littoral areas and thereby provide diverse habitat for terrestrial and semi-
aquatic wildlife. Fisheries habitat structures will be created for the game
fish.
The proponent needs the lake to provide a central amenity for the project.
The amenity needs to be large enough to be able to provide recreational
opportunities such as fishing, swimming and still water boating; the latter of
these water based sports occur on a limited basis in the region. The steep
valley that will support the lake is otherwise unusable; very steep topography
limits development and recreational access to the existing stream.
The proponent alternately considered either the no build alternative or the
off-line pond alternative. Neither alternative would fulfill the applicants
need to provide a large enough lake to provide recreational opportunities nor
would smaller ponds provide a central aesthetic for development.
The subject channel will be diverted while the concrete is discharged into
the stream so that there is no contact between the concrete and the water.
The 122 linear feet of impact at the base of the dam will be, completed
concurrently with above the high water mark bank stabilization; there will be
no discharge into the stream as it is on bed-rock. The dam will be
constructed in 10 inch lifts until the normal pool elevation is established.
The outlet of the pond will utilize low-flow cool water design strategies.
The subject stream is an unnamed perennial tributary to the North Fork
New River; it has approximately 1050 acres of drainage measured at the
river. The NC Division of Water Quality has classified the North Fork New
River as Class C+ Water (10-02-(12)); adjacent drainages with named
streams (such as Millpond Branch) are likewise Class C+ Waters. The
subject stream has been sub-classified with three separate quality
assessments using the 5tream Quality Assessment Worksheet (USACE
Wilmington, Version 06/03) based on prior land use and forested cover. The
entirety of the stream has excess sediment load. All reaches are
significantly impacted by sediment and upstream land uses which include
agriculture and Christmas Tree cultivation.
Reach A is comprised of approximately 1600 linear feet of stream that has
little to no riparian cover. Current and prior agricultural uses have resulted
in vertical banks that generally do not support woody vegetation. Though
there is some meander pattern, evidence of manipulation is present based on
spoil piles. The stream has a quality index of approximately 50 out of 100
with significant reductions resulting from the lack of riparian cover and bank
stability that arises from human alteration. This reach would be flooded by
all of the contemplated lake configurations.
Reach B is comprised of approximately 1500 linear feet extending
downstream from Reach A. This classification starts at the constricting
point of the valley where floodplain is nearly absent. The'steep valley has
limited alteration by humans and thus the channel is of higher quality.
Within this reach are sub-reaches that rank higher based on valley
formation which results in minor floodplain conditions with groundwater
discharges. The stream quality index ranges from 70 to 80 depending on the
site specific region.
Reach C is downstream of Reach 8 and extends to the North Fork New
River. The defining characteristic of the reach are historic and current land
uses that include clearing of the riparian buffer and the subsequent mass
bank failures. Also, there is evidence of roadways within the reach as the
valley is not as steep as Reach B. The stream quality index is 60 out of a
possible 100. The stream fails to attain a higher assessment due to physical
and stability issues that could be rectified through mitigation and the
construction of a lake. Flooding this reach for the lake does not meet the
need for the project to be visible at the entrance of the project
Jeff Baker Attachment: Avoidance and Minimization
Individual Permit Application November 2004
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc
Avoidance and Minimization
The proponent has avoided hard impacts to the greatest extent practicable
by spanning stream channel crossings and proposing to construct a
reinforced concrete dam: Impacts requiring discharges to Waters of the
US are limited to the construction of a concrete dam to create additional
Waters of the US. All other access to high ground will be completed with
spanning structures. The predominant impacts of the project to perennial
streams are secondary in nature.
The proponent considered alternative development concepts and determined
that the uniqueness of the current proposal provided the best potential for
success. During the two years of pre-development consultation the
proponent has minimized the project scope from a 23 acre lake to the
current proposed 15 acre lake. Though more favorable in terms of returns
and potential sediment reduction, the 23 acre lake concept has been
eliminated dropped. The 15 acre lake has 750 linear feet less impact to high
quality streams than the 23 acre lake option. Further reduction in size is
not practical.
Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project are minimized
through the reduction in scope and through design considerations including:
• Engineered low flow/ cool water discharge orifice
• Engineered sediment collecting forebay
• Establishment of 30 foot riparian buffers along the lake shore
• Establishment of vegetated littoral zones
Jeff Baker Attachment: Mitigation Proposal
Individual Permit Application November 2004
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc
Mitigation Proposal
5ummary:
Impacts can be separated into two separate classes that merit differing
mitigation ratios based upon the effect of the discharge. Impacts resulting
from the construction of the impoundment result in a permanent loss of
waters while impacts associated with flooding result in a net increase in
regulated Waters of the U5. Potentially more faunal diversity will be
achieved by the stocking of the pond and the riparian edge will increase
habitat for other fauna. Furthermore, the classification of the reach into
three separate quality ratings based on site conditions intimates that the
mitigation ratios be adjusted based on the functional attributes of the
impacted stream.
The classification of the three separate reaches further supports that
mitigation is available downstream of the proposed dam and results in a
functional lift that will increase stream quality. Mitigation for impacts in
Reaches A and B will be conducted in Reach C. Reach C is in the same
drainage basin as the proposed impacts and is within the project boundaries.
Generally, the maximum available stream restoration credit allowable for
dam removal projects is the length of stream flooded. The Corps reasonably
adjusts the mitigation amount based on demonstrable impacts to water
quality, rare species, fisheries resources, riparian buffers and societal
benefits. This project incorporates design elements that ensure that water
quality will be protected through a low-flow cool-water / aerating discharge.
The applicant's commitment to stock the pond and maintain 30 foot
vegetated riparian buffers further off-set the proposed impacts. In
consideration of the factors used to assess mitigation we have developed
the following proposal.
Reach A Mitigation Proposal
Impacts to the 1600 linear feet of Reach A will result from the flooding of a
good quality stream. The flooding will alleviate sediment load from failing
banks. Stream restoration is proposed at a 1/4 to 1 ratio for the flooding
impacts because they are secondary impacts to lower quality streams. The
low ratio is in consideration of additional mitigative measures such as design
considerations and a reduction in project scope.
Additional out-of-kind mitigation will result from the establishment of a
littoral bench around the lake. The littoral area associated with Reach A
flooding will be an average of 15 feet wide with an average depth of 12
inches at 7 feet from the shoreline. The littoral area will be undercut and
backfilled with 4-6 inches off floodplain topsoil to provide an organic base
for aquatic and semi-aquatic plants. The littoral area will total
approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands.
The Reach A mitigation proposal is for 400 feet of restoration in
combination with 0.3 acres of wetland creation in the form of littoral zones.
Reach B Mitigation Proposal
Impacts to Reach B include the 125 linear feet of dam structures and 1500
linear feet of flooding impacts. The higher quality of the stream merits a
higher functional replacement. Therefore, the applicant has proposed to
mitigate for dam impacts at a 1:1 ratio and the flooding impacts at a 1/3 to 1
ratio.
Negligible' amounts of littoral benches will be field designed and constructed
along the Lakeshore of Reach B due to the steepness of the valley. Some
adverse impacts to water quality will be mitigated by the fact that the lake
will be flooded into an area that is currently forested such that the
resultant lake will have a forested buffer.
The Reach B mitigation proposal is for 500 feet of restoration resulting
from the flooding and for 125 feet of restoration for impacts. resulting from
the discharge of material into waters. The total mitigation proposal for this
reach is 625 linear feet of restoration.
Reach C: Mitigation Site / Existing Conditions:
Reach C is located immediately downstream of the project area. The reach
has an excess load of sediment, a limited forested buffer, and has a high
bank height index. The overall condition of the stream is poorer than the
area that is proposed to be impacted.
The riparian zone along Reach C includes areas that have been timbered and
a logging road provide access to the reach. Two major man-made meanders
have resulted in excess bank erosion and instability along the reach.
There are approximately 1700 linear feet of stream that can benefit from
varying degrees of restoration. The majority of the reach will benefit from
the establishment of a forested riparian zone and localized areas can be
stabilized through the placement of J hooks and rock vanes. Some new
channel will need to be designed to rectify those portions of the reach which
have been altered.
Mitigative Treatments and Restoration Plan
Within 90 days of the issuance of the requested permit and prior to the
commencement of any work within Waters of the US the applicant will
provide to the US Army Corps of Engineers a Stream Restoration Plan in
accordance with applicable guidance. It is anticipated that the plan will call
for the following treatments and present the required technical
specifications in support of the proposed work:
• Installation of J Hooks and Cross Vanes and other techniques to
reduce erosive energy along steep banks in Reach C
• Establishment of a 50 foot wide forested riparian buffer along both
sides of Reach C
• Installation of fisheries habitat structures within Reach C and the
proposed lake
• Installation of littoral wetlands along the perimeter of the lake.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name:
__?S U{C?
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: UT 9 414 r-Oa& 6. River basin:
?? ^1/l?
7. Approximate drainage area: 1000 Air-, 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County: Ata? QvV F4
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):_
Latitude (ex 34.872312): iz z Longitude (ex -77.556611): ?? I . 3 C3? I UV
Method location determined (circle): 02(note Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evalunearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: a{-lykf-
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _([-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluaatt-iion point? YES( NO J If yes, estimate the water surface area:
fl:h 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (?) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 25:% Agricultural
_% Forested % Cleared / Logged 2?0/6 Other( _ (!kZA4TMLP$ IV )
22. Bankfull width: 16- (Z 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 -6
?
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 21/6) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 101/0 Steep N0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: y Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Evaluator's Signa4rreDate <• &? 0 2-004
This channel evaluN42B-fafm is intended to'be used\only as i guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
'RENC" A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
C ?`b
# CHARACTERISTICS
:' ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
. SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0
5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) - 0-4 0-5

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

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

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
Q (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) Z
?V. Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
y, (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)

a Entrenchment / floodplain access
'
0-5
0-4
6-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flood
= max oints)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0; Large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA' 0-4 0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0-, stable bed & banks = max points)

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

i

Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5

2
F no visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0 - 3
0 - 5
0
6
(no nflles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) -
d Habitat complexity

(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA' : '. 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max =
0 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

>4
4t I I
no evidence = 0• common, numerous qrpes = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
(j Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
C no evidence = 0- common, numerous types = max oints
C Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = max points)
3 Evidence of wildlife use
t
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total Points Possible 100 100
.. . 100
-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on. first page)
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Wool
SW jf*? fi
'
C
0011, 4 tN
?J

Dik{A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = _max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive altetation = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5
0-5
3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max ints) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
.
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max ots)
0-5
0-4
0-4
a 5 Groundwater discharge
U (no discharge = 0; springs
seeps
wetlands
etc
= max
oints) 0-3 0-4 0-4
,
,
,
.
p

r 6 Presence of adjacetit,floodplain
A (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0_ 0-4 0_2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
A" d lv entrenched = 0; frequent flood' = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2
3 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4' 0-2
9 Channel sinuosity
'
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 3 I L
0 Sediment input
F (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 4 Q _ 4
1
1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0;large, diverse sizes = max points) NA' 0 - 4 0 - 5

1Z Evidence of channel incision or widening
F deg Iv incised = 0; stable bed &. banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 7i
q
Q
14 Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5
rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
E (no riffleshi les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
Q 17 Habitat Complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent
varied habitats =
i
) 0-6 0-6 0-6
,
max po
nts
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
19 Substrate embeddedness '

(deeply embedded = O; loose structure = max) NA 0-4 0-4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

>+
no evidence = 0; common, numerous = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
V' 21 Presence of amphibians

O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous Vrpes = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4

O
04
22
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4

23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total`Points: Poss>ble
..:. =: -
100.
100. .;.
100
-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first p e)
tneSe cnaraciensacs are not assessea In coastal s ?. I
Z 13

4
4 S
3 K z
- 4 \ -2 ?-2-

1
2
l?
ZS
REAC14 8
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0-, strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0-. no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0, no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
a 5 Groundwater discharge
d (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0 -' 0-4 0-4

6 Presence of adjacerit.floodpiain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive tloodplain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2
x Entrenchment / floodplain access
dee Iv entrenched = 0; frequent flood' = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2

3 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) - - 6 0-4 0 -2
'
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max otnts)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
1 1
(fine, homogenous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = max points) NA' 0-4 0-5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
dee iv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
a 13 Presence of major bank failures

severe erosion = 0; no erosion_ stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
i
p
d 14 Root depth and density on banks
0
3
E
., (no visible roots = 0-. dense roots throughout = max points) - 0-4 0-5

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0-, well developed = max points) -3 0 - 5 0-6
Q 17 Habitat complexity
E" (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0; continbous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
- 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = O; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common., numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
21 Presence of amphibians

O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous mpes = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous tvpes = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total Points Possible :... _ 100 100 - -.100
-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fust page)
I nese cnaractensucs are not assessed m coastal StreamS.
L
?s
G-5,
0
1,
4

4
Z3 ?b 3 ? 7 Z
i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

_
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream r
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1/?1
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0-, no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5
0-5
3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
?-7 5 Groundwater discharge
Q (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4
6 Presence of adjaceut.floodplain
cj2 cj (no floodplain = 0; extensive toodplain = max points) 0_4
I 0_4 0-2
2
Entrenchment/ floodplain access

d iv entrenched = 0; frequent flood' = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-2 To
8 `Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2
9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channefization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3

1
l
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
1 l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 0-4 0-5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

E

(dee lv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2
13 Presence of major bank failures
J
.,
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
p
ms 14 Root depth and density on banks
.,
E (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5
W 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact ?; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

F
(no riffles/riles or pools = 0-, well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
d 17 Habitat complexity

(little or no habitat = 0; frequent
varied habitats =
i
) 0-6 0-6 0-6
,
max po
nts
p
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
w no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 5 0-5
19 Substrate embeddeduess

dee lv embedded = 0; loose structure = max) NA' 0-4 0-4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous tvpes = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
C7 21 Presence of amphibians

O
no evidence = 0-. common, numerous = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4

22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common
numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
,
23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
c
J
. Total Points Possible -
loo
100
...
-100
J
-TOTAL SCORE (also enter on firApage)
••••. •?a••••?+•y11J Ul•J ua ?. l1Vl LLJJWJGLL UL I.UU.AUL JUCUMN.
c
L2
I 3 ? 5 ?
0 (otiz
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Jefferv Baker
Project Number 04 1994
Recvd From APP
Received Date 12/15/04 Recvd By Region
Project Type
Daryl Lamb
Steve Tedder
County Ashe
County2
Region Winston-Salem
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
IP F_ O Y O N F_ 10-2-(12) ?? 50,702. I
i
Mitigation -Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? O Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 363008 Longitude (ddmmss) 812303
Comments:
Application review completed on 02/04/2005. Comments from EPA Region IV and NC WRC also
reviewed. Based on the eject information provided- WSRO makes the following recommendations:
1) Construction activities in the stream channel and buffer zone should be p?'ohibited from May 1
through July 15 to protect fish eggs and frv produced during spawning,
2) Coldwater releases from the lake should be provided utilizing a desjgn approved by DWO. A
minimum flow release should be specified. NC WRC recommends a release > 7010. It
should be specified that this minimum flow not be reduced or disrupted at any time, including
during construction.
3) Minimum 50 foot vegetated buffers should be established around the lake!and along the
restored stream channel. The lake buffer may be a mixture of shrubs-grasses, and trees.
The stream buffer should be forested. Conservation easements or deed restrictions should be
cc: Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
Facility Name Jeffery Baker County Ashe

Project Number 04 ` 1994 Regional Contact: Daryl Lamb
Date: 2/4/2005
Comments (continued from page 1):
utilized to protect the buffers The applicant should be required to submit a detailed Ip anting
plan utilizing native species a roved by DWO and a location map showing which portions of
the buffers will be forested and which will be planted in shrubs and grasses. The applicant
should also include a maintenance plan. subject to approval by DWO, detailing how the buffers
will be maintained long-term
4) During construction, heavy equipment should not be operated in the stream channel nor on the
str am banks Uncured concrete must not come into contact with stream water.
5 Stringent eroswop control measures m? ist he utilized at all times during construction. Erosion
l ??„?,"
and sediment control measures must equal or exceed those specified in the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Manual All requirements established by the NC DLR in approving the
applicant's sediment and erosion control plan and all requirements of the DWO issued NPDES
stormwater management permit must he met at all times - no exceptions.
6) Applicant must provide a comprehensive, detailed compensatorym]litigation plan, subject to
DWO approval and meeting the mitigation ratios sp if'led'by the S. A - before any impacts
occur to streams on the site
7) Applicant should provide notification of project completion by using DWG's "Certificate of
Completion" form
cc: Regional Office Page Number 2
Central Office

f
North Carolina
?r

ROMEO
D
EC 2 9 2004
CcNR - °a r!;??H QUALITY
-? - 6'tiT(a;, , r,' TC rYATER BRANCH
PAW bfw% - .
Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Chapin, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator 3
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of US Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application, Jeffrey Baker,
Unnamed Tributary North Fork New River, Ashe County
Mr. Baker 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. Biologists with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the area. The
NCWRC is authorized to comment and make recommendations which relate to the impacts of this project
on fish and wildlife pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977, state and federal Environmental Policy
Acts, the Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat 884), the Federal License of Water
Resource Project Act (Federal Power Act-16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and the Fish and/or Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed dam and lake project will impact 122 linear feet of channel for the dam and inundate 3,092
linear feet of stream channel. A cold water release is indicated. Mitigation is proposed in the form of
1,025 linear feet of stream restoration using bioengineering structures, erosion control measures, a 50 foot
forested buffer on each side of the channel, creation of littoral shelves, thirty-foot vegetated and woody
buffers around the lake (50/50 trees-and shrubs/grasses),-and fish habitat structures in the lake.
Based on the information provided by the applicant and our knowledge of the project area, we do not
believe this project will cause significant direct effects to waters supporting trout; however, smallmouth
bass are known for downstream waters. We will not object to the project providing the following non-
prioritized conditions are implemented:
1. Instream and buffer zone activities are prohibited during the fish spawning season of May 1
through July 15 to prevent off-site sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry
downstream of the site.
2. The coldwater release should be provided as indicated. We recommend the attached cold
water release design.
oy/99141
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Jeffrey Baker, Action ID 200530483 2 December 20, 2004
3. A minimum flow cool water release should be specified (equal to or greater than 7Q10).
This flow must be ensured during and after construction so that cumulative and secondary
aquatic life impacts will be minimized. At no time should the minimum flow release
specified be reduced or disrupted. Alternative agricultural watering measures or farm
management activities must be used instead during drought conditions.
4. We routinely recommend 50 foot intermittent stream buffers and 100 foot perennial stream
buffers on each side of jurisdictional waters. We recommend these wider buffers instead of
the 50 foot buffers proposed.
5. Conservation or preservation easements should be provided for the buffers and streams
remaining on the property. These should be permanent enforceable deed restrictions or
conservation easements. Easements and buffers should be undisturbed forested areas to help
offset lost wildlife habitats; however, selective timber removal may be accomplished for
maintenance providing the activity does not clear cut or reduce buffer and habitat values.
6. If any concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
- contact-stream water. This will lessen the-chance of altering the stream's-water chemistry
and causing a fish kill.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from high ground instead of in channel to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
8. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained
until project completion. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted
on all bare soil within five (5) days of ground disturbing activities (or as otherwise specified
by the NC Division of Land Resources) to provide long-term erosion control. We encourage
the use of native vegetation for stabilization whenever practicable.!
9. The applicant must adhere to applicable sediment and erosion control measures prescribed
by the NC Division Land Resources, including possible dam safety requirements.
10. Wider undisturbed forested buffers are preferred and are recommended for streams that
discharge into the lake. This should reduce sediment or fill impacts to the lake. As stated
previously, 50 foot intermittent and 100 foot perennial stream buffers are recommended.
Regardless of width, buffer widths should not be minimized unless', absolutely necessary.
11. The pond should be sized to provide needed agricultural water requirements. A larger pond
should not be built just for aesthetic reasons or for future development opportunities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Kevin Hining concerning pond design issues at 336/838-
5676. Other questions should be directed to me at 336/769-9453.
Attachment: . Fisheries Management Fact Sheet 2003
Cc: Becky Fox, EPA
Daryl Lamb, DWQ-WSRO
Matthew Gantt, DLQ-WSRO
Jeffrey Baker, Action ID 200530483
;i
3 December 20, 2004
Fisheries Management Fact Sheet 2003

What: Environmental Impacts Caused by Ponds. Ponds provide aesthetic benefits, water for
crop irrigation and livestock, as well as fishing opportunities and wildlife: habitat. However,
ponds can be detrimental to fish, wildlife, and water quality if constructed improperly. Ponds
that are created by-damming streams, and ponds of any type that continuously release water back
into a stream can be especially harmful.
Where: Poorly designed ponds can impact aquatic life and water quality;. statewide, but the
impacts are greatest around ponds located in and near coldwater streams in the mountains and
foothills.
When: Historically, ponds were built on farms to supply water for livestock and crop irrigation.
In recent years, the rate of pond construction has increased as more and more people move to the
mountains and build ponds to improve the appearance of their property or to provide fishing
opportunities.
Why: There are two major problems that ponds can cause. First, a pond, created by damming a
stream impedes the migration of many aquatic organisms along the stream, including fish,
mussels, and amphibians. The second problem is related to the release of warm water from
ponds. Because impounded water warms more quickly than moving water, water is
considerably warmer in ponds than in free flowing streams. Furthermore, the warmest water
within a pond will be at the surface, while the coolest water will be found,. near the pond bottom.
Within most ponds, the water that flows out of the pond and back into adjacent streams is drawn
off the surface. When this warm surface water is released, water temperatures within the stream
increase, harming trout, smallmouth bass, and other species adapted to cooler water
temperatures. While there can be thermal impacts below ponds that only release water
periodically during heavy rain events, the impacts will be most severe below ponds that
constantly release water.
How to build ponds without damming the stream channel: To ensure,that the migration of
aquatic organisms within streams are not blocked when building a pond, consider locating new
ponds away from streams and using surface runoff, springs, or water pumped from wells as
water sources. Ponds can also be filled by building them adjacent to a stream and diverting or
pumping a small portion of the stream water into the pond to fill it. Water should only be
diverted into the pond continuously while the pond is being filled. Once the pond is filled, water
should only be diverted into the pond as needed to maintain water levels.
Jeffrey Baker, Action ID 200530483 4 December 20, 2004
How to reduce the thermal impacts of pond outflows: Thermal impacts caused by ponds that
continuously release surface water into streams can be reduced in ponds that are equipped with a
standpipe to regulate water levels. The installation of a bottom drawoff device (see diagram on
next page) over the existing standpipe helps reduce the temperature of water released by the pond
by siphoning off the cooler water found near the pond bottom. Furthermore, a bottom drawoff
also helps prevent fish kills in ponds by removing the stagnant, low oxygen water from the pond
bottom. The drawoff pipe needs to be large enough in diameter so that the cross-sectional area of
the space between the two pipes is greater than the cross-sectional area of the drainpipe. The pipe
needs to be long enough to reach into the cooler/deeper waters of the pond, and should leave at
least a couple feet of clearance above the bottom to avoid future interference from sediment
accumulation. The drawoff pipe should be constructed of a relatively light but rigid material
(aluminum is best). Heavy pipes are difficult to mount and put extra strain on the standpipe that
could eventually cause its failure. If the drawoff pipe material isn't sufficiently rigid it may
collapse under the suction pressure. Typically-drawoff pipes are mounted by inserting two
crossbars through the pipe 6-12 inches from the top end, then putting the drawoffpipe over the
standpipe so that these crossbars rest on the top of the standpipe. Three bolts or pins can be
inserted into the pipe several feet down from the top to serve as spacers that will keep the drawoff
pipe vertical and centered on the standpipe.

t
1
?I

A
12 `y
18
Bottom water withdrawal devices do have their limitations. Ponds that are very shallow and/or
small may not benefit since the water temperatures near the bottom and at the surface will be
more similar. Also, if the outflow from a pond is going directly into a stream, then the waiter
Jeffrey Baker, Action ID 200530483 5 December 20, 2004
should be aerated by routing it to splash onto rocks or other hard, jagged surfaces as it re-enters
the stream.
More information concerning pond construction and management is found in the "Pond
Management Guide" published by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C.
Agricultural Extension Service. This guide can be obtained online at www.ncwildlife.or or by
calling 919 733-3633.
N.C. VVdi cU fig, ? 6sources Commi"ion Division of inland fisheries
www.ncwildlife.org ° , 19 733-3633
18„

i
i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
JAM 12 2C05'
Colonel Charles R. Alexander
District Engineer
ATTN: Mr. Steve Chapin
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
AchpyillP North Carrolinw 18801
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960
SUBJ:_ Jeff_ery,Baker Residential Lake
Action ID: 200530483
Dear Colonel Alexander:

JAN 1 9 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
tiVEWJDS AIM STORKNATER E RANCH
r
This letter is in reference to the Public Notice (PN), dated December 13, 2004, concerning
the application by Jeffery Baker to construct a 15-acre recreational, residential lake in Crumpler,
! Ashe County, North Carolina. The proposed project will place fill into 122 linear feet of perennial
stream channel and impound an additional 3,092 linear feet of perennial stream channel. The
Public Notice states the predominant impacts from the proposed project are to "good" quality
Class C Streams. The proposed mitigation consists of downstream mitigation activities on 1,025
linear feet of stream, including J-hooks, cross vanes and fisheries habitat structures along with a
50 foot reparian buffer. Other proposed mitigation is a 30 foot wide vegetated buffer around the
lake (approximately one half will be forested and one half with shrubs and grasses) and a 0.3 acre
littoral wetland at the head of the lake and fisheries habitat structures in the lake. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4, has the following comments on the proposed
project.
EPA agrees with the concerns expressed in your letter to the applicant, dated December-
2 7, 2004, regarding the. need for the applicant to, provide more complete alternatives analysis
information as to why this is the least environmental damaging practicable alternative that will
achieve the project purpose. We also agree with your request for the applicant to provide more
information as to what steps have been taken to minimize impacts and why the amenity lake must
be the proposed size (15 acres) to adequately provide the recreational needs for the proposed
development.
As specified in various federal mitigation guidances (including the December 26, 2002,
Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-2), it is the goal of mitigation to achieve a functional replacement
of the lost aquatic functions from project impacts and thus the preference for "in-kind" mitigation.
EPA is pleased to see the applicant is proposing some "in-kind" functional replacement mitigation
consisting of downstream mitigation activities to compensate for the loss of flowing water due to
the impoundment. Although the proposed downstream mitigation is referred to as "restoration"
I
in the PN, we question as to whether the described mitigation would actually consist of
"restoration," as defined in the North Carolina Stream Mitigation Guidelines. As you know, these
Guidelines define restoration as the reestablishment of the dimension, pattern and profile of a
degraded stream and Enhancement Level I as the reestablishment of the dimension and profile and
Enhancement Level II as something less than Enhancement Level I. The description in the PN
appears to be something less than Restoration and appears to be either Enhancement I or H and
would therefore potentially provide less mitigation credits than for "restoration" activities.
Although flooding of waters does not eliminate aquatic habitat, it does convert stream habitat to
opera water which results in a discontinuous aquatic environment which supports different
communities of aquatic flora and fauna and disrupts the transport of sediment, organic carbon and
aquatic species. Since flooding does not result in a total loss of aquatic habitat, we recommend
the mitigation requirements for impounding waters be somewhat less than the requirements for
culverting, generally in the range of three quarters to one half of the culverting requirements.
The applicant is also proposing to use the establishment of the littoral wetland at the head
of the lake and the 30 foot vegetated buffer around the lake as additional mitigation. As you are
aware, the area at the head of the impoundment frequently fills in-with sediment as the flowing
/ water slows down and drops its sediment load. For this reason, we question the effectiveness of
this area as a highly functioning wetland and it may likelyrequire considerable maintenance to
keep it cleaned out.
EPA supports the proposal for a vegetated buffer around the lake and recommends this
buffer use native plants and attempt to eliminate any exotic plants, which may be present or
colonize in the buffer area after the lake is constructed. The PN states the applicant is planning
for half of the lake buffer to be forested and the other half to be vegetated with shrubs and grasses
and does not contain information as to how the applicant is planning to maintain the buffer. We
recommend the grassed area not be mown and for both the lake buffer and the downstream
riparian buffer be placed under a conservation easement or other protective mechanism. We
recommend the applicant submit a-plan with-more information as to plans for the take-and buffer
depicting which area will be forested and which area will be grass/shrubs and any other relevant
information the applicant may have pertaining to the proposed plans for the lake and buffer area.
EPA recommends the maintenance of a minimum downstream flow at all times, including
during drought conditions, and we agree with the applicant's proposal for the release to be cool
water from the lower level of the lake. We also recommend an evaluation as to whether there will
be an increased erosion potential downstream of the dam by sediment starved waters and, if so,
specific provisions for the measures to be taken to minimize these impacts.
3
f
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions
`regar`ding these comments, please contact Becky Fox at [phone] or fox.rebecca@
epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Ror. dd I. r kkulak, C„icf
Wetlands Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS, Asheville
NCDWQ, Raleigh
NCDWQ, Winston Salem
NCWRC, Kernersville

i C 1_.41 5.1.
ct--_. Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms_ Sue Homewood
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Brian Cole
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-1082
Mr. Ron Linville
Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
3855 Idlewild Road
Kernersville, NC 27284