The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070133 Ver 1_Individual_20070122CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. January 18, 2007 Ms. Amanda Jones US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, NC 28801 Ms. Cyndi Karoly NC Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 2 0 0 7 0 1 3 3 PAYrIENT RECEIVED RE: Section 404 Individual Permit Application The Ridge at South Mountain Rutherford County, NC Dear Amanda and Cyndi: Enclosed for your review is an Individual Permit application for stream and wetland impacts associated with the construction of a lake as part of the residential subdivision known as the Ridge at South Mountain located in Rutherford County, North Carolina. The following information is included with the application as supporting documents: 1) 8.5 X 11" plan drawing including stream impacts 2) List of Adjacent Landowners 3) Master Plan Map 4) Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment Please do not hesitate to call me at (828) 698-9800 to discuss this application or if you have any questions. Sincerely R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S. Principal enclosures cc: NCWRC NCDWQ-Asheville Office JAN 2 2 2007 13Ehl;i Yr„ - l "ItL"Oqa 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 Phone: 828-698-9800 Fax: 828-698-9003 www.cwenv.com F,"M Ef RECEIVED Individual Permit Application for 20070 133 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN January 2007 Applicant: The Hollifield Group, LLC Attn: Jonathan Hollifield 361 Bostic Sunshine Highway Bostic, North Carolina 28018 Prepared by: Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 828-698-9800 20070133 JAN 2 2 2007 DENR - WATER QUALITY ft -M NDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003 (33CFR 325) Expires October 1996 • Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including 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 22202-4.302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 2050:3 Please DO NOI 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 Authority: 3.3 USC 401, Section 10; 141.3, Section 404 Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Disclosure: Disclosure of'requested information is voluntary Ifinformation is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed 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 District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity An application that is not completed in full will be returned. ITEMS I THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) 1 APPLICATION NO 2 FIELD OFFICE. CODE 3 DATE RECEIVED 4 DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED (ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT) 5_ APPLICANT'S NAME 8 AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME. & TITLE (an agent is not required) The Hollifield Group, LLC ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS Mr..Jonathan Hollifreld The Hollifreld Group, LLC 718 Oakland St 361 Bostic Sunshine Hwy Hendersonville, NC 28791 Bostic, NC 28018 7 APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE 10 AGENT'S PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE a Residence N/A b. Business (828) 2474495 a Residence N/A b Business (828) 698-9800 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize, ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of thi rmit application. � S . i //(9-rn P��YMCNT APP6CANT'S SIGNATURE DATE 12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) The Ridge at South Mountain 13 NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable) Broad and Roberson Creek 15 LOCATION OF PROJECI Rutherford NC COUNTY STATE 16 OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions) Located on the NW side of Bostic -Sunshine Hwy; North of Sunshine 17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE From Asheville: Take 40 West, 226 South to Bostic -Sunshine Highay Iake Bostic -Sunshine Highway approximately 10 miles to the town of Sunshine The entrance o the Ridge at South Mountain is clearly indicated with signage directly off of Bostic -Sunshine Highway in Sunshine JAN 2 2 2007 DENR - WATER QUALITY ft -M NDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH • 18 Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features) SEE ATTACHED. 19_ Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions) SEE ATTACHED. USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20 Reason(s) for Discharge SEE ATTACHED. 21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards Dam includes 208 linear feet of culvert and approximately 255 cubic yards of fill 22 Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions) Approximately 0 6 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U S /wetlands are proposed for impacts Ihis includes the following: 208 linear feet of streams for the Dam 4, I00 linear feet of streams flooded 23 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? 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 attached a supplemental list). SEE ATTACHED 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 # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED USACE Wetland Verification 200615423 07/24/2006 *Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plan permits 26 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 authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. AZ�Z-1-1,6-6r7SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT 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 entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both • Adi acent Landowners The Ridge at South Mountain (PIN# 1012290) Hans Weitekamper John Laplant Gerald Lutz 25 Oyster Landing Rd 433 Tangerine Ave PO Box 129 Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 Lake Helen, FL 32744 Fallston, NC 28042 (PIN# 1639740) (PIN# 1638840) (PIN# 1012289) Charles Faulkner Fall Creek Land Company Randy Chapman 139 Palmetto Ave 352 Arbra Mtn. Way 5525 Bostic Sunshine Hwy Flagler Beach, FL 32136 Bostic, NC 28018 Bostic, NC 28018 (PIN# 1638375) (PIN# 1638374, 1641386) (PIN# 1601240) Herman Ramsey • Christina Sieminski Lee Wilson 5741 Bostic Sunshine Hwy 5095 Fairways Circle 1209 Bostic, NC 28018 Vero Beach, FL 32967 PO Box 471 (PIN# 1013121) (PIN# 1639754) Spindale, NC 28160 (PIN# 1639746) Timothy Conner Joe Huskey Andrew Barsaloux 2 Jungle Hut Rd 323 Angora Dr 288 Arnie St Palm Coast, FL 32137 Bostic, NC 28018 Rutherfordton, NC 28139 (PIN# 1638847) (PIN# 163482) (PIN# 1639759) Ronald Demarco Paul Evans Charles Keefer 13588 Cherry Tree Court 1075 Central Ave 266 Canter Hill Ln Ft. Myers, FL 33912 Naples, FL 34102 Monks Corner, SC 29461 (PIN# 1639757) (PIN# 1639756) (PIN# 1639752 0 0 Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN r: January 2007 Applicant: The Hollifield Group, LLC Attn: Jonathan Hollifield 361 Bostic Sunshine Highway Bostic, North Carolina 28018 Prepared by: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 828-698-9800 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND 3 ....................................................................................... 2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work.......................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS............................................................ 4 3.1 Soils ...........................................................................................................................................................4 3.2 Vegetative Communities........................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern ........................................................................ 6 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - THE RIDGE AT SOUTHMOUNTAINS............................................................................. 8 4.1 Lake Amenity ............................................................................................................................................ 8 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES................................................... 9 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Project Justification................................................................................................................................. 10 5.3 The Site.................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) ................................................. 14 5.5 Alternatives Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 16 6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN.........................................17 6.1 Stream Avoidance................................................................................................................................... 17 6.2 Stream Minimization............................................................................................................................... 18 6.3 Stream Preservation................................................................................................................................. 18 6.4 Proposed Pond -Enhancement and Bioengineering.................................................................................. 18 • 7.0 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES.......................................................................................... 20 7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines.................................................... 20 7.2 Factual Determination............................................................................................................................. 20 7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ........................ 20 7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem........................................................... 22 7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites............................................................................................. 23 7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics..................................................................................... 24 7.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 26 8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ......................................... 27 8.1 Conservation............................................................................................................................................27 8.2 Economics............................................................................................................................................... 27 8.3 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................................ 27 8.4 General Environmental Concerns............................................................................................................ 27 8.5 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................................27 8.6 Historic Properties................................................................................................................................... 27 8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values......................................................................................................................... 28 8.8 Flood Hazards.......................................................................................................................................... 28 8.9 Floodplain Values.................................................................................................................................... 28 8.10 Land Use.................................................................................................................................................. 28 8.11 Navigation............................................................................................................................................... 28 8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion................................................................................................................... 28 8.13 Recreation................................................................................................................................................29 8.14 Water Supply and Conservation.............................................................................................................. 29 8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management).............................................................................................. 29 8.16 Energy Needs.......................................................................................................................................... 29 • 8.17 Safety.......................................................................................................................................................29 8.18 Food and Fiber Production...................................................................................................................... 29 • 8.19 Mineral Needs......................................................................................................................................... 29 8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership.................................................................................................... 30 8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public............................................................................................................. 30 9.0 SUMMARY............................................................................................. 31 Appendix A Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Appendix B USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets Appendix C Cultural Resource Literature Review • 0 • LIST OF FIGURES Vicinity Map 2. USGS Topographic Map 3. USDA Soil Survey Map 4. Overall Map of Stream and Wetland Impacts 4.1-4.6 Sheets 1-6 of Stream and Wetland Impacts 5. Typical Dam Cross Section 0 6. FEMA Flood Maps Sheets 1 and 2 0 • CJ • APPENDICES A. Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment B. USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets C. Cultural Resource Literature Review 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Hollifield Group, LLC. proposes to construct a lake as part of the residential subdivision, known as the Ridge at South Mountain. The proposed project is for a 30 - acre constructed lake in Rutherford County, North Carolina. The Ridge of South Mountain is located on the North-West side of Bostic -Sunshine Hwy, North of Sunshine (Figure 1-2). The project site contains numerous unnamed tributaries to Roberson Creek. The Ridge at South Mountain is an approximately 450 -acre subdivision community in Rutherford County, North Carolina. The project will have a total of approximately 225 residential lots. The Ridge at South Mountain project plan is supported by extensive planning, engineering analysis and survey of the physical and biotic components of the site including aerial photography, complete Section 404 jurisdictional delineations, cultural resources, natural resource surveys and inventory, and threatened or endangered (T&E) species surveys of the site. • 0 :7 • Table 1. Phase II Project Summary Information Existing Site Information Total Project Area 450 Acres Total Linear Feet of Perennial Streams 15,533 Linear feet Total Wetland Acreage 0.15 Acres Proposed Site Development Total Stream Dam Impacts 208 Linear feet Total Stream Flooding Impacts 4,100 Linear Feet Total Pond Acreage 30 Acres Avoidance/Minimization of Impacts Streams Avoided/Preserved 11,225 Linear Feet Wetlands Avoided/Preserved 0.15 Acres Upland Stream Buffer 60 Feet (15.5 Acres) . 2.0 BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to develop a residential community that provides a lake amenity for all of its residences and guests. The development is planned in a way that supports a mixed -income community. The project team including The Hollifield Group, LLC., ClearWater Environmental Consultants, TRC Garrow, and others spent many days in the field to determine the best uses and preservation priorities for the project site. The USACE Wetland Verification Action ID 200615423 was signed on July 24, 2006. The proposed master plan recognizes the natural features of the land and achieves a balance between economic and recreational opportunities. 2.1 Project Location The Ridge at South Mountain is located in Rutherford County, North Carolina and is accessed from Bostic Sunshine Highway (Figure 1). 2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of this development is to create a residential community and • associated lake amenity. • 3 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 10 The 450 -acre proposed project site is located in Rutherford Count North Carolina and p p p J Y� consists mainly of forested land, 40 percent oak -hickory and approximately 60 percent 10 -year old early -successional clear cut. Elevations range from approximately 1,100 feet to 1,800 feet msl. • The project site contains unnamed tributaries which drain into Roberson Creek. Roberson Creek drains into the Broad River. Roberson Creek is classified as Water Supply -V (WS - V) by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). These waters are protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS -IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS -V has no categorical restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges unlike other WS classifications and local governments are not required to adopt watershed protection ordinances. 3.1 Soils The soils on The Ridge at South Mountain project site are mostly Evard-Cowee complex, and Pacolet-Bethlehem complex (Figure 3). The soils are mostly rocky and stony with slopes ranging from 8 to 85 percent with chewacla loam adjacent to the stream at the proposed lake location. The depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. 3.2 Vegetative Communities The site contains 4 different habitat types. These habitat types include oak hickory forest, young pine plantation, streambed and bank, and wetlands. The habitat map is included in Appendix A, Figure 5. 3.2.1 Oak -Hickory forest The oak -hickory forest is an upland community comprising approximately 40 percent of the project site. These areas have not been logged in at least 50 years and are comprised of mature trees with complete canopy coverage of the forest floor. The oak -hickory forest occurs from approximately the 1300' msl elevation to the top of the ridge. The overstory of this community is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), Chestnut oak (Quercus montana), Hickory (Carya tomentosa), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). Additional non-dominant tree species observed include; red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). 4 • Species observed in the midstory included tree species from above, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and American holly (Ilex opaca). The herbaceous vegetation community varied in development, with steeper, rockier slopes having a more diverse community. Herbaceous plants observed in the oak -hickory forest included; blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium atlanticum), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), May -apple (Podophyllum peltatum), Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana), Trillium spp., rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa). 3.2.2 Early Successional —clearcut forest This upland habitat type occurs below the 1300' msl elevation and comprises approximately 60 percent of the site. The pine plantation occurs below the intact oak -hickory forest, throughout the site. The area has been logged within the past decade. All mature trees with the exception of occasional specimen oaks were removed. It is likely that this area was similar to the oak -hickory habitat type prior to logging activities. The shrub layer is impenetrable in this pine plantation. It is dominated by saplings of the Virginia pine, chestnut oak, white oak, and hickory. Additional dominant shrubs include mountain laurel and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Additional non- dominant shrubs observed included black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sumac (Rhus copallinum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciva), black cherry (Prunus serotina), yellow poplar, flowering dogwood, American holly, red maple, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa). Species that occur in the herbaceous layer include young of the above species, grape (Mitis sp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), pokeweed (Phytolacca Americana), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). The highly disturbed nature of this habitat, combined with the dense shading due to the shrub layer makes it unlikely that this habitat is suitable for protected species. 3.2.3 Streambed and Bank These freshwater habitats include the streambeds and banks of unnamed tributaries of Roberson Creek. Permanently rooted aquatic plants are practically non-existent in on-site streams. Streams within the intact oak -hickory forest are step pool systems. Streams within the clear-cut forest are incised and have been impacted by sediment from logging activities. Plant communities along the banks of on-site streams are similar to those listed in the previous two habitat types. Three samples from two different locations were taken at the project site on September 18, 2006 to conduct biological testing consistent with the USACE stream quality assessment procedures (Appendix B, Figures 1-2). Tests resulted in the 5 collection and observation of a diverse macroinvertebrate community present within the stream. 3.2.4 Wetlands Wetland depressions and seeps comprise less that 1 percent of the site. On-site wetlands are associated with stream areas. The overstory is dominated by red maple, yellow poplar, and sweet gum. Plants observed in the shrub layer include spicebush and rosebay (Rhododendron maximum). Plants observed in the herbaceous layer include soft rush (Juncus effusus), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and unknown grasses (Carex sp.). 3.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program were contacted regarding the known or potential occurrences of federally listed threatened or endangered species or habitat types found on the project area. Five listed species are known to occur or have the potential to occur in Rutherford County. A comprehensive threatened and endangered species survey has been prepared and is included as an attachment to this application (Appendix A). The report describes the habitats observed on the 450 -acre site and addresses the potential for the site to support listed species. • On June 28, 2006, Bob Thomas and Chris Grose with Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. accompanied Dr. J. Dan Pattillo, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NorthCarolina on a visit to the project site to look for the White Irisette north of Forest City, Rutherford County, N.C. Dr. Pattillo is a recognized expert on the flora and vegetational history of the southern Appalachian Mountains. He also has a special interest in endangered and threatened plants. The project site is within the general habitat of the white irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), a federally endangered species. During this survey, Dr. Pittillo observed a population of the relatively common blue-eyed grass, Sisyrinchium atlanticum. The Oak -Hickory forest occurs on sloping hillside of the Ridge at South Mountain and is dissected by small tributaries with steep banks. During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the 450 - acre project site, no federally listed species were observed. It is the opinion of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally protected species are not likely to be present. As such, development of the proposed The Ridge at South Mountain project is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species. • Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey, 10 because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts. • 0 7 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT — THE RIDGE AT SOUTH 0 MOUNTAINS The 450 -acre tract contains approximately 15,533 linear feet of jurisdiction streams and 0.15 acres of jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. The applicant proposes to permanently impact 4,308 linear feet of stream to achieve the previously stated project purpose (Figures 4-4.6). The applicant proposes: 1. 4,100 linear feet of flooding in perennial streams for the creation of a 30 -acre lake (Secondary Impact). 2. 208 linear feet of fill in intermittent and perennial streams for the dam (Hard impact). The attached master plan (Figure 4) proposes a total impact of 4,308 linear feet on intermittent and perennial streams. There are 0.15 acres of wetlands on-site, which will be completely avoided and preserved in perpetuity. The net result for this project includes avoiding 11,225 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams and 0.15 acres of Waters of the U.S./wetlands (Figure 4). Additional mitigation will be onsite and include the preservation and protection by restrictive covenants or conservation easements of the avoided streams and wetlands, on unnamed tributaries of Roberson Creek. The avoided and preserved streams will have a 30 -foot upland buffer on each side of all 11,225 linear feet of streams and 0.15 acres of wetlands. Is 4.1 Lake Amenity • The primary purpose for this project permit is to create a 30 -acre lake for the purposes of fishing, swimming, canoeing, wildlife -watching, and other recreational opportunities for the residences and their guests. Water features are extremely desirable for private residences, and have become more popular over the years. A lake brings many recreational opportunities for residents and their guests. These recreational opportunities include fishing, swimming, canoeing, and wildlife watching. Furthermore, when a lake is created, new habitat is created along with it that supports an array of wildlife, including fish, birds, reptiles, etc. The lake plan will include individual docks for the home sites as well as a central community dock facility. 8 10 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Overview This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington District, USACE in evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at The Ridge at South Mountain development in Rutherford County, North Carolina. An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. Actions taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts are presented in Section 6.0 of this Application. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain "sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December 24, 1980).] Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2). Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was • substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the 9 applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines. The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an explicit, but reputable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable." Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be acceptable also apply. This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other areas. 5.2 Project Justification Master Planning and permitting large/long term development projects depend highly upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering design principles which are often conceptual at the time of permitting, but which must include available land for development to economically justify the project, reasonable site access, construction of utilities and stormwater systems, and appropriate location of various land use amenities. It has been determined that other mountain properties of similar size located in western North Carolina would likely contain comparable streams, wildlife, and cultural resources, presenting similar engineering and land planning challenges and opportunities. The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct intensive surveys and assessments, including land survey, wetland delineation and survey, threatened and endangered species survey, archeological surveys, intensive land planning and market analysis. The information gathered from these tasks has been considered in preparation of the master plan submitted with this permit application. Market analysis conducted by the applicant confirms the aptness of the project site for the intended purpose. However, for the project to be economically viable, enough real estate must be made available for amenities to cover development costs and provide a reasonable profit. Since the land area is finite, development costs, particularly construction costs, must be limited for the project to be successful. The proposed development will contain a variety of land uses, generally consistent with their other successful projects in the southeast. These land uses include single- family parcels, lake (amenity feature), open space under restrictive covenants or conservation easement, wetland -stream preservation, hiking -riding trails, and infrastructure. The proposed land use provides the future residents with an attractive low-density and aesthetically pleasing place to live in an attractive location. The applicant proposes to create a lake for both the private residents and their guests to enjoy. The applicant has considered both the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal, and they have faced the challenge of maintaining a balance between . residential and economic with minimal environmental impacts. When reviewing this application, the USACE is also required to consider the public interest in this project. In considering the public interest, the USACE must evaluate the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments." In balancing these interests, the USACE must consider the public and private need for the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternatives, and the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project. The USACE also considers other factors, including: Conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, 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 the property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Furthermore, the USACE regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors through the planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The project will benefit the public in terms of increased economic activity that is likely to extend to the local community, habitat creation to support recreational opportunities, riparian protection, general environmental concerns, wetlands, fish and wildlife values, and water quality. Most importantly, while the project will impact a limited number of intermittent and perennial streams, the overall stream impact for the project is very minimal and is offset by adequate mitigation. These preserved streams and upland buffers will be subject to restrictive covenants to ensure permanent preservation. Because these streams perform valuable water quality functions, the preservation of these important areas will contribute in perpetuity to wetlands, stream, fish, and wildlife protection and improved water quality. Water features are extremely desirable for private residences. The residential access to the lake will provide unique recreational opportunities for both the private residents and their guests (residents and non-residents). In addition, this project will likely provide an overall boost to the surrounding economy. This 30 -acre lake amenity will not only add recreational opportunities for both residents and nonresidents of The Ridge at South Mountain, but also increase the value of the subject piece of property a significant amount. The Ridge at South Mountain property was previously appraised at approximately $250,000. Based on the average lot price ($100,000) for the whole site (225 lots), plus the addition of the average housing price per lot ($250,000 to $300,000), Rutherford County will gain taxable revenue on a total of approximately $78.75 million. This yields an increase in isannual revenue for Rutherford County from $1,525 to $480,375. However, there is a balance between pond/lake size and usable site acreage. Further discussion on the • selected size of the lake is discussed in the avoidance/minimization discussion below. • This proposed lake makes the property more desirable and in particular the typical "low-lying" properties with limited mountain views much more desirable due to the close proximity and view of a lake (Table 2). Thus, it takes lots that may sell for $30,000 for two acres of land and increases the value to an anticipated $100,000 for 0.5 to 0.75 acres if land (lake front properties). Without the lake, these lots may not sell at all, or are likely to sell at a much slower rate. Furthermore, it takes the next "level" of lots with somewhat better views of the mountains, and adds in a component of a lake view coupled with the mountain view. This will increase the value of $40,000 to $70,000 lots into the neighborhood of $50,000 to $85,000, or an increase of up to roughly 20% to 25%. Last, the upper lots with spectacular mountain views will also be overlooking the lake once again adding value. Due to the higher prices of these lots, the percentage increase will be less, around 10%. Finally, every single lot will have the access and use of the lake for themselves and their guests, which increases even lots with no view of the lake 10%-25%. Table 2 Property Values The applicant's market research is also consistent with a study cited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their discussion of the economic benefits of runoff controls indicating that "whether a beach, pond, or stream, the proximity to water raises the value of a home by up to 28 percent."] A 1991 American Housing Survey conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Commerce also concurs that "when all else is equal, the price of a home located within 300 feet from a body of water increases by up to 27.8 percent."2 EPA states that "when designed and sited correctly, artificial lakes or wetlands can help developers reduce negative environmental impacts caused by the development process and increase the value of the property." In addition to meeting the proposed project purpose, the significance of the proposed lake is more than simple monetary values. The addition of the lake makes the property more marketable, and also makes it more appealing to a wider range of people due to the increase in recreational opportunities. As a result of this, the I Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. 2 NAHB. 1993. Housing Economics. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC. 12 NO LaKe - 30 -Acre Lake 47 -Acre Lake Lot Category # Lots Value #Lots Value # Lots Value Phases I -VI (some western lots will have lake views) 80 5,600,000 80 $6,050,000 80 $6,050,000 Lakefront ots 0 0 27 2,700,000 37 3,700,000 Tier 1 Lots Mild Mountain View, Good Lake View 40 1,600,000 251,375,000 20 1,100,000 Tier Lots -(Good Mountain View, oo ake iew 35 1,925,000 35 2,450,000 30 2,100,000 Tier 3 Lots real Mountain Views, Lake Views 35 2,275,000 35 2,800,000 35 2,800,000 Mountain Lots ( pectacular Mountain Views, SoFFe Lake Views 25 1,875,000 25 2,500,000 25 2,500,000 Total Anticipated ropey Values 215 $13,275,000 227 17, 75,000 I 22[ $13,250,000 The applicant's market research is also consistent with a study cited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their discussion of the economic benefits of runoff controls indicating that "whether a beach, pond, or stream, the proximity to water raises the value of a home by up to 28 percent."] A 1991 American Housing Survey conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Commerce also concurs that "when all else is equal, the price of a home located within 300 feet from a body of water increases by up to 27.8 percent."2 EPA states that "when designed and sited correctly, artificial lakes or wetlands can help developers reduce negative environmental impacts caused by the development process and increase the value of the property." In addition to meeting the proposed project purpose, the significance of the proposed lake is more than simple monetary values. The addition of the lake makes the property more marketable, and also makes it more appealing to a wider range of people due to the increase in recreational opportunities. As a result of this, the I Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. 2 NAHB. 1993. Housing Economics. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC. 12 property will undoubtedly sell faster and for more money than property without a large water feature. Fishing and wildlife -watching are two favorite past times of both North Carolina residents and nonresidents here in the United States. A national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife -associated recreation in North Carolina boasts that 3.5 million fishing and wildlife -watching participants in the state spent approximately $2 billion in related expenses, resulting in an increase in local and state revenue3. The creation of a lake that supports both of these uses will not only serve the immediate private residences surrounding the lake, but will likely provide an overall boost to the community's economy. The team responsible for this project has had the challenge of maintaining a balance between the possible recreational and economic advantages of creating a lake, and the potential environmental impacts. With fishing expenditures in North Carolina for both state residents and nonresidents totaling 1.1 billion, it is hard to say that the creation of this lake will not bring an increase in economic input into the surrounding local area. This increase in economic activity will likely result according to the 2001 National Survey for North Carolina.4 According to this data, 1.3 million North Carolina residents and nonresidents fished and spent $1.02 billion on trip -related and equipment expenses. North Carolina residents and nonresidents make up a total of 1.3 million wild bird observers according to the 2001 National Survey. According to this same survey, • wildlife -watching expenditures in North Carolina totaled $827 million. The increase in both fishing and wild -life watching opportunities with the creation of this lake will likely extend these revenues to this surrounding local community in Rutherford County. The applicant has chosen to minimize impacts by reducing the overall size of the lake from 47 acres to 30 acres, preserve in perpetuity 11,225 linear feet of the remaining perennial streams on-site and establishing upland buffers that are a minimum of 30 feet on each side of the bank, totaling 15.5 acres (Figure 4). These buffer areas will be preserved and protected under the proposed master plan. By permitting this project, the USACE would allow preservation of these habitats. At present, the subdivision consists of approximately 140 acres of developed land, with another 310 acres proposed for development. At the time the 310 acres became available, the applicant considered purchasing this adjacent lower lying land and with the intent of creating a lake. The applicant also considered other opportunities to purchase small lake properties in the mountain region of Rutherford County. However, no such opportunities were found. A review of available properties and opportunities in the mountain region indicates that a large number of streams are classified as Trout Water or Outstanding Resource Water. In addition, the existing 3 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife -Associated Recreation. Revised March 2003. 4 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlfr -Associated Recreation. Revised March 2003. 13 topography at the selected site is ideal for a relatively small dam with minimal dam impacts for this size small lake. Therefore, it is likely that that a proposed lake would affect a similar amount of resources on other sites in the area. The creation of the 30 -acre lake at the Ridge of South Mountain will also diversify the habitat in this area, which will support an array of wildlife. 5.3 The Site The applicant plans to build homes on 450 acres and desires to develop this property in a way that builds a sustainable, mixed -income community and allow new residents to enjoy the land and associated proposed lake amenity in the best ways possible. 5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) In preparing this plan, the applicant considered a variety of constraints, including impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. The applicant has avoided and minimized impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable and feasible while still accomplishing the overall project purpose. During design of the proposed master plan, the applicant considered development alternatives, which included impacts to substantially more linear feet of streams for the creation of a lake than the current proposed plan depicts. Prior to submittal of this application, the applicant conducted a pre -application meeting with the USACE, NC DWQ, and NC Wildlife Resource Commission. The applicant has changed their original proposal as a result of agency comments. Specifically, the applicant prefers a 47 -acre land as the site is naturally fit for this type of feature and it meets the applicant project purpose. Additional avoidance efforts were completed by reducing the size of the lake from 47 -acres to 30 acres. This additional avoidance and minimization effort reduced stream hard impacts from 375 linear feet to 208 and secondary flooding impacts from 5,080 linear feet to 4,100 linear feet. The stream restoration, EEP, and on-site preservation demonstrated that the applicant has designed the project in order to avoid wetland and stream impacts to the greatest extent practicable. WRC recommended building multiple small ponds. However, this proposal was not pursued for the following reasons. Multiple dams would have significantly more hard impacts than are currently proposed and isolated small ponds will not provide the necessary value to the project. Avoidance and minimization efforts were completed by completely avoiding all 0.15 acres of wetlands, and reducing the originally planned 47 -acre lake to a 30 -acre lake, as requested by the USACE. Table 2 illustrates that there is a projected 2.1% increase ($375,000) in overall value for the 47 -acre lake versus the 30 -acre lake, but this number could likely be offset in the construction cost of the dam as well as mitigation fees for additional stream disturbance. The fact remains that the addition of a 30 -acre lake is large enough to support fishing and wildlife -watching for all 14 residents and their guests in this residential community, along with providing enough financial profit to support the overall development. One possibility considered to reduce the hard impacts due to the footprint of the dam is a construction technique called "rolled concrete". Rolled concrete is new to this area but has been used successfully in the western United States. In essence, rolled concrete is a material comprised of large aggregate and a reduced amount of cement mixed with water into a very dry mix. Once the mix is poured, it is compressed with a roller to "finish" the pour. Reduced impact is one of many advantages of rolled concrete. Another advantage is consistency of materials. Since concrete is mixed at a plant where all aggregate is tested, the consistency of a rolled dam is very high. Lastly, cost savings can be realized by using the downstream slope as the spillway as opposed to using a typical pipe spillway system in an earthen dam (Figure 5). Table 3 presents the numerous disadvantages of rolled concrete. The first and most significant is cost. On a large scale, the cost of rolled concrete can be reduced to around $50/cubic yard, but when compared to approximately $2/cubic yard for onsite fill material, this difference cannot be made up for simply by a material reduction from rolled concrete (comparison below) and is not practicable. Additionally, rolled concrete is placed in "lifts" and thus creates potential areas for weep and cracking. With conventional concrete, waterstops can be placed, but not with rolled concrete. As a result, a "cap" layer must be placed on the upstream and downstream side of the rolled concrete dam, and on steeper dam faces this is a daunting and expensive task. Rolled concrete dams also have the disadvantage of having to be tied directly to a rock layer on the subject property. At the proposed location, there is no sign of exposed bedrock, so an exceptionally large area (greater than five feet deep minimum) would likely have to be excavated the entire size of the dam footprint to expose a rock layer for the dam to rest on. Lastly, as with conventional concrete dam failures, failure is instantaneous. Should failure occur, the chance of large sections of concrete washing downstream is exceedingly high and can be more damaging than hydraulic forces alone. Table 3 As can be seen in Table 3, the cost of the rolled concrete dam is more than 10 times the cost of an earthen fill dam, and the cost of the dam also exceeds the difference in profit margins from creating a lake versus not creating a lake at all. In other words, if 15 Earthen Fill Dam Rolled Concrete Dam Construction Item Units Quanti Unit $ Total $ Quanti Unit $ Total $ Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 $10,000 $10,000 Excavation to Rock for Base of Rolled Concrete Dam CY 1 35000 $2 $70,000 Excavation for Clay Key CY 8000 1 $2 $16,000 Placement and Compaction of Rolled Concrete 1.5:1 slopes) CY 122065 $47 $5,737,055 Concrete Facings on Rolled Concrete Dam CY 3000 $150 $450,000 Earthen Fill 3:1 downstream, 2:1 upstream slopes) CY 185062 $2 $370,124 Piping for Primary Spillway LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 Soil Testing LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 1 $25,000 $25,000 Mitigation Difference" LF 100 $232 $23,200 Total Cost $478,324 $6,292,055 As can be seen in Table 3, the cost of the rolled concrete dam is more than 10 times the cost of an earthen fill dam, and the cost of the dam also exceeds the difference in profit margins from creating a lake versus not creating a lake at all. In other words, if 15 a rolled concrete dam is proposed, the project would lose money versus building no dam at all. Furthermore, banks will not finance property improvements such as dams, thus the project would have to be funded privately. Risking $6.2 million (roughly 1/3 of the total anticipated revenues) out-of-pocket to build such a structure isn't remotely practicable. Because the project purpose will impact streams, it would be impossible to avoid all of these streams while maintaining a rational project design and meeting this project purpose. 5.5 Alternatives Conclusion This discussion of alternatives, together with other documents submitted by the applicant in support of its 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the guidelines and promotes public interest. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the proposed layout of The Ridge at South Mountain site is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the site to the maximum extent practicable. • 0 • 6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN This conceptual mitigation plan describes compensatory measures for unavoidable impacts to intermittent and perennial streams associated with the development of The Ridge at South Mountain, Rutherford County, North Carolina. Consistent with regulatory guidance, the applicant is proposing to offset impacts to intermittent and perennial streams considered fair to good quality (Appendix B) from 4,100 linear feet of flooding (secondary impact) and 208 linear feet of darn/fill (primary impact) for the creation of a 30 -acre lake amenity. It should be noted that the applicant is mitigating for streams that are an abundant resource in the area. It is estimated by NC DENR that there are over 7,893,600 linear feet of stream in the Broad River Basin. The flooding is a secondary impact and would not result in a direct, "hard" impact to streambed channels. The project would impact one type of special aquatic site (as defined in 40 CFR 230.3 (q-1), namely riffle and pool complexes. Since the predominant impacts to aquatic resources would be secondary in nature, and no wetlands would be impacted, the "no net loss" goal pertaining to wetlands does not apply in this case. Any required mitigation measures should be commensurate with the degree of project impacts. The following conceptual mitigation plan is provided in support of the applicant's permit application and the mitigation measures are described in detail below: The applicant will avoid and preserve 11,225 linear feet of stream and 0.15 acres of wetland by voluntarily implementing 15.5 acres of legally designated upland buffers with a minimum width of 60 feet (Figure 4-4.6). The applicant plans to mitigate for the 208 linear feet for the dam/fill by contributing In Lieu Fee (ILF) to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). • Preservation 11,225 linear feet of stream with Minimum 30 foot buffers (15.5 acres) 2.7 : 1 ratio 0.15 acres of wetlands • EEP/ILF 208 linear feet 2 : 1 ratio Implementation of the mitigation plan will begin immediately upon issuance of a 401 Division of Water Quality Certification and USACE Section 404 Permits. Stream and wetland mitigation (preservation) will be protected in perpetuity under a legally binding agreement (i.e. Conservation easement or other approved mechanism). 6.1 Stream Avoidance The development of The Ridge at South Mountain will avoid 11,225 linear feet of perennial stream and 0.15 acres of wetlands (Figures 4-4.6). 17 6.2 Stream Minimization Stream impacts will be minimized duringconstruction of The Ride at South g Mountain Development by implementing additional sedimentation and erosion control measures during the grading and filling phases of the project. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be employed to minimize the impacts to streams adjacent to the proposed development. The BMP's that may be employed include siltation barriers, sediment traps, sediment basins, and sodding. Use of BMP's will be one of the most useful methods of mitigation to minimize disturbance of natural stream/wetland functions. In addition, impacts are minimized by maintain utilities within the road right-of- ways and roads will either avoid streams or all crossings will be made by bridge or half -pipe. 6.3 Stream Preservation The applicant proposes to preserve approximately 11,225 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream and 0.15 acres of wetlands (Figure 4). These waters are ecologically important for aquatic habitat, foraging areas, and riparian corridors and are part of the Broad River Watershed. These streams will be preserved in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms (i.e., restrictive covenants). These streams are particularly important to preserve because they are in an area, which has a high potential for development. The functions and values of these streams will be additionally protected and enhanced by establishment of a permanent upland buffer with a minimum of 30 feet wide (each side). The total of the upland buffers will comprise approximately 15.5 acres. 6.4 Proposed Pond -Enhancement and Bioengineering The applicant proposes creation of a 30 -acre lake (Figures 4 and 5), including bioengineering of the lake shore to maintain and potentially increase water quality. The pond shall be constructed and managed in accordance with a pond management plan. The applicant's lake is designed to provide water quality benefits to downstream wetlands and waters. The lake is over -designed in terms of stormwater retention and is likely to provide removal of suspended solids, nutrients, and pollutants. As a further public interest measure, the applicant has elected to design a littoral shelf in selected portions around the perimeter of this lake. This design should result in a lake system where most suspended solids, nutrients and pollutants attached to sediment are allowed to settle out of the water, and should release water at a rate such that downstream erosion is lessened or eliminated. The lake will also have a cold water release in order to minimize downstream aquatic resources. 18 • The presence of perimeter shelves will allow for the establishment of vegetative areas that provide enhanced pollutant removal, wildlife and waterfowl habitat and protect the shoreline from potential erosion. Establishment of a stable vegetative community will have a direct relation to replacing lost filtration values and functions in the Roberson Creek watershed. 6.4.1 Establishment of Vegetation within Shelves Following the construction of the lake, the applicant proposes to vegetate the littoral shelf with native aquatic/wetland herbaceous species. Most of the area within these shelves should be inundated for extended periods, if not permanently. Native plants will be manually planted in the shelf areas on 18" spacing. Species will be planted according to acknowledged water tolerances and anticipated water levels on each shelf. Planting may include transplants from wetland areas on-site or include nursery bought species to enhance wildlife values, aesthetics, and water quality. Plants such as but not limited to: Pickerel weed (Pontedaria cordata) Soft Rush (Juncus effuse) Arrow Arrum (Peltandra virginica) Duck Potato (Saggitaria sp) Smartweed (Polygonum sp.) 6.4.2 Vegetation Maintenance The goal of vegetative shelves is to provide a vegetative community that will enhance wildlife habitat and improve pollutant reduction through uptake of nutrients by the vegetation. Successful accomplishment of the planting goals will be determined by the establishment of vegetative shelves that have 75% aerial coverage within the ponds. Establishment of a vegetative community within the shelf areas will be documented through a voluntary monitoring program. The applicant will maintain the vegetative shelves for as long as the pond is in active use. If, at any time during the active use of the ponds it is necessary to perform maintenance activities or expansion in the ponds, any vegetated shelves that are temporarily impacted will be re -vegetated according to the original planting plans. In • 7.0 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES 7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites for dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R. 230 per Section 404(b)l. Sub -Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits, and apply to project sites similar to this project. Sub -Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)1 guidelines. This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a Dredge & Fill Permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist. Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 7.0, were assessed for compliance with 404(b)1 guidelines. Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria, wildlife value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill material is considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity: does not contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate toxic effluent standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as T&E pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries; does not contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;" does not adversely affect human health as pertains to water supply; does not adversely impact wildlife, food chain, and special aquatic sites; does not contribute to the discharge of pollutants that may affect the food web; does not have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, or their physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation, aesthetic or economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. 7.2 Factual Determination The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment. 7.3 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem Sub -Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem. 20 7.3.1 Substrate The modification of the substrate to an aquatic ecosystem can cause changes in water circulation, depth, drainage patterns, water fluctuations, water temperature, and benthic organism changes. Proposed impacts to stream segments total 208 linear feet of hard impact and 4,100 linear feet of secondary impact. These impacts will be mitigated through participation with the NC EEP and on-site stream preservation areas. No wetlands will be impacted on-site. 7.3.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control) The discharge of dredge and fill material can increase the amount of suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem. While such an increase in the turbidity level can have a negative effect on microorganisms and invertebrates, it is expected to be controlled and minimized by the project design. Through the placement of silt screens, hay bales, or other turbidity barriers, utilizing Best Management Practices will control and minimize suspended particulates that may exit the area of disturbance. The proposed project will be constructed and managed in such a way as to minimize the potential for elevated levels of suspended particulates. This includes isolating the stream from the construction site using temporary diversions to minimize the potential for increased turbidity. The State of North Carolina enacted the Sediment and Erosion Control law as part of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This law requires that anyone disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an erosion control plan and receive approval from the N.C. Division of Land Quality. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for The Ridge at South Mountain will be submitted by the applicant and approved prior to the work being conducted on-site. The erosion and sedimentation control plan will be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Soil and Erosion Control Officer. The purpose of the erosion control plan is to develop measures that will contain erosion during storm events before it reaches streams or leaves the site. The Ridge at South Mountain development is committed to conducting a project wide approach to erosion control by utilizing Best Management Practices. 7.3.3 Water Quality The discharge of dredge and fill material shall not cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with a sedimentation and erosion control plan. ff • It is anticipated that all of the material needed to construct the dam will be taken from on-site areas. The fill material used on-site will be clear and free of chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required, suitable off-site clean fill material will be purchased and transported to the project. 7.3.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation The discharged dredge and fill material shall not adversely modify current water circulation patterns by obstructed flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or change in the velocity or flow of circulation. The proposed activity should minimize the alterations to the dynamics of the aquatic ecosystem. 7.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations Changes in water level fluctuations, promoting a static or non -fluctuating ecosystem may produce negative environmental effects, potentially caused by the flooding and discharge of dredge and fill material into aquatic systems. The proposed project, 208 linear feet of hard impacts, should have minimal affect. Water levels should be consistently maintained downstream and not adversely affect aquatic systems. 7.3.6 Salinity The concern in regard to physical and chemical characteristics of an aquatic ecosystem is related to the salinity gradient from saltwater into freshwater. Flooding and a discharge of dredge and fill material can alter the salinity and mixing zone between salt and freshwater. Since the project is located inland, and is not tidally influenced, no modification to the salinity of on-site or adjacent waters is expected. 7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem Sub -Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern from which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of the ecosystem. These components are T&E species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organisms in the food web; and other wildlife. 7.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species Flooding and the discharge of dredge and fill material is not likely to cause the potential loss of valuable habitat to wildlife and plant species listed as T&E by the USFWS through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and its subsequent additions and amendments (50 C.F.R. 17.11). 22 No impacts to federally listed species are expected as described in Section • 3.3 above. 7.4.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the Food Web Flooding and discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting animals such as invertebrates that make up the basis of a food chain. The release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity may have potential negative effects on certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may also potentially increase the levels of exotic species. Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the U.S./wetlands on the project should reasonably be expected to have minimal to no effects on wetland and aquatic systems on-site. 7.4.3 Other Wildlife Discharge of dredge and fill material can have a negative effect on the breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species. • While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream -dependent species may result from construction of the project, the proposed preservation of riparian and upland buffer corridors allows for wildlife movement and foraging that will more than balance any minor loss of stream and wetland habitat. • 7.5 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites Sub -Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges; wetlands; mud flats; vegetated shallows; coral reefs; and riffle and pool complexes. 7.5.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges The discharge of dredge and fill material may cause potential negative effects on adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges through impacts to water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, additional human access, creating the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment of undesirable plant and animal species, and change of balance of habitat type. No impacts on sanctuaries or refuges resulting from the development of the project are anticipated. 23 7.5.2 Wetlands • The discharge of dredge and fill material may potentially have adverse g Yp Y effects on wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Flooding and discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and groundwater recharge. There are no proposed impacts to the 0.15 acres of wetlands located on-site. 7.5.3 Mud Flats Flooding and discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have negative impacts on mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. Since the project does not contain any mud flat communities, loss of value to these ecosystems will not occur on-site. 7.5.4 Vegetated Shallows Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine, marine, and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No such vegetated shallow habitats exist on the project; therefore, there are no expected impacts to this type of ecosystem. The applicant is proposing to construct littoral shelves along the lake boundary. is 7.5.5 Coral Reefs LJ Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. No coral reefs exist on the project; therefore, no impacts to this type of ecosystem will occur. 7.5.6 Riffle and Pool Complexes Flooding and discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle and pool complexes may potentially have a negative impact to water quality and wildlife value. Riffle and pool ecosystems generally exist along steeper gradients of streams and rivers. Riffle and pool complexes are on the project site. Mitigation through preservation of riparian and wetland systems will offset the proposed impacts to these riffle and pool complexes. 7.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics Sub -Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and commercial fisheries, water -related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on 24 human use characteristics can be anticipated from the proposed development of the project. 7.6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply Flooding and discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative impact on water quality serving as a water supply for municipalities or private developments. Since the waters associated with the project are not a source of any public or private water supply, no impacts from the proposed project can be expected. Remaining waters are aso protected by upland buffers. 7.6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries Flooding and discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative effect on water quality and fisheries habitat or may potentially have a negative effect on recreation and commercial fisheries. There are currently no recreational and commercial fisheries on-site, so no impacts from the proposed project can be expected. 7.6.3 Water -Related Recreation • Flooding and a discharge of dredge and fill material may have a negative effect on water -related recreation by impairing or destroying water resources that support recreational activities. Development of the project is not expected to have negative impacts on water -related recreation activities. 11,225 linear feet of the buffered streams and 0.15 acres of wetlands are being preserved. • 7.6.4 Aesthetics Flooding and the discharge of dredge and fill materials into wetland ecosystems may adversely impact the aesthetic value of natural aquatic ecosystems. The project has been planned to eliminate impacts to the on- site wetlands and primary streams. Disruption to on-site natural systems has been minimized, 0.15 acres of wetlands, and 11,225 linear feet of stream preservation, which will be provided as a result of implementation of the mitigation plan. 7.6.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed development of the project. 25 7.7 Summary • Based on the EPAidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230 and enumerated 1� , herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and subsequently addressed. The proposed impact to hard impacts to 208 linear feet of perennial streams and secondary impact 4,100 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams should not cause any off-site adverse impacts. Mitigation provided on-site and through EEP should compensate for any on-site impacts. The proposed mitigation plan will provide wetland/stream/upland buffer preservation by ensuring vitality and sustainability of wetland and stream functions and values. • • 26 8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS • Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contraryto the public interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below. 8.1 Conservation Conservation of natural resources will be achieved through preservation of 15.5 acres of upland buffers, 0.15 acres of Wetlands/Waters of the U.S., and 11,225 linear feet of Streams/Waters of the U.S. The location of these upland buffer, wetland, and stream preservation areas will serve to protect and preserve the function and value of the areas and maintain suitable foraging, breeding, and nesting habitat and corridors for wildlife species. The preservation of these areas will provide consist riparian connections throughout the project site. 8.2 Economics The proposed project of The Ridge at South Mountain will provide approximately 450 acres for family homes with the proposed lake amenity. Rutherford County should gain taxable revenue on a total of approximately $78.75 million. This project site yields an increase in annual revenue for Rutherford County from $1,525 to $480,375. The proposed development is expected to have a positive • impact on the property tax base for Rutherford County as well as a positive impact on local businesses and residential property values. 8.3 Aesthetics This 30 -acre lake project is will add a unique feature to the landscape in the area. The applicant has carefully planned to minimize any environmental impacts. 8.4 General Environmental Concerns Other than stream impacts, proposed development activities on the project would have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental components. 8.5 Wetlands The Ridge at South Mountain Development has avoided all 0.15 wetlands on-site. 8.6 Historic Properties A Cultural Resource Literature Review was reported on September 22, 2006 by TRC Solutions for the Ridge at South Mountain project site (Appendix C). Their review of site files and records at the OSA, SHPO, and Archives revealed no • recorded archaeological sites or historic structures within the proposed project 27 area or a one -mile radius around it. There are also no recorded cemeteries within • or adjacent to the tract. 8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values The project is a 30 -acre lake designed to enhance and preserve the ecological integrity at The Ridge at South Mountain residential community. As part of the compensatory mitigation plan 11,225 linear feet of stream and 0.15 acres of wetlands will be preserved with approximately 15.5 acres of upland buffers. Overall fish and wildlife values of the project site will be maintained and increased. 8.8 Flood Hazards No portion of the unnamed tributary to Roberson Creek is designated as a flood hazard area (Federal Insurance Rate Maps, Community Panel Number 370217003B and 370217006B, effective date June 1, 1978) (Figure 6). 8.9 Floodplain Values The preserved streams are located in moderate to steep topography where the channels are laterally contained, there is little to no floodplain area adjacent to these streams. Most of these streams on-site are classified as Type "A" or Type `B" streams with little to no floodplain (Applied River Morphology, Rosgen, 1996). • "A" streams are steep, cascading, step pool streams associated with bedrock dominated channels and are very stable. `B" streams have moderate gradients, riffle dominated channel with infrequently spaced pools. The streams will be protected by 30 foot (on each side) upland buffers. • 8.10 Land Use The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses for the property and surrounding area. 8.11 Navigation No navigable waters exist on site. The proposed project will not effect navigation. 8.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. An erosion control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the project (See Section 7.3.2 above). During the construction process, Best Management Practices will be followed. These BMP's will include the construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that will prevent sediment transport off the project into other waters. Use of devices such as silt 28 screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing, wind rowing of vegetation, and other • mechanisms to prevent turbidity will be employed. 8.13 Recreation The applicant is preserving 11,225 linear feet of streams and 0.15 acres of wetlands with 15.5 acres of upland buffers. The proposed lake will provide recreation opportunities for all home owners within the development. 8.14 Water Supply and Conservation Public water will be provided by the Rutherford Electric Membership Corporation. 8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMP's will be incorporated during construction. Stream buffers are being provided to assure long-term stream protection and integrity. This project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) will not result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality. This low density project should provide minimal stormwater increases. Roadway designs do not have curb and cutter. Stormwater from roads will be sheet flow into grass swales and/or forest buffers. • 8.16 Energy Needs • There are no known sources of materials on the project that could be used to generate energy, nor will the project contribute to any other energy production. 8.17 Safety The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations for public safety. 8.18 Food and Fiber Production The project site is not utilized for food production. Silvicultural activities have been ongoing for years on the project site. Outside of the development envelope, silvicultural activities will be modified to protect the forest and target old growth forest management. 8.19 Mineral Needs The project fulfills no current mineral needs. 29 8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership • The proposed development of theroject should not hinder surrounding private p J g property owners from enjoying, managing, or developing their properties in any legal fashion they may choose consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The address of the project property owner is as follows: • 0 Owner: The Hollifield Group, LLC Contact: Jonathan Hollifield 361 Bostic Sushine Highway Bostic, N.C. 28018 828-247-4495 (828) 247-4498 Fax 8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by providing a recreational and residential opportunities. ME 9.0 SUMMARY • By master planning the project, the applicant proposes all compensatory mitigation up- front -front or concurrent with development activities. There are no other foreseeable impacts for this development. • • 31 4 4 i IL'jl r ,i r x r MAN- �,.X. +* `•DELORME CLEARWATER The Ridge at South• Environmental Rutherford County 718 Oakland Street •Figure North• Hendersonville, NC 4 4 81049.000' W 81°48.000' W WGS84 81°47.000' W ? � , j � �v � �- -- - -fir �; � � `ter--,• �,,_:�- �. ru 1 Al ,S 576 H'r 1 -I, �j II . �GF9it°tt�p . co el'sMt A IM ��I �� r �U �. ii p•�\� � � ala, r�„�7 •`� _u �- _�� 1 J o ) J 1 ` o° +, S, ., \� . PROJECTSITE o NLCI✓ _ ✓� l r �;'4 J,Ln ep O r t co 1 " - /• � � - , tifc ic�o� /, �,:\•` � ti I ,' 1 �"�V •� _ tee•. ,v 1 % J e 81049.000' W 81048.000' W WGS84 81047.000' W D 1 WE -5 MN �TN 6'/:° Y 1000 FEET 0 500 t000 METERS Map created with TOP010 @2003 National Geogapld, (www.nationalgeogaphic.comftopo) CLEARWATER The Ridge at South Mountain Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS Topographic Map Rutherford County North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 2 828-698-9800 Scale: 1:24,000 Source: USDA Soil Survey of Rutherford County, N.C. 10he Ridge at South Mountain Rutherford County North Carolina CLEARWATER Environmental Consultants, Inc. Soil Survey Map 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 3 828-698-9800 152 East Main Street Forest City, N.C. 28043 828-2474495 IMPACT DRAWING DECEMBER 19, 2006 FIGURE 4.1 SCALE: 1"=200' 152 East Main Street Forest City, N.C. 28043 828-2474495 IMPACT DRAWING FIGURE 4.2 DECEMBER 19, 2006 SCALE: 1"=300' IN =50690 AM POO 14' ON ON MEMO ME F (D Total Project area 450 acres Total Stream distance 15,533 Linear Feet (LF) Total wetland area 0.15 acres Proposed Stream Impacts 00 Flooding 4,100 LF Dam/Fill 208 LF Roads 0 LF Proposed Wetland Impacts Flooding 0 acres Dams 0 acres Roads 0 acres ♦ Mitigation Stream Avoidance/Preservation 11,225 LF ♦ Upland stream buffers 60 feet 15.5 acres Wetland Preservation 0.15 acres 4 Proposed Pond Size 30 acres n t,.-. 152 East Main Street Forest City, N.C. 28043 828-247-4495 IMPACT DRAWING FIGURE 4.3 DECEMBER 19, 2006 SCALE: 1"=300' 0 152 East Main Street Forest City, N.C. 28043 828-247-4495 OF IMPACT DRAWING FIGURE 4.5 DECEMBER 19, 2006 SCALE: 1"=300' rl cavil y" ice. 152 East Main Street Forest City, N.C. 28043 828-247-4495 IMPACT DRAWING FIGURE 4.6 DECEMBER 19, 2006 SCALE: 1"=300' 0 0 0 IN EXISTING GROUND FIGURE 5 THE RIDGE AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC clear`/\%ater E-1— —1 C—T.- Iso. SE B TI Nl TEIANIh- l A ISSIP REV 085DpIP1'ION BY OAT6 DM11N IR: SCH iDp rAue: THE RIDGE DATe: Dl -le -or a¢cATD pY: non. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC PRW6CT YGR: Irp 152 m.o so... e:e�.uiN..esi Dmcmm— DAM CROSS SECTION +oe rulmu: sl¢er: 04134 1 or 1 Q CLI h �i l \ MAP REVISED: \ / SEPTEMBER 1. 1878 \I CONVERTED BY LETTER .. EFFECTIVE 6/1/87 S� J OGti I COMMUNITY—PANEL NUMBER, 370217 0003 A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 1 AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION This Is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gc FIGURE 6: SHEET I OF 2 is APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET: FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP RUTHERFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA UNINC. AREAS ►AGE'7 OF E IS" NW INDEX FOR PAGES NOT PRINTED) PROTECT SITE 1 � G / Ln \l >� te r1 L_J APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET: 2000 0 2000 FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP RUTHERFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA UNINC. AREAS PAGES OFB. (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PAGES NOT PRINTED) MAP REVISED: SEPTEMBER 1, 1878 ONVERTED BY LETTER EFFECTIVE 611187 COMMUNITY—PANEL NUMBER 370217 0006 A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION This Is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Una. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may haw been made subsequent to the date on the title dock. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gc FIGURE 6: SHEET 2 OF 2 \l >� te r1 L_J APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET: 2000 0 2000 FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP RUTHERFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA UNINC. AREAS PAGES OFB. (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PAGES NOT PRINTED) MAP REVISED: SEPTEMBER 1, 1878 ONVERTED BY LETTER EFFECTIVE 611187 COMMUNITY—PANEL NUMBER 370217 0006 A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION This Is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Una. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may haw been made subsequent to the date on the title dock. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gc FIGURE 6: SHEET 2 OF 2 • • Habitat Assessment and Threatened and Endangered Species Review Prepared For The Ridge at South Mountain Rutherford County, North Carolina Prepared By C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, NC 28791 January 2007 • 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following report details the habitat assessment and results of the survey for the potential occurrence of threatened and endangered (T&E) species survey on the approximately 450 -acre Ridge at South Mountain. The site ranges in elevation from 1,100 ft to 1,800 feet msl. The property is bounded on all sides by private property. The site is accessed by Bostic Sunshine Road (Figure 1-2). The T&E species survey was conducted to determine the occurrence of or the potential for animal and plant species listed as federally threatened or endangered to exist on the proposed site. Completion of this survey was directed by and complies with current state and federal regulations [Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) and the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25) and North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12- 22)]. 2.0 METHODOLOGY A protected species survey was conducted in the summer of 2006, on The Ridge at South Mountain by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. to determine potential for occurrences of animal and plant species listed as endangered or threatened by current federal regulations. Recent correspondence solicited from the USFWS dated July 12, 2006, provided existing data concerning the presence or potential occurrence of threatened or endangered species in Rutherford County, North Carolina (Appendix A). The USFWS lists the following five federally threatened and endangered species as occurring or potentially occurring in Rutherford County, N.C. The species listed below were included in the surveys and assessment. Table 1. Common Name Scientific Name Status Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Dwarf -flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened White irisette Sysyrinchium dichotomum Endangered Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered Recent correspondence solicited from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program dated July 11, 2006, provided existing data concerning the presence or potential occurrence of state listed species in Rutherford County, North Carolina. The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species or significant natural communities at the site or within one mile of the site. The Natural Heritage Program lists the northwestern third of the project site as being located within the State significant Yellowtop/Biggerstaff Mountain natural area (Appendix A). 9 projects/424/threatened-endangered/babitat 2 • The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. staff. During field surveys, site habitats were identified and compared with recognized habitats for each of the four species potentially occurring on the site. Potential flora were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. On June 28, 2006, Bob Thomas and Chris Grose with Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. accompanied Dr. J. Dan Pattillo, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NorthCarolina on a visit to the project site to look for the White Irisette north of Forest City, Rutherford County, N.C. Dr. Pattillo is a recognized expert on the flora and vegetational history of the southern Appalachian Mountains. He also has a special interest in endangered and threatened plants. The project site is within the general habitat of the white irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), a federally Endangered species. What they discovered was a population of the relatively common blue-eyed grass, Sisyrinchium atlanticum, which rarely has white flowers according to Radford, Ahles, and Bell (1968). The Oak -Hickory Forest occurs on sloping hillside of the Ridge at South Mountain and is dissected by small tributaries with steep banks. While there, they also came across some scattered individuals of the rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis), a state listed Candidate species. They also saw a relatively uncommon plant Dr. Pattillo tentatively identified as Carolina spinypod (Matelia cf. caroliniensis). 3.0 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • During our site visits in June 2006, four habitats: oak -hickory forest, early successional pine plantation, streambed and bank, and wetlands, were identified on the property (Figure 3). The following is a description of each of the four habitat types identified on the referenced site and its likelihood to harbor or support listed species. • 3.1 Oak -Hickory forest The oak -hickory forest is an upland community comprising approximately 40 percent of the project site. These areas have not been logged in at least 50 years and are comprised of mature trees with complete canopy coverage of the forest floor. The areas were likely not logged due to the steepness of the surrounding terrain. The oak -hickory forest is located at approximately the 1300' contour level and above. The overstory of this community is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), Chestnut oak (Quercus montana), Hickory (Carya tomentosa), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). Additional non-dominant tree species observed include; red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobes), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). Species observed in the midstory included tree species from above, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida), and American holly (Ilex opaca). projects/424/threatened-endangered/habitat 3 • The herbaceous vegetation community varied in development, with steeper, rockier slopes having a more diverse community. Herbaceous plants observed in the oak - hickory forest included; blue-eyed grass (Sisyrtnchaum atlanticum), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), May -apple (Podophyllum peltatum), Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana), Trillium spp., rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa). This habitat is suitable for listed species, however none were observed during the survey. 3.2 Early Successional Pine Plantation This upland habitat type occurs below the 1300' contour level and comprises approximately 60 percent of the site. The pine plantation occurs below the intact oak -hickory forest, throughout the site. The area has been logged within the past decade. All mature trees with the exception of occasional specimen oaks were removed. It is likely that this area was similar to the oak -hickory habitat type prior to logging activities. The shrub layer is impenetrable in the pine plantation. It is dominated by saplings of the Virginia pine, chestnut oak, white oak, and hickory. Additional dominant shrubs include mountain laurel and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Additional non-dominant shrubs observed included black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sumac (Rhus copallinum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black cherry (Prunus serotina), is yellow poplar, flowering dogwood, American holly, red maple, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa). Species that occur in the herbaceous layer include young of the above species, grape (Vitis sp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), pokeweed (Phytolacca Americana), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). The highly disturbed nature of this habitat, combined with the dense shading due to the shrub layer makes it unlikely that this habitat is suitable for protected species. No protected species were observed during the survey. 3.3 Streambed and Bank These freshwater habitats include the streambeds and banks of unnamed tributaries of Roberson Creek. Permanently rooted aquatic plants are practically non-existent in on-site streams. Streams within the intact oak -hickory forest are step pool systems. Streams within the clear-cut forest are incised and have been impacted by sediment from logging activities. Plant communities along the banks of on-site streams are similar to those listed in the previous two habitat types. This habitat is not suitable for listed species; therefore impact to this area is not likely to affect listed species. projects/424/threatened-endangered/habitat 4 • Three samples from two different locations were taken at the project site on September 18, 2006 to conduct biological testing consistent with the USACE stream quality assessment procedures (Figure 4). Tests resulted in the collection and observation of a diverse macroinvertebrate community present within the stream. • 3.4 Wetlands Wetland depressions and seeps comprise less that 1 percent of the site. On-site wetlands are associated with stream areas. The overstory is dominated by red maple, yellow poplar, and sweet gum. Plants observed in the shrub layer include spicebush and rosebay (Rhododendron maximum). Plants observed in the herbaceous layer include soft rush (Juncus effusus), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and unknown grasses (Carex sp.). These wetland depression areas are not suitable habitats for listed threatened or endangered species known to occur within Rutherford County, N.C. Therefore, impact to these wetland areas is not likely to affect listed threatened or endangered species. 3.5 Soils Soils mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Rutherford County Soil Survey, for the Ridge at South Mountain site include: Chewacla loam, 0-2% slopes, Evard Cowee complex 15-85% slopes, Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8- 15% slopes, and Pacolet-Bethlehem complex, 8-15% slopes (Figure 5). 4.0 Protected Species The following is a brief description of each federally listed species included in the survey, its recognized habitat and comments regarding survey results for that species: 4.1 Dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), is Federally listed as a threatened species. This herbaceous plant produces leathery, heart shaped, dark green, evergreen leaves. It produces small, (most less than 0.4 inch long), jug shaped beige or dark brown flowers. These flowers are the smallest of any North American Hexastylis. The plant prefers acidic sandy loam soils along bluffs, hillsides, ravines, and boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams. Soil type is the most critical habitat requirement with Pacolet, Madison, or Musella type soils preferred. Suitable habitat for this plant does occur on-site, however no evidence of the plant was observed during the survey. projects/424/threatened-endangered/habitat 5 • 4.2 Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), is Federally listed as a threatened species. It is described as a herbaceous plant approximately 3.7-9.8 inches tall with a smooth, hollow pale green stem. It produces a single whorl of 5 to six light green elliptical leaves, 3 inches long and 1.6 inches wide. The flower or flowers (occasionally two) are borne at the top of the stem. Habitat varies widely from white pine stands, dry deciduous woods, rich cove hardwood forest mixed with hemlock. Suitable habitat for this plant does occur on-site, however no evidence of the plant was observed during the survey. 4.3 White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), is a Federally listed endangered species. This plants distinguishing characteristics include, dichotomous branching of stems, pale bluish -green basal leaves, and tiny white flowers (0.3 inch) with reflexed petals in a cluster of 4-6 at the ends of winged stems. The plant grows 4-8 inches tall and prefers rich, basic soils, probably weathered from amphibolite, in clearings and the edges of • upland woods where the canopy is thin. The plant often occurs in areas where downslope runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present in wooded sites. Suitable habitat for this plant does occur on-site, however no evidence of the plant was observed during the survey. • 4.4 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Federally listed as an endangered �.• species, the Indiana bat is a medium- sized Myotis species, closely= resembling the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) but differing in coloration. Its fur is a dull grayish chestnut rather than bronze, with the [� basal portion of the hairs of the back dull lead colored. This bat's under parts are pinkish to cinnamon, and its Courtesy J. Parnell feet are smaller and more delicate than in M. lucifugus. The calcar is strongly keeled. This species uses limestone caves for winter hibernation. The preferred caves have a temperature averaging 37 degrees to 43 degrees Fahrenheit in midwinter and a relative humidity averaging 87 percent. Summer records are rather scarce. A few individuals have projects/424/threatened-endangered/habitat 6 • been found under bridges and in old buildings, and several maternity colonies have been found under loose bark and in the hollows of trees. Summer foraging by females and juveniles is limited to riparian and floodplain areas. Creeks are apparently not used if riparian trees have been removed. Males forage over floodplain ridges and hillside forests and usually roost in caves. Foraging areas average 11.2 acres per animal in midsummer. This bat has a definite breeding period that usually occurs during the first 10 days of October. Mating takes place at night on the ceilings of large rooms near cave entrances. Limited mating may also occur in the spring before the hibernating colonies disperse. No caves or large riparian areas are present on the site, therefore it is unlikely that the site provides important habitat for this species. No impact to this species is likely. 4.5 Rock Gnome Lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) Federally listed as an endangered species occurs on rocks in areas of high humidity either at high elevations (usually vertical cliff faces) or on boulders & large rock outcrops in deep river gorges at lower elevations. Distinguishing Characteristics: Grows in dense colonies of narrow (.04 inch) straps that are blue -grey on the upper surface and generally shiny -white on the lower surface: near the base they grade to black • (the similar species of squamulose Cladonias are never blackened toward the base). Fruiting bodies are borne at the tips of the straps & are black (similar Cladonia species have brown or red fruiting bodies). Flowering occurs July — September. No suitable habitats were found onsite for this species. 5.0 FINDINGS The following habitats found on site, early successional pine plantation, stream bed and bank, and wetlands, do not match acknowledged suitable habitat for any of the species listed as potentially occurring on the site. Potentially suitable habitat for Dwarf -flowered heartleaf, small whorled pogonia, and white irisette was found on-site within the the oak - hickory forest. These species were not observed. 6.0 CONCLUSION During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the Ridge at South Mountain, no listed species were observed. It is the opinion of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally and state protected species are not likely to • projects/424/threatened-endangered/habitat 7 11 • be present within the site. As such, development of the proposed Ridge at South Mountain is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any threatened or endangered species. Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts. projects/424/threatened-endangered/habitat 8 • Appendix A USFWS and Natural heritage Correspondence • • r� 1__n1tcd Swin ; 11w '.titcm )AM, Minim July 12, 200(, Mr. Robert W. Thomas Project Biologist UlearWatcr FlIvironmcntal Consultants. Inc. 718 Oakland Street I lendersonvillc, North Carolina 25741 [dear ,Mr. Thomas: Subject: Site ASSessillent fur The Ridge at South Moirmaiu. l,OC Ited West of Coopers Springs In Rutherford County, North Carolina In your leiter of June 14, 2006, you recluested our ck,ninwml on the suhjert project. We have reviewed the information you presented and are providing the follm� in- comments Ili accordance with the pro0sions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 001-007c), and section 7 ofthe EmIvIngued Species Art of 1971 as anwndk 06 USA'. 1531-1513) (Act). Endangued Species. You do not present cUencc 4 a : u,,nvcvs ofthc project arca fol - federally listed species keno%' n from R IthcriM ('Dung,. Knlcss an area has been specilically surveyed for listed species or no appropriate habitat e.xisis. a sure Cy should be conducted to ensure that these resources are not inadvertently lost. Adjacent to the projlect arca, we have records of "IAC iriscttc (,5'i.YTiM III 11M &( hoIImiIon). v IIicII is fcdcr,llly listed as cud anZ�cIcd, 'White iriscttc occurs in rich, basic soils in c1cal ,Illi th": of upland vvoods v�hulc Jlc canopy is thin and often "here downslope runoff has 101110\0 ulucll of the deep litter laver ordinarily present on these sites. lis small white 111>"m ami its dichommus brancNnp patty n distinguish it from similar species. Ile p,rIwd oivvhite iriscttc is from late May through .lulu, so we recommend that surveys for frits species he conducted during this period \Vc would like to sec a detailed account ofthe botanical analysis for (his project. Fneloscd is a list of federally endanr,ercd and threatened species and 1'cdcral specks of concern fur Ruthci Iol(I County.. In accordancc %: ith the .het, it is the respoi;sihility of talc appropriate federal apnc:. w Its reprrscnt.11,iv e to revic%% its acti" itics to. and to identify a l'; such acti%lilts (fir PI-01_11aill- "halt Ilial;�Itico l tlldaliLmcd I lkl armed of thclr habli�lts. It I( d(21cmli ird drat the P11T;, .ed vinvity nla� ad<<t ,C all" listed ;I< i'il(1aI1 �r:,'d Or llnv Ile llcd, i'mili'il cml,ti�lILWi)II \� Ith this i)II-wL' IlltLst he mitiatcd. Pk:' -c Ilo 11',]:. federal species of concern are not legally proluted under Tc Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including' section 7. unless thcv are formally pRjwscd or listed as endan"'ered or threatened. We are includinll these species in our nsponse to give you ad"mce notifinaion and to request your assistance in proicctin�, them. We also recommend that you contact NQ Linda Pearsall, Director of the North Carolina Natural I lef-Age Program, for further inkriation about North Carolina's rare species and/or unique and rare habitat types located in the subject projcct areas. Her mailing address is Natural I lerita<nc Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 Mail Service ('enter, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1001. Erosion Control and WetlandKtmam Protection. Based on the information you provided, the project area contains an unnamed tributary to Roberson Creek (the project area should also be surveycd for wetlands). Given the proximity of this projcct to the unnamed stream (and possibly wetlands), we are concerned about the potential direct, indirect, and culnulative impacts it may have on aquatic resources. It is important that You minimize or in oil impacts to the aquatic resources located on the property. The treatment of storm \vater leaving the project area is a concern. The expansion of urban suburban areas creates more impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots), which collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly transmit them to receiving waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency. this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in the t �nitcd States and is linked to chronic and acute illnesses from etposurc through drinking water and contact recreation. Hest rnanagement practices can reduce, but not eliminate, pollutant loadings of common storan-water pollutants. Designs that collect runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil have the highest documented pollu munen►oval cificiencY, eliminating nearly all lead, zinc, and solids and more than 50 percent of total phosphorous. Ponds and wetlands, which allow contaminants to settle out of the water column or he hroken down by sunlight and biological activity, earl remove more than 70 percent of bacteria. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a "Guidance Memorandum to Address and ylitigate Secondary and Cumula vc Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial \Vildlife Resources and Water Quality., that we support and cncoump You to use. It can be <+cccssed v is the Internet as fc)ilows: We offer the Iollouing recommendations to help address the direct, indirect, and cumulaS c impacts that may be associated witlr this project and to help minimize impacts to fish and ". ildlifc resources: I fisc grassed sv� dcs in place ol'curb and 'utter and on-site storm -vv atcr management kc, humoention areas) that will rcwk in no net chnge in the hvkIroIogy of the �� atcrshCd. All storm -%eater outlets should drain throuih a c'-,etated upland ,area prior to rcarhin anY stream or %voland .rrc;r. �ul'ficicwt iciention designs should be implemented to allov,, for the slog. disch<ur,(c of storm, water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water sur,( -,es; thcrnuil spikes; and sediment. nutrient, and dwinical discharges. 2. Preserve and/or restore forested riparian buffers. Given the close proximity of' this project to aquatic resources and the increased amount of impervious surface that will occur as a result of the development, we are concerned about the loss and lack of riparian buffers. Forested riparian buffers. a minimum of' 100 feet wide along perennial streams and 50 feet wide along intermittent streams, should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Riparian buffers provide travel corridors and habitat for wildlife displaced by development. In addition, riparian buffers protect water quality by stabilizing stream banks, filtering storm water runoff, and providing habitat for aquatic and fisheries resources. install and maintain strinacnt measures to control erosion and sediment in order to prevent unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources within and downstream of the project site. Disan-bed areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Fescue -based mixtures should be avoided. Native annual small grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. Perimeter erosion -control devices should be installed prior to any on-thc-gmund activities. Frequent maintenance of these devices is critical to their proper function in order to minimize sediment discharge from the project site. 1. Use bridges for all permanerit roadway crossing's of streams and associated wetlands because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic organisms, and eliminate the need to fill and install culverts. Alf strearn crossings should be made perpendicular to the stream. Ifculverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts. Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby minimizing the adverse impacts to streams. Any type of culvert that is used should be dcsipncd to allow for the passage offish and other aquatic life. The culvert should be sized to accommodate the rmovemenl of debris and bed material within a channel durinl-' a bank -full event. We recommend the use of multiple barrels (other than the base -flow barrel). placed on or near stream bank -full or floodplain bench cicvation in order- to accommodate llood%yaters within the strearn corridor flusc should be reconnected to Floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by using sills oil the upsn-cam end to restrict or divert flov% to the base -flow- barrel(s). Sufficient water depth should be maintained in the hasc-flmv barrel during lmv floes to accommodate fish movement. If file culval is lonwyer than 40 linear feet. alternating or notched baffles should be installcd in a manner that mimics the cxistinL, stream patter. "this should enhance the passage of aquatic fife by: m) depositing sediment in the barrel. (h) maintaining channel depth and flow ri ones, and (c) providing resting pliers Qw fish and other aquatic (11 ms. 0 >. install utility lines (he., sewer, gas, water) ouk ac the above-reconmtended buffer widths. All utility crossings should be rcpt to a mki-I urn, and all utility infrastructure should be kept out of riparian buffer areas_ The directional bore stream -crossing method (installation ofudlitics hcnuath the riverbe(, avoiding impacts to the stream and buffer) should be used for utility crossings. ^rTanholcs or similar access structures should not be allovVCkl 1,o ithin huficr areas. Stream crossings should be near perpendicular to stream Ilo',r and should be monitored at least c%cry 3 months for maintenance needs durin,.' the fast 24 months of the project and annually thereafter. Suver- lines associated with crossing areas should be maintained and operated at all times to prcvent discharges to land or surface waters. In circumstances where minimum setbacks cannot be attained, sewer lines shall be constructed of ductile iron or a suhstance of equal durability. 0. Keep equipment out of streams by operating from the hanks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected daily and should be maintained to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials should be slorcd outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material can be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream. Also, all fueling operations should be accomplished outside the riparian management arca. ,fit this stage of project development and without more specifics about construction locations or techniques, it is clifficult for us to assess potential environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative). We therefore recommend that any environmental document prepared for this project include the following (if applicable): 1. A complete analysis and comparison of the a"65hie alternmives (the build and no-huild alternatives). 2. A description of Me fishery and "ildhO resources "Rhin existing and re(luircd additional rights-okway and an; areas. such rrs borrow areas, that nrry be affected directly or indircctl" b� the pm_)powd project. 3. The acreage and a description of the wetlands dim will he filled as a result of the proposed project. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should he mapped in accordance with the Fc(I •r al .1lannal /or Irh rrti/ii�t� unrl /)<Irrr<n�rn� Jnri.ediclronul if�tlunrl�. WC rcconuncnd contactima the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ugps) to determine the need for a Section 404 Clean Nater .Act permit. Av idin"-, and mininn/ing «ctlalld impacts is a part of the Corps, pernrtting process, and u e will consider ether potcnli;rl altcrnutivCS in the of,ar;y permits. 0 4. The extent ( linear acct as well as discharge) of' any %1, atcr courses that will be impacted as it result of the proposed project. A description of any streams Should include the classinnaion (Rosgen 1995. 1990) and a description of the hiotic resources. 5. The acrca,,�c of upland habitat_ by cover type, that will he clinunated because of the proposed project. 6. A description of -all expected secondary and ctrnnulative enyirrnu xiltal impacts associated with this proposed work The assessment .should specify the extent and type of development proposed for the project area once the work is complete and how future growth will be maintained and supported with regard to sewer lines, water- lines, parking areas, and any proposed roadways. %. A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of'wildlife habitat from direct construction impacts and from secondary development impacts. S. Mitigation measures that will be ernploycd to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, riycrine, and upland) associated with any phase of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. if %yc can be of assistance or if%ou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 82K 2580939, Ext. 241 In any future correspondence concerning this project, please rcl'crcucc our Long Number 4-2-tN341. Enclosure CJ Sincerely, Brian 11. Colc field Snperyisor • • • DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and 1,,lateral Resources Cul, ; I. "(lllh ( I 1 n\ ironulcnt�d (�,Il,ult,lnt;. Inc_ Oakland '-11r2ct IIcIldcr-,nlc. N( 8 91 uhjcct: PIk)po'cd Project rte.u' (',),11M '�1)1'1H �I. R'IIIhrrlk11d ( t illity 1 )c -m M]. 111011 a : lr`lii1i2, ( 3 R-, c' s -� , Sc::rt�r� I he Natllral I ICI'Ita'-'l' P(l)'u'ralil 1115 Ilk) ree,)Itl Uf fare ;pCCICS or 'll Co111111U1IIIICS at Illi' 'Ite Ilk I ,, I 11111 a mile of the project area. I10vkkc\ cr. the uurih\�C�Acrn third of the III ojcct arca I�lithnl the �'lalc �I"niiic;rnt Yellin top Iii'u'�'-'cI" lil\1uIIII MiIII n;llurll :IIcil- .11th uL,h thk'� ,ite i, compicicf., nnprolcctcd and in private kmi mship. it i5 hoped that all or No"t of 1111: polti,ul �)f tllc prol(:ct :Ir(:,I c,ln he prOtcctcd in 5k)n1e rlMllner. 1 have the 1,11C dr>,Cl10i,_�n lionl the kwIlk:rl,,rd ( ,)untN Itattiml ;Ivca iMClItOl'006). ��hich has just bCCll puhli'hcd h\ our Pr)' -'ram AWww-di olio lnap� do not I ecord" ot,rare 5peciell or SIUHIficant natural COIIIInunitic, in the project arc�I. it drlc> ni t nese»arils nlcan that thev are 1101 pre5cnt. It nla\ sinlplN InCan that the arca liar nut hccn',ended. t he use (d Natural Ilcritalc 1,101111anl data "hould not hc;uh�titutcd for �Icltl Id fieri sur�e��. particl&lrk if the hr�,iect.Ire,l �,�111aII1S tillllahlC habltat fill' Parc SpCClea. SI1-1IIIt]CMIt ilaltlral OI- pl-Ii)I It\ IM11.11al arca::. Ym i nla\ %k.i;h 1l):heel. the Natural 1'ou'laill datIlhase v�cbsitc:1I liar:1 listin-ul r:uc plant, and animal; and sT'nificant natural culnrnunities in thr count% .Intl 011 the [0j`)01-'raphic yuad neap. :Ahcrnati\ck. the N(-' Center li)r (;cog'raphic Intornr< lioll and Anal\')i, t( (11A) prov idc5 d1g,11 ll Nallll-al I lel lt�tL(: data oillillC 011 a Cll.,,t reCOV CIA Call '-'Ct '11c �I.c"l11C I11101-Ilultll)Il 011 (I( ��j%CI ith Natural I ICI iLlUc Pr„1-1ralll I;IIC SI)CL:� �)CC lff ineek and I,-nitic�lnI \ "If eral I lerita��c \ICaI The ('CIIA v',cb;itc pn)'k ides I'ICnlcnt OCCIIII�CnCC 1l:Oj II) ntnnhcr, ( in,tcad ,)f5pccic5 nalllc ;old the data u5cr i; then encuura,-,cd to contact the Natural I Icl Pik l'-)ran1 h 1 dri,liicd intoe -HI 1011. I hi, <cn ice alloti�> the ux'r to c{uickl� and cfficicntl� ��ct site �nccilic NI IP dale. �� ith��ut �i�ilin�� the NI IP R,)II,rUt)Ill CJI\kM1III(.'_ (til- the Illf'MHIM foil IZC(IUe�'t to bC or IllOre 1111t)[11mtl,In �Ih,�llt data 1U1111;ItS. prlclll'-, ShruCtu1C mild oldC11nI, I)R� CdIIrC>. 1 ILII kllh \\ "\\" 'L'I,I til(tie nc11� "; .?QJO) Plca:C dr IIUt hc"itatc to contact u1c al I)1() '1 hl)- 11 %,ul ha%c Gluc�.ti,'n,'�l nccJ lintller inl��rnl;ul�n 111l,:c!cl',. \:I k. Pr nn ji7fllt'�7�jlt RUTHE'Ri'ORD COUNTY INVENTOkY Yello%%tolAliggerstaff Mountain Significant M-itural Heritage ..vc:a Sladc I . �O(xx) Pit_'pau(�d by N C N,tuir:d Hciwiye (),o i�, • • • RuthcrAml C_NnoN Natural :area Inccntorw YVIAXANTOP/BlIGGERSIAH N101 WAiN Significant Natural Heritage Al -ca Site Significance: Sritc Ouadran; hr/!I(!i'1111(l J)rlh (Il(11ri)_ and htIIC h!Ovvn )U1'_ti (liC_lti.1'11�115 U/'lluhtl v;tl�, (l1lj(�ii(1) qualit' Dl-�-:\1csic (Kk-I Iwkory Forest uwcrs the In'dorn; otth in the site. Thr is,acncrallClosed with dominant canopy species includil q y. hAc oak. Awmnw (r;lk. hnwnmt ilicLt�rr ; (ru r,r c ur(li/%�i nri.v ), tulip p(11)larr (Lii iv(lc rule uit tulihi'i i (r). and red maple !.1: )crasion,dl�. Virginia pine (1 mit'v t 11 � lirianti) and shorticai, pine 1l' , � lulnitu) am fmilld in the can((p1 esprcialk where canopy contains gaps occur dile to danlag<, ur tree tall. In Cmlleddeel areas near streams, the canopy has rig°er birch (13(,<i�l(r ��i��and ,vc,lmurc (P1«1(1100 The undcrstory is comprised of canopy specie..", sotu-\\ ood. hlack��unl. flovrcrin-, do�vv ood (('(Willo 110l'icl<i), witch have! (1hime malls I hVIbIhn,u), and niountain hullo (llcv iiluutuncrj. he more C011111ion shltlh5 are 11101.111tan1 IaurCl. Li -cat laurel, pin.v'(C1-fl((11"i.'r (1�1!t1(%tit/c'ilih'rJi? �rricllni(�nui�lcs). stratihcrry hush (LcroiitWitr.v amoictini v). sparklchcrry (i'uc(iiuum (uhoi-cum)_ ti', and i:rwhttsh bluv_bcrry (f'. li(1lliclinn ). Vines include sunlnlcr (,rape (1'iti.v cic.�titrrlis). creeper g11i17cl11c'/oli(1), and the invasive Japanese honc�sucklc (Liiiri(.rru riu�nl(zi �. I'ipsissevva. arhutus ), dwarf u l:;. little hro,l n iu s. horse gentian (:c/rti(in,i sp.), turtlehead (('Itr ru /uii<� lrrii). ��insrng (i'(iiur_�. ,l,rin(r � !ills). and '-'a lax ur( CO, /(u(i) sur common in the IICrbaCe0n.S laver. small c\aIuplcs of' fair quality Acidic Cove and Rich Cove Forest occurs in a number of, the more sheltered coves throughout the site. The acidic coves have closed canopies dominated by red maple. vvIlkC pine (Pinus.vti (�hir.ti ).cucumber tree (:1�cr��iiulicr uruniincr�u), Fraser ma''II01ia, tulip poplar, with ."catterccl vwhite oak and chestnut oak. The rich roves are similar, but posers more mesophytic 40 canopy species present and include basswood (Tili(r hrwnph. b) northern red oak (t)urrc us i ir/>ru Inti Canada hemlock (T: zww i cmimIcnsiv ). The undcmRny is uncial!; comprised ofeanopy species as well as sourwood. black gum, redbud (Carci.v canurcic>n.cis), and floyvrrin(a tlwpvood (('ruitu.v /lulicJrrl. Hic shrub layer varies gi-catly between the acidic and Iich onm TIC acidic cores ntten haw C Dery dense shrub lavers of mountain laurel, great laurel, gorge rhodmicildron, as well as various heath species. Thr rich coves tend to have few' shrubs %v ith occasional mountain laurel and I hododendrons. I Icrhs in the acidic coves are often sparse, as the thick shruh lacers often .shack out most Oahe hrrh layer. l is most common herbs filund are black coho,h (('inric i/ir«u r,r(cmr,.yrr). law"Mn Who VW sp. ), partrid"t"eherry ('Ilil(/w/hI rc�he�ns), violets ( I i(/lci spp ). and '.zalax. In the ric h ov es. hrl hS occur in a much hi"hcr density and diversity. Hasophilrs otIcn present and include aloe cohush (Cciulol/hrllitin 111(11i( truicics), ginseng. rouodlcat)ragyv ort i l'u( l;(r(i uh,,l uric t. and alon(u, r<<Ins ;;I the ( )ak-f Iickon F()rrst int_'t face. the federal and ed "hit(' iI isCuC occurs. \lone a Icvv of the picdonunant s(uth-facing ridge crest slopes amc scv cla1 ,mall examples (lf Inne- )ak l bath ronmiunitics. I he% havc damaged by recent drou�'ht and the -1)(11cru pine hark heCIIC l)c,irlr(i� lnrun /ioiitcilis). I he dominant canopy species are pitch pin.,ti mt1 ri irlu). "hot tleal piny. Ind Winia pipe. IN tmdcrstory is sparse and genewHy consist of c,niop� spcCies. Shruh; most ,Own prc"CI)t include mountain Iaurcl and various heaths (t'(ir(iiu nr sM, t, "hick ohcn Awn -I thick lr,)tches. Vincis, if present. are (acnrralk limited to nluscadiuc and t!rccnhricr. herb,; ale sparse and nrludc hmckert turn "'Cllmv starr"rass ,tntl kidncv-!cat ()')1n1AcCd (-�lll)i111(!Ji (o1)il)('�ii11111 "al, ,1(111!1 .l !hc upper IUnln:i!, ,'I11 '' ;!; '1�,'i 1' ;n� r�' �.,' 'IiI • Summit. I lie canopy. iti (:p, v�•.iih ;c<ilt�r�cl c�in�;hv a�rcic�. "nch ,i', hitch Dille. \- irgini,t kine.. chestnut oak. arnl hickonc� I he diad) 1p er vv hen prc,�cnt consist of :,a,�,af gas. -,v Act rill (/,Ic/ca il'ilo iola ). nine -hal -k t l'hl `, ;% i, pi ti I,j' (1 ,,ohll w ). hinge like ( ( h u11 Inth", l /! "ill!c' n k Anil shIuhhv Sl.-Johns-vcurt (llrliciitIon irniinc" include [lie IZtlrc vciiovy h(mcV'Sticklc(l,mo( 'cra%l(I1'a).�_'ICCnllll l (.1/1;'I��11 �'�u71C! i)riAI.1)oi oil IAV, \" ginkicrcchel. 1110IIi;i WO Inc. and vi gin's bosvcr(C7cnwis l it<,iili�nut). 1 let!),) occuralong the of rack �,urt'acc�, unci on soil mats scattered across the ruck surface. Common herhs present inchldc ruck ,pikcnios�, (Sc/a��ir,c'Ila rrilxsn cs j, woolly l iptcrn I hcihuilhc.s lomcnlns(i), Go(l hc} 's thoriitlghvwI-t h:lilulinriirni �,'od vvanunt), Appalac'hi,ul bcllvvort amp,iilula r/itarlcat(1). tanictlowcr (l'olintml Icrcii oUloo. Smalls raywort (l'uclscru unrnnwa ). tlovv ci nq, >pur,'_,e t l.iilihurbla (orollaia). l iI -cv er (.Scdhnn (cicphl"Ocs). hluc curls ( 1'richosk ImI (licholo/1niml h inui OchOw. lmlica (chain ). :WAzE11i.N 1 _. :D PRO11'_C i RO. uii lite hct5 iiU i.niil,it pliltl'etlt)Il. allU letilllentlal de\Copment is ongoing at scyeral locations vv ithin the site. I -lie steep rooky slopes arc proicctc(l tifonl human intrusion anci derelopnleni hccau�;e tiicv are mostly inacecssihle- -i he more moderate slopes are suhiect to being loguctl or becoming hoti"inn-, &I clopments. N,kTIJAL ('( Mid UNITIFS: Che,,mw Oak FciresI.: Lithe ('ove Forest. Rich Covc Forest. I)ry- Vc;ic Oak --I lickory Forest. Pirie -Oak I fcath, aimi l nvv Flcv;nion Rockv Stunmit. RAR11. PLANTS: ycll()w honeysuckle (1-oin(llama). G(idf-ev's thoroughvkoll (FlIpalol-ili)l s nc/Jicluntini), white IIisctte (Sis 'III(/m ni dichol"milun). clisscctc(i-leaf, Iag volt (Pac/ccra millcloliam), thin -pod wild \s line ind[go (B,I iiisiu ens), r\ppalachian noo(Ifcrn (11"(wdsin 11liluilachiana). 1:, rs blazing star I/ OM sqMirnrW). sweet vshitt irilliuni tlrillilari simile°). Plc(hnonthorsel)aIIII (Collins tahcroNa).:lppalacIIi.lII p)lcicn ImnnCr( I/Icrino,ow.s;?Iollis): 1V',Itch List wafer ash (PIcica Ii'ilolio). ( 'nolin't henlfock (7'sa"a c(11,01iiana). hairy mock-oran,-,c (Phil(ldclhhcr.s hir.cutlls). IOLHIdlcal'raDVOrt (Pa( /,c) obolcit(1). Virginia nlarblcscc(l (t)nusillodill l ii -iniumon), Small's bcaahonguc (I'cnsliwN"i wcrNo, an Ise ng, (Iuin,iuclobli.$). vshitelcaf stuIll ovscr (//cliaiIN] as glaeicolJlil,l11I turkcv+carol grass (Xcrulihl HIIm (Ispllodcluiilcs). IllOtIntain hackhcnx KWit wccirhv"aUs). w,1 spic,IeIII1 , ',II) poaonia ( (Itis ics hilmia). RARE ANIMALS: Tinlher ratt)csnake I t 'I,, pilin h,)irieilisI Ri: 'AI i1, 1XIL'NCi.`i; \lOv e. A`v S. 200-1. Rare pl;uu', of iic HIIIIc 1 ract Kuthcrfi)r(I ('onim. North Carolina. i npubli"hccl data_ 0 xl Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Rutherford County, North Carolina Updated: 04-27-2006 Common Name Vertebrate: Cerulean warbler Eastern small -footed bat Green salamander Indiana bat Northern pine snake Southern Appalachian eastern woodrat Invertebrate: Vascular Plant: Blue Ridge Ragwort Butternut Dwarf -flowered heartleal' Granite dome goldenrod Gray's saxifrage Mountain catchfly Mountain heartleat' Small who rled pogonia Sweet pinesap White irisette Nonvascular plant: is Scientific name Federal Record Status Status Dendroica cerulea FSC Current Myotis leibii FSC Current Aneides aeneus FSC Current Myotis sodalis E Current Pituophis melanoleucus FSC Obscure melanoleucus FSC Historic Neotoma.foridana haematoreia FSC Current Packera millefolium FSC Current Juglans cinerea FSC Current flexastylis naniflora T Current Solidago simzdans FSC, Current Saxifr-aga caroliniana FSC Current Silene ovata FSC Historic Hexastylis contracta FSC Current Isotria medeoloides T Current Monotropsis odorata FSC Current Sisyririchium dichotomum E Current Definitions of Federal Status Codes: E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." P = proposed. A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened. C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing. (Formerly "Cl" candidate species.) FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and many of these species wereformerly recognized as "C2" candidate species. T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land. Definitions of "Record Status" qualifiers: Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years. Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain. Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat. Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both. • is NC NHP County Element Search Results Returned Elements: 85 using: RUTHERFORD ALL [Mammal 51 [Bird 3] [Reptile 31 [Amphibian 21 [Fish 1] [Crustacean 1] [Arachnid 1] [Insect 4] [Lichen 1] [Moss 1] [Vascular Plant 49] [Natural Community 14] Name Common Name State Federal State Global ----- - - County --- Map _ Ma or Group 1_. _ P Scientific _.. --------- - Status Status Rank - Rank - Status --- Habitat --- Mammal Myotis leibii Eastern Small -footed SC FSC SUB,S2N G3 Rutherford Current Link - Myotis Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis SC - SUB,S3N G4 Rutherford -Link Current Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana Myotis E E SUB,SZN G2 Rutherford - Current Link - Eastern Woodrat - Rutherford - Mammal Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian SC FSC S3 G5T4O Current Link Population Mammal Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield Mouse SR - S1 G5 Rutherford - Historic Link - Bird Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SR FSC S2B,SZN G4 Rutherford - Current Link - Bird Falco peregrines Peregrine Falcon E S1B,S2N G4 Rutherford - Current Link Bird Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SC S38,S3N G4T4 Rutherford Current Link ludovicianus Reptile Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC S3 G4 Rutherford - Current Link - Reptile Liochlorophis vernalis Smooth Green Snake SC SH G5 Rutherford - Historic Link Reptile Pituophis melanoleucusRutherford Northern Pinesnake SC FSC S3 G4T4 Obscure Link melanoleucus Amphibian Aneides aeneus Green Salamander E FSC S2 G3G4 Rutherford - Current Link Amphibian Plethodon yonahlossee pop 1 Crevice Salamander SC S1 G4T1O Rutherford -Link Current Fish Cyprinella zanema pop 1 Santee Chub - Piedmont SR = S3 G4T3O Rothe Link Population ford Crustacean Cambarus lenati Broad River Stream S R S2 G1G2 Rutherford Current Link Crayfish Arachnid Hypochilus coylei a lampshade spider SR S3? G3? Rutherford - Current Link Insect Celastrina neglectamajor Appalachian Azure SR S3? G4 Rutherford - Current Link - Insect Erynnis martialis Mottled Duskywing SR S3 G3G4 Rutherford - Current Link Insect Homoeoneuria cahabensis aba Sand -filtering SR S1 S2 G2 Rutherford - Current Link Ma yfly Rutherford - Insect Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary SR FSC S3 G3 Current Link Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen T E S2 G2 Rutherford - Current Link Moss Bartramidula wilsonii Dwarf Apple Moss SR -D S1 G4? Rutherford - Historic Link VascularRutherford Amelanchier sanguines Roundleaf Serviceberry SR -P S2 G5 - Current Link Plant VascularRutherford Amorphs schwerinii Piedmont Indigo bush SRT S3 G3 Current Link - - Plant VascularRutherford Arabis patens Spreading Rockcress SR -T S1 G3 Current Link Plant VascularRutherford Asplenium pinnatifidum Lobed Spleenwort SRP S1 G4 Current Link Plant Vascular Baptisia albescens Thin -pod White Wild Indigo SR -P S2 G4 Rutherford - Historic Link is Plant Vascular Berberis canadensis American Barberry SR -T S2 G3 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Botrychiwn jenmanii Alabama Grape -fern SRP S1 G3G4 Rutherford Link Plant Current VascularRutherford Calamagrostis porteri Porter's Reed Grass SR -P S1 G4 Link Plant Current Vascular Calystegia catesbeiana ssp Blue Ridge Bindweed SR -T S3 G3T2T3Q Rutherford - Link Plant sericata Current Vascular Cardamine dissecta Dissected Toothwort SR -P S2 G4? Rutherford - Link Plant Historic --- Vascular Carex biltmoreana Biltmore Sedge SR -L S3 G3 Rutherford Link Plant Current - Vascular Cirsium carolinianum Carolina Thistle SR -P S1 G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Current -- Vascular Collinsonia tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm SR -P S1 G3G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Coreopsis latifolia Broadleaf Coreopsis SRT S3 G3 Rutherford Link Plant Current - Vascular Dicentra eximia Bleeding Heart SR -P S2 G4 Rutherford Link Plant Current -- Vascular Dodecatheon meadia var Eastern Shooting Star SR -P - S2 G5T5 Rutherford Link Plant meadia Current - Vascular Draba ramosissima Branching Draba SR -P S2 G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current - - Vascular Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower SR -P S1 G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Historic - Vascular Eupatorium godfreyanum Godfrey's Thoroughwort SR -P S1 G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Fothergilla major Large Witch -alder SR -T S2 G3 Rutherford Link Plant Current - Vascular Helianthus laevigatus Smooth Sunflower SR -P S2 G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot SR -P S2 G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Current -- Vascular Hexastylis nanifiora Dwarfflowered Heartleaf T T S2 G2 Rutherford Link Plant Current Vascular Huperzia appalachiana Appalachian Fir-clubmoss SRP S2 G4G5 Rutherford Link Plant Current ---- Vascular Huperzia porophila Rock Fir-clubmoss SR -P S2 G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Isoetes piedmontana Piedmont Quillwort T S1 G3 Rutherford - Current Link Plant --- Vascular Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia E T S1 G2 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star SR -P S1 G4G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Liatris microcephala Small -head Blazing Star SR -P S1 G3G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current - Vascular Liatris squarrulosa Earle's Blazing Star SR -P S2 G4G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Liatris turgida Shale -barren Blazing Star SR -T S2 G3 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Lilium canadense ssp editorum Red Canada Lily SR -P S1 G5T4 Rutherford - Obscure Link Plant - Vascular Liparis loeselii Fen Orchid SRP S1 G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Historic -- - Vascular Lonicera flava Yellow Honeysuckle SR -P S2 G5? Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Matelea decipiens Glade Milkvine SR -P S2 G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Historic - Vascular Minuartia uniflora Single -flowered Sandwort E S1 G4 Rutherford - Link Plant Current -- 0 Vascular Monotropsis odorataSweet Pinesap SR -T FSC S3 G3 Rutherford - Link Plant Current -- Vascular Packera millefoliumDivided leaf Ragwort T FSC S2 G2 Rutherford - Link Plant Current Vascular Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak SR -P SH G5 Rutherford - Link Plant Vascular Historic Rutherford Rhynchospora alba Northern White Beaksedge SR -P S2 G5 - Link Plant Current Vascular Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild -petunia SR -O S2 G3? Rutherford - Link Plant Historic - Vascular Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina Saxifrage SR -T FSC S2 G2 Rutherford - Link Plant Current - Vascular Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap SR -T - S1 G3 Rutherford - Link Plant Current -- Vascular Plant Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly SRT FSC S3 G2G3 Rutherford - Link Historic - Vascular Sisyrinchium dichotomum White Irisette E E S2 G2 Rutherford Link Plant Current - Vascular So/idago simulans Granite Dome Goldenrod SR -L S1 G1 Rutherford - Link Plant Current - Vascular Thermopsis mollis sensu stricto Appalachian Golden SR -P - S2 G3G4O Rutherford Link Plant banner Current - Vascular Trichophorum cespitosum Deerhair Bulrush SR -D - S2S3 G5 Rutherford Link Plant Current - - Vascular Trillium simile Sweet White Trillium SR -L - S2 G3 Rutherford Link Plant Current Natural Acidic Cove Forest S5 G5 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Canada Hemlock Forest S5 G5 Rutherford - Link Community Current Natural Carolina Hemlock Bluff S2 G2G3 Link Current Natural Chestnut Oak Forest S5 G5 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Dry Mesic Oak --Hickory Forest S5 G5 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Granitic Flatrock S2 G3 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Low Elevation Granitic Dome S1 G2 Link Current Natural Low Elevation Rocky Summit S2 G2 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Montane Acidic Cliff S3 G4 Rutherford - Link Community Current Natural Montane Oak --Hickory Forest S5 G5 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Montane Red Cedar -Hardwood Rutherford - Community Woodland Si? G? Current Link Natural Community pine--Oak/Heath S4 G5 Rutherford - Link Current Natural Rich Cove Forest S4 G4 Rutherford Link Community Current Natural Spray Cliff S3 G2 Rutherford Link Community Current NC NHP database updated: January, 2004. Search performed on Friday, 8 December 2006 @ 13:53:59 EST Explanation of Codes 0 „ DLLORME 61°49.000' W 81048.000' W WGS84 81°47.000' W � IN CD r F9rk o elS FltLn �tj /�✓� jj ,/ G' 1 i IM PFuiECT,ITE o ., Q. 4 / l i \/ -,�; M 1 tai !f i �..� M / V .H �\ \, rte' 81°49,000' W 81°48.000' W WGS84 81047.000' W 11111 q Tll 0 .5 1 MILE ;•s� V 1000 FEET 0 500 1000 METERS Map created with TOPOI@ @2003 National Geographic(wury.natioralgeognphic.condtopo) CLEARWATER The Ridge at South Mountain Environmental Consultants, Inc. Rutherford County 718 Oakland Street USGS Topographic Map North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 2 828-698-9800 0' 0 1, u 0 IYI Itil I I G'� 84 u 1 , ;' i 3 h -II -'T TId {I _5 I E -i{ 1000 FEET 1) 1000 htiETE{� I',-Iap create,3 with TC1P1� tai 17D2 0 t'Tatir_l> cil I_TeC aPIuc I v,,7,,7,'.niti� �rrjl� I _iar-11, ..� om.ftr_�IWC1'I The Ridge at South Mountain Rutherford County North Carolina CLLARWATLR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, NC 28791 Habitat Map Figure 3 • L31 ,I 11':-1 01 %'GSIC 4 L' '.00 `,v X �� 1 i 'tiv-'f 1 F .�� "� .. _ 1�, �I .4 1 ac ✓ '_ � Vii,•+..�'": r flj rJ "xT' , t i y r t r` r t t Ste' s•. J Js i -ti ='o i ia. _ �f rr f Tr•1 q 1 t� A 1~i- -�T j'pr �� .^ i1 ., •� •,� '_,7 4 'i� \ � � i til 5 � ; Y ti C � ' T S � _--^1 - " i 'rr ! 9}R :,* �'�: r t t ^. y (s r 4' i •^s r.I.. �J1, NA. - \X .- • t `--, � i. t'c' r ! �. i 5 "' ! s. is � 7 >< "y,, (' �'. �1� { �' v'' a "tom � r� =,� i 5;. { � � 't R ru!•t I • -J � � rF rte' -"" �• � " v, a .. _= f Pft 2EC r.-- 4. i "`_'� �^ ' t � �—=a ' s � f '�'- . f 'i '�. •' y� ctrl f ,-'� fi ", J � ti; 1! d •r1 �� e ,,tom � � � \, � - f � � tr/ l `' � ,.y / l' . ' \'`�� l:� v` f '", " Y) �' If !� —) f j j•y ':� r '< _'�F•'' Y,� I•`. {/�\=i �•� r :.;� ":-�.1 _.' t 1 '. J - .� yr ", _' f 4 ..i ty,+ ` lJ a a / ` 1 .! f3J"•'.�i.i)Cti7' 4`�' -, 4Y Ct�.C'' b'i \4`l^+.t`.'1 �7 �I 0' '}'v ^5__.a .�..,_',ILL 91 Jl:liliii 13nprmn:rsisi.h t7rG1};Q-k7.ir?Jntnwn...rr*m€fi fu�x-.s-nlrrmUj-�r-J".SJ'*r=1.r(lat,} CLEARWATER We Ridge at South Mountain Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS TOPO Rutherford County 718 Oakland Street Figure 4 North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28791 828-698-9800 CLEARWATER e Ridge at South Mountain Environmental Consultants, Inc. Soil Survey Map Rutherford County 718 Oakland Street North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 38791 Figure 5 823-693-9800 USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: d 0,j SO&A tAou -al)3 3. Date of evaluation: qOb I OL, 5. Name of stream:-W\'(\kMA ��OJ�K AD Vtyxw cge 7. Approximate drainage area: 30d OAC. es 9. Length of reach evaluated: Wo �T 11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. Latitude (ex. 34.872312): mer 2. Evaluator's name: C6en� Rldd�2 1 nna �%es-u, 4. Time of evaluation: W-15 RIM 6. River basin: )3f6o.a 8. Stream order: 4C -S -t 10. County: goAto-�C z . 12. Subdivision name (if any): \ ( no\)m-Ain Longitude (ex. -77.556611): Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo SPyyroads Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): 14. Proposed'channel work (if any 15. Recent weather conditions: 16. Site conditions at time of visit: SV(�(�V 1C�f0JC 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 If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1019. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: AS -0/6 Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural � % Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other 22. Bankfull width: (9' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): l"{ 24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: X 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): 59.5 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date �2- 11-1" OCD This channel evaluation form is intended to be lsoM only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in �athering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream uality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 5Ok �, I 49 t nese cnaractensucs are not assesses to coasta► streams. W # CHARACTERISTICS = ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal °. Piedmont, . :`Mountain i Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream (no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = maxpoints) 0-5 0-4 , 0-5 3 5 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 extensive alteration — 0• no alteration = maxpoints) 0-5 0-5 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 5 no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints) 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 extensive discharges = 0• no;discharges = maxpoints) 0-4 0-4 a Groundwater discharge U5 no discharge = 0; s rin s, sees wetlands, etc. = max points)0_ 0-4 0-4 0-4 4 Presence of adjacent floodplain vi. no floodplain = 0; extensive'flood lain = maxpoints) 0-4 0-4 0-2 1 '/ Entrenchment / floodplain access '0-2 (deeply entrenched = 0- frequent floodin = max points) 0-5 0-4 0 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands no wetlands = 0;' lar a adjacent wetlands = max points 0-6 0-4 0-2 O 9 Channel sinuosity extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0— 4 0— 3 O 10 Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 extensive deposition= 0• little or.'no sediment = max points) 2 11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA* 0 — 4 0 —5 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening " (deeply incised-- 0; stable'bed & banks = max oints 0-5 0 — 4� 0 — 5 3 Presence,of major bank failures � ra•+ severe erosion = 0; no erosion; stable banks = max' points) 0 — — 5' 0 — 5- 'Root depth and density on banks no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints) 0-3 0-4' 0—S 15 Impactby.agriculture; livestock, or timber production substantial impact =0;, no evidence = maxpoints) 0 — 5 0 — 4 0-5 Z 16'.. Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 5 no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed —'maxpoints) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6, 6 0-6 0-6 little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats — maxpoints) Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5` no shadin vegetation ='D; continuous canopy = max oints 0-5 19 Substrate embeddedness NA*< 0-4 0-4 2 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 >1 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = maxpoints) 0 21 Presence of amphibians 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 2 O no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max points) 22 Presence of fish 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)O 23 Evidence of wildlife use `points) 0-6 0 — 5 ` 0 — 5 Q (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max Total Points Possible 100 - 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page): 49 t nese cnaractensucs are not assesses to coasta► streams. W USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET - Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1. Applicant's name: 2. S(11� �(i 2. Evaluator's name: C`iP1n� �{jd(j�e �hn(A Sp�Z�jfJT� 3. Date of evaluation: Gi I UL( 4. Time of evaluation: U : 3 U Qm 5. Name of stream: kn''�J�� Al) '�4)UMA (.tick 6. River basin: Y)crraCA 7. Approximate drainage area: 360 GUMS 8. Stream order: 4�� 9. Length of reach evaluated: 'my-F 10. County: �v e�Cot 11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): G� �p��'{nbXftin Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. —77.556611): Method location determined (circle): GPS T�near et Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other 13. Location of reach under evaluation (note roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): ��e Fia�r�S I n nd Cik� A�, 14. Proposed channel work (if any): 15. Recent weather conditions: �kw\N C �£Ak- 16. Site conditions at time of visit:__ '�k"f\ � Ckeak- 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 (9 If yes, estimate the water surface area: •19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO 21. Estimated watershed land use: _L�_% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural �5 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( 22. Bankfull width: 1-{ 1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): S 1 24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) %Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%) 25. Channel sinuosity: X 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): -12 Comments Evaluator's Signature U Date 12- H -0b This channel evaluation form is intended Po Ve used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in athering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream 40- uality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Sk 4 2 These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. Notes on Characteristics Identified in Assessment Worksheet • 1. Consider channel flow with respect to channel cross-sectional area (expected flow), drainage area, recent precipitation, potential drought conditions, surrounding land use, possible water withdrawals, presence of impoundments upstream, vegetation growth in channel bottom (as indicator of intermittent flow), etc. 2. Human -caused alterations may include relocation, channelization, excavation, riprap, gabions, culverts, levees, berms, spoil piles adjacent to channel, etc. 3. The riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the floodplain. Evaluation should consider width of riparian area with respect to floodplain width, vegetation density, maturity of canopy and understory, species variety, presence of undesirable invasive species (exotics), breaks (utility corridors, roads, etc.), presence of drainage tiles, logging activities, other disturbances which negatively affect function of the riparian zone. 4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges includes pipes, ditches, and direct draining from commercial and industrial sites, agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, swimming pools, roads, parking lots, etc. Sewage, chlorine, or other foul odors, discolored water, suds, excessive algal growth may also provide evidence of discharge. 5. Groundwater discharge may be indicated by persistent pools and saturated soils during dry weather conditions, presence of adjacent wetlands, seeps, and springs feeding channel, reduced soils in channel bottom. 6. Presence of floodplains may be determined by topography and the slope of the land adjacent to the stream, terracing, the extent of development within the floodplain, FEMA designation if known, etc. 7. Indicators of floodplain access include sediment deposits, wrack lines, drainage patterns in floodplain, local stream gauge data, testimony of local residents, entrenchment ratio, etc. Note that indicators may relic and not a result of regular flooding. 8. Wetland areas should be evaluated according to their location, size, quality, and adjacency relative to the stream channel, and may be indicated by beaver activity, impounded or regularly saturated areas near the stream, previous delineations, National Wetland Inventory maps, etc. (Wetlands must meet criteria outlined in 1987 delineation manual and are subject to USACE approval.) 9. Channel sinuosity should be evaluated with respect to the channel size and drainage area, valley slope, topography, etc. 10. To evaluate sediment deposition within the channel consider water turbidity, depth of sediment deposits forming at point bars and in pools, evidence of eroding banks or other sediment sources within watershed (construction sites, ineffective erosion controls). In rare cases, typically downstream of culverts or dams, a sediment deficit may exist and should be considered in scoring. 11. When looking at channel substrate, factor in parent material (presence of larger particles in soil horizons adjacent to the stream), average size of substrate (bedrock, clay/silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc.), and diversity of particle size (riprap is excluded). •12. Indications of channel incision and deepening may include a v -shaped channel bottom, collapsing banks, evidence of recent development and increased impervious surface area resulting in greater runoff in the watershed. 13. Evaluation should consider presence of major bank failures along the entire reach under evaluation, including uprooted trees on banks, banks falling into channel, formation of islands in channel as they widen, exposed soil, active zones of erosion, etc. 14. Increased root depth and density result in greater bank stability. Consider the depth and density that roots penetrate the bank relative to the amount of exposed soil on the bank and the normal water elevation. 15. Assessment of agriculture, livestock, and/or timber production impacts should address areas of stream bank destabilization, evidence of livestock in or crossing stream, loss of riparian zone to pasture or agricultural fields, evidence of sediment or high nutrient levels entering streams, drainage ditches entering streams, loss of riparian zone due to logging, etc. 16. Riffle -pool steps can be identified by a series of alternating pools and riffles. Abundance, frequency, and relative depth of riffles and pools should be considered with respect to topography (steepness of terrain) and local geology (type of substrate). Coastal plain streams should be evaluated for the presence of ripple -pool sequences. Ripples are bed forms found in sand bed streams with little or no gravel that form under low shear stress conditions, whereas, dunes and antidunes form under moderate and high shear stresses, respectively. Dunes are the most common bed forms found in sand bed streams. 17. Habitat complexity is an overall evaluation of the variety and extent of in -stream and riparian habitat. Types of habitat to look for include rocks/cobble, sticks and leafpacks, snags and logs in the stream, root mats, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, pool and riffle complexes, wetland pockets adjacent to channel, etc. 18. Evaluation should consider the shading effect that riparian vegetation will provide to the stream during the growing season. Full sun should be considered worst case, while good canopy coverage with some light penetration is best case. 19. Stream embeddedness refers to the extent that sediment that has filled in gaps and openings around the rocks and cobble in the streambed. The overall size of the average particle in the streambed should be considered (smaller rocks will have smaller gaps). 20. Evaluation should be based on evidence of stream invertebrates gathered from multiple habitats. Scores should reflect abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity of stream invertebrate types. (see attached examples of common stream invertebrates on page 4). 21. Evaluation should include evidence of amphibians in stream channel. Tadpoles and frogs should receive minimum value, while salamanders, newts, etc. may be assigned higher value. 22. Evaluation of fish should consider the frequency and, if possible, the variety of different fish taxa observed. �3. Evaluation of wildlife should include direct observation or evidence (tracks, shells, droppings, burrows or dens, hunting stands, evidence of fishing, etc.) of any animals using the streambed or riparian zone, to include small and large mammals, rodents, birds, reptiles, insects, etc. Common Stream Invertebrates • Sensitive Taxa — Pollution sensitive organisms that may he found in anod n1inlitv xvntpr 0 0 %-'aaalsily mayny Stonetly L Kittle Beetle Water Penny Gilled Snail Dobsonfly Somewhat Tolerant Taxa — Somewhat nollution tniernnt nrannkm-, that may hi- fAiind ;n rrrNnA nr .4 tseetie Larva clam Sowbug Cranefly r /666 urayrisn Uamseltly Nymph Scud Dragon Fly Nymph Tolerant Taxa — Pollution tolerant organisms that may e found in any quality water. a 131acktly Larva Leech Midge Fly Larva • Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail 4 tseetie Larva clam Sowbug Cranefly r /666 urayrisn Uamseltly Nymph Scud Dragon Fly Nymph Tolerant Taxa — Pollution tolerant organisms that may e found in any quality water. a 131acktly Larva Leech Midge Fly Larva • Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail 4 UELORME L:,-" ,IS ; ,o' w WC504. 01°47.000' W 1 i € y � 4�• f/ %��r a — - ' Fri°; (i 4 ,��1 e.5J .,, _ I I J v , f r 1,(• ,�.r „_„"ri--.-..✓rj,f^t _. wk � �.y� ' Yrt � ` _ ��tt�73 t-w'.� / _ I 3. I J; ', L ti's (' � i `� ' 4 t � � 1 _+f �`4. 11 1.�,'""-i• t-- � 0 u� S f r 1 �77'o I ' t h / , I I _ t i i -4 i .I i J Ir 1 •1 �ti `, •9 f • `` 1 1 yl 81°49.000` w 8'1'48.600' V! AYGSU4 02147.003' W UILL omWIfNi N1.p r .? -.I with rOP019 nM33 Na1b.JCr ,pnphk(cc.a-.v:nMmlFp�,Yri&r.:r.Try14p6} CLEARWATER Ohe Ridge at South Mountain Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS TOPO Rutherford County 718 Oakland Street North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 2 828-698-9800 • TRC September 22, 2006 Mr. Clement Riddle C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 718 Oakland Street Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 Re: Cultural Resource Literature Review for a 300 -Acre +/- Tract in Golden Valley, Rutherford County, North Carolina Dear Mr. Riddle: TRC has completed a background cultural resources literature review for a 300 -acre +/- tract in Golden Valley in Rutherford County, North Carolina. The tract is located in the uplands surrounding an unnamed drainage, northeast of Forest City and west of the small community of Cooper Springs (Figure 1). METHODS The background research included examination of the following materials for an area extending approximately one mile in radius around the project area: • • National Register and historic structures files at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office; • Archaeological site files and reports at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA); is • North Carolina cemetery survey maps at the North Carolina State Archives; and • Historical maps and other materials at the UNC -Chapel Hill North Carolina Collection, the North Carolina State Archives, and similar repositories. No field visit was conducted. I_f7�11i1111_K A review of site files and records at the OSA, SHPO, and Archives revealed no recorded archaeological sites or historic structures within the proposed project area or a one -mile radius around it. There also are no recorded cemeteries within or adjacent to the tract. Two church cemeteries (the Mt. Harmony Baptist Church Cemetery and the Cooper Springs Congregational Holiness Cemetery [http://www.rfci.net/ wdfloyd]) are located nearby (see Figure 1), but both are well outside the tract. The absence of recorded prehistoric archaeological sites on the tract reflects the lack of previous investigation, and there remains moderate potential for prehistoric sites on parts of the tract. Based on previous investigations in the North Carolina Mountains, such sites are most likely located on relatively level landforms (exhibiting 15% or less slope) and in proximity to streams, such as terraces and benches along the stream that bisects the southern part of the tract. Other specialized site types might also be present, however, including rock shelters. Some such sites could potentially be eligible for the NRNP, but it is extremely unlikely that they are present in sufficient size or quantity to hinder development in the area. 50101 Governors Drive, Suite 250 • Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517 Main: 919-530-8446 Fax: 919-530-8525 www.tresolutions.com Historic period maps were examined to determine the potential for historic period archaeological sites on • the tract. The oldest of these (Figure 2) dates to 1924 (Jurney et al. 1928); subsequent maps date to 1927 (Figure 3; Carpenter 1927) and 1938 (Figure 4; NCSHPWC 1938). Overall, it is apparent from all three maps that most past occupation in the area has occurred to the southeast, along the larger valley along Robinson Creek and along the main road. Although the historic maps are somewhat difficult to correlate, the 1924 map and possibly the 1938 map show a structure within the project area, at approximately the same location as the structure shown on the current USGS map (the 1938 map scale has been problematic; the structure depicted most likely is the same one as is on the property, however it could also be another building located farther to the north). Rutherford County property records and the accompanying GIS map for this property show that this dwelling house remained standing as of the 2005 property evaluation (Rutherford County GIS 2006). The building, specifically described as a "dwelling" in the property records and not a shed or barn, is valued at only $2,000 and is unoccupied; most likely indicating an unused and/or dilapidated older structure. The 2005 aerial map of the site (Rutherford County GIS 2006) also shows at least two large buildings along with a few smaller outbuildings and a network of roads, corresponding to those seen on the USGS and historic maps. At this time, it is not possible to assess the potential significance of the structure shown on the historic maps without additional data. Based on property records, it is possible that this building remains standing, but no detailed description of the structure is available. If the building has not been extensively modified and is not in a completely disintegrated state (the 2005 property card describes it as "DWL SOUND VALUE" [Rutherford County GIS 2006]), it is possible that it could be significant based on architectural features. It is also possible, although perhaps less likely, that associated archaeological remains could be NRNP -eligible. • The historic cemetery records for Rutherford County are incomplete, and it is possible that unmapped cemeteries are present in the project tract. Any such cemeteries would likely be small, however, and could either be avoided during development or relocated in accordance with North Carolina cemetery statutes. • CONCLUSIONS The literature search has identified no previously recorded archaeological sites or historic structures within the proposed project tract. The absence of prehistoric archaeological sites is primarily a reflection of the lack of previous investigations, however, and there is moderate potential for prehistoric sites on parts of the tract. Some such sites could potentially be eligible for the NRNP, but it is extremely unlikely that they are present in sufficient size or quantity to hinder development in the area. There is also some potential for historic period archaeological sites on the tract, including at the location indicated on the 1924 and 1938 maps. Any such sites that retain subsurface integrity could potentially be eligible for the NRNP, but are unlikely to significantly hinder development in the area. It is also possible that the historic structure located on the project tract could be determined NRNP -eligible based on architectural qualities, if it remains standing today. Finally, it is also possible that one or more small, unmapped cemeteries are present, especially in the vicinity of the structure. Any such cemeteries would require protection or relocation under North Carolina cemetery statutes, but are extremely unlikely to hinder development in the area. 2 TRC • I hope that this information is useful and meets your needs. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (9 19) 530-8446, or via email at holsonotresolutions.com, if you have any questions or comments about this report. We will be glad to assist your office with any additional investigations that may be necessary for this project. Sincerely, Heather L. Olson, M.A., RPA Archaeologist REFERENCES Carpenter, R.E. 1927 Map of Rutherford County, North Carolina. R.E. Carpenter, Engineer, Cliffside, N.C. Jumey, Robert C., Samuel F. Davidson, William A. Davis, and William D. Lee 1928 Soil Survey of Rutherford County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. NCSHPWC (North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission) , 1938 Rutherford County, North Carolina. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission, Raleigh • Rutherford County GIS 2006 Rutherford County GIS, Tax Pin 1012290. Electronic document, hqp://arcims.webais.net/nc/ rutherford/default.asp, accessed 21 September 2006. 3 TRc