20100599 Ver 1_401 Application_20100710

Wolf Cree
ENGINEERING
July 21, 2010
Mr. Ian McMillian
401 Coordinator
NC DWQ, 401 /Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: Ochlawaha Bog Restoration
Section 401 Permit
Mr. McMillian,
Wolf Creek Engineering, PLLC
Engineering an4 Environmental Consulting
PAI

20100599
IR
JUL 2 3 2010
DENR - WATER WALITY
WETIANCS AND STORW. ATER BRANCH
The Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy (CMLC) is seeking approval from the
NCDWQ for a Section 401 Permit for construction of the Ochlawaha Bog Restoration
Site (the Site) in Henderson County, North Carolina. A portion of the Site includes the
Ochlawaha Bog Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA), which provides habitat for
the federally and state endangered Bunched Arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata), one of
the rarest plants in North Carolina. The species is declining across its range and only a
small, remnant population survives at the Site. CMLC has been working in coordination
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina Plant
Conservation Program (NCPCP) to protect and restore suitable habitat for this valuable
resource.
Funding for the proposed restoration efforts has come from the EPA 319 Grant Program
and from the US Fish and Wildlife Service which has a contract with CMLC to use
ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) Funds through the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program.
CMLC has contracted with Wolf Creek Engineering to provide design and construction
oversight services for the implementation of the restoration. The site design has been
developed in collaboration with the USFWS and the NCPCP. The construction plans,
which have been reviewed and approved by the USFWS and the NCPCP, are included as
an attachment to this permit application. The following is a brief description of the site
conditions and the proposed restoration efforts.
Project Location
The Site is located in the southern Appalachian mountains of western North Carolina, in
central Henderson County, approximately two miles south of downtown Hendersonville
(Figure 1). The approximate center of the Site lies at LAVLONG 035°17'23.60"N -
082°27'47.81"W. The Site drains to Mud Creek, a tributary of the upper French Broad
River (USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 06010105).
51 North Knob Lane - Weaverville, North Carolina 28787 - 828.658.3649 - www.wolfcreekeng.com
Property and Land Use
The Site includes several tracts of land owned by the State of North Carolina which are
under the stewardship of the NCPCP. Three of these tracts were previously owned by the
CMLC and were transferred to State ownership on March 31, 2010 (A copy of the deed
of transfer is attached to this application). Approximately 6.1 acres of the property are
forested and historically supported the swamp forest-bog complex natural community
designated as Ochlawaha Bog by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP). The remaining 27 acres (Ward Field) occupy a floodplain of Mud Creek and
according to local residents have historically been used for agricultural purposes for at
least the past 75 years (Figure 2).
Restoration Goals and Objectives
The primary goal of the Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Project is to restore the swamp
forest-bog complex (typic subtype) natural community that historically existed in this
locale, but is now estimated by NCNHP to be of fair or poor viability. Through such
efforts, the restoration project will improve and expand suitable habitat for the
endangered Bunched Arrowhead. Equally important is to provide for the protection and
support the recovery of the population of Bunched Arrowhead that currently exists at
Ochlawaha Bog SNHA.
The project objectives include the following:
• Increase groundwater level in the forested tracts to restore seep-fed hydrology to
the degraded swamp forest-bog community
• Increase groundwater level in Ward Field to restore wetland hydrology
• Restore stream and wetland morphology and hydrologic function in Ward Field
• Restore stream and wetland morphology and hydrologic function along the
Jankowski Tributary
• Construct depressional features that intersect groundwater and base flow
hydrology in order to provide proper flow regimes for Bunched Arrowhead
• Maintain existing Bunched Arrowhead `ditch' habitat as a refugium for the
species within the project site
• Transplant Bunched Arrowhead currently persisting within the Ward Ditch to
areas of restored hydrology
• Translocate and conserve ex-situ a portion of the existing Bunched Arrowhead
population at Ochlawaha Bog to the North Carolina Botanical Garden (University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), a Center for Plant Conservation participating
institution
• Restore native vegetation communities to Ward Field
• Eradicate exotic, invasive plant species
Protected Species
Bunched Arrowhead is endemic to a limited number of locations within Henderson
County, North Carolina and Greenville County, South Carolina. The species reportedly
occurred in Buncombe County, North Carolina, but has not been documented there for
the last 20 years. The proposed Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Site is one of a few known
sites that support Bunched Arrowhead. The species' recovery plan maintains that the
limited and specific habitat required by Bunched Arrowhead is the primary factor
determining the rarity of the species. Although environmental site conditions vary
among and between sites where Bunched Arrowhead occurs, according to Baxter et al.
(2007),
The Bunched Arrowhead appears to require a very specific habitat, growing only
in well shaded, hydrated soils fed by a constant source of fresh water (from a
stream or seep). Although saturation is a requirement, the plant appears to grow
only in environments free from substantial hydrologic disturbances and
fluctuations (e.g., flooding, drought). The plants like to grow in organic rich
(average 10% organic), sandy mucks in shallow (<5 cm deep), acidic (pH 4-5),
sodium mixed cation - bicarbonate waters with moderate levels of dissolved
oxygen (3 - 7 mg/L) and relatively low conductivities (20 - 50 /j S). The plant's
distinct and sensitive habitat requirements will make it particularly vulnerable to
changes in the hydrogeology and/or land cover from encroaching development.
Existing Conditions
The Site consists of two distinct areas, the forested portion which historically supported
the swamp forest-bog complex and the adjacent agricultural field (Ward Field) which is
within the floodplain of Mud Creek. Historical land-use practices have resulted in the
degradation of the swamp forest-bog complex and conversion of montane alluvial forest
to agricultural fields. Both natural communities are rare owing to the scarcity of flat, wet
sites in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Their rarity is also due to anthropogenic factors,
being located in accessible, low-elevation sites which are susceptible to logging or
agricultural activities. Most historic occurrences of these communities have been
destroyed or severely altered by draining, impoundment, or conversion to agricultural
fields.
The Site hydrology is heavily degraded due to many years of dredging of the agricultural
ditch (Ward Ditch) and due to runoff from a 20-50 year-old residential development
immediately upstream from the Site. Groundwater levels no longer sustain wetland
hydrology in the majority of the forested area or the agricultural field. The surviving
population of Bunched Arrowhead persists in the bottom of the dredged ditch where
continued survival is threatened by competitive aquatic and semi-aquatic species, and
potentially from prolonged inundation. According to NCNHP, the species historically
occurred within the degraded swamp forest community, but has not been observed at this
location for the past several years.
One main tributary and several seeps drain the sloped forested area of the Site into Ward
Ditch. The seeps have down-cut and incised to varying degrees in response to the
dredging of Ward Ditch. The dredging of Ward Ditch and the subsequent incision of the
tributaries has significantly contributed to the lowering of the groundwater level in both
the forested area and the agricultural field.
Wetland Determination
Two degraded wetland communities were identified and delineated with the project
boundaries by Equinox Environmental. The first area is along Seep 3 within the forested
area and consists of approximately 0.42 acres of swamp-forest bog complex. The lower
portion of this wetland is being negatively influenced by the drainage effect of Ward
Ditch. The second wetland area is adjacent to the lower end of Jankowski Tributary and
consists of approximately 0.52 acres of wetlands that is intermediate between a swamp-
forest bog complex and a montane alluvial forest. This area appears to have been a
degraded wetland feature that has recently recovered some of its groundwater hydrology
due to deposition and beaver impoundments in downstream reaches of Ward Ditch. A
complete report of the findings of the wetland investigations is included as an attachment
to this application.
Soils Investigation
The Henderson County Soil Survey (MRCS 1980) has two soil series mapped within the
Site boundary; Toxaway silt loam and Codorus loam, both characteristic of alluvial
floodplains. A soils investigation was performed by the Catena Group to determine if soil
conditions would support the proposed restoration activities. The investigation included
hand augered soil borings and visual observations at various locations in the forested area
and the agricultural field. A copy of the report of findings of the soils investigation is
included as an attachment to this application.
The soil within the forested area is hydric and is consistent with the Toxaway soil series.
There appears to be some degeneration in the top 12-20 inches of the A horizon that is
likely caused by the drainage effect of the seeps that have become incised. These
conditions have caused much of the organic matter to start to decay, resulting in a
degeneration of soil structure, accumulating masses of hemic material, and potentially
minor subsidence. Findings indicate that soil properties would be supportive of
restoration given that groundwater levels can be restored to historic levels.
The soil borings within Ward Field indicate various levels of disturbance, however, the
one recurring observation was that the soil was much more representative of the Toxaway
series than the Codorus series. All borings were determined to have a surface layer of fill
soil underlain by a historically hydric soil with a poorly to very poorly drained drainage
class. Findings indicate that soil properties in Ward Field would support wetland
restoration given that provisions can be made for removal of the overburden.
Restoration Methods
A portion of Ward Ditch will be completely backfilled and the adjacent area of Ward
Field will be excavated from 10 to 18 inches to remove the overburden of non-hydric
soils and expose the buried hydric soils. The topography will transition from seep-driven
to stream-fed swamp forest-bog complex with the community grading laterally to
montane alluvial forest. Natural channel design techniques will be employed to restore
channel morphology of a small stream (Ward Creek) that will collect the main tributary
and the seeps. Off-channel, stream-fed depressional areas, vernal pools, and wetlands
will be constructed along the corridor of the restored stream. Humic muck from Ward
Ditch will be salvaged for placement into these features to provide additional habitat for
the remaining Bunched Arrowhead.
The bed of the main tributary (Jankowski Tributary) will be raised to its historic grade
along the lower portion of its profile in order to restore groundwater hydrology to the
adjacent terrace. Log-sill grade control structures with impervious backfill and native
bed material will be used to establish and maintain the stream profile. Subsurface clay
dikes will be installed on the boundary of the restoration work to limit subsurface piping,
promote full saturation of the sub-soils, and reduce the draw-down effect from adjacent
lower elevations.
Depressional areas will be restored adjacent to the Jankowski Tributary to provide
optimum habitat for Bunched Arrowhead. These areas will be over-excavated and
partially refilled with stockpiled muck. Flow-control log structures will be installed to
route a small portion of base flow through the depressional areas providing cool, fresh
water to the Bunched Arrowhead habitat. The log structures are designed to route
sediment-bearing high flow past these off-channel areas, allowing for the retention of
muck and the protection of habitat.
Along the southern portion of Ward Field the ditch habitat will be maintained in its
existing condition by construction of a ditch across the field to Mud Creek. No efforts
will be made in this reach of Ward Ditch to restore groundwater hydrology or stream and
wetland habitat.
The North Carolina Botanical Gardens (NCBG), operated by the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, will be responsible for relocating the existing Bunched
Arrowhead population from Ward Ditch. Surveys for bunched arrowhead conducted
during 2010 noted only one individual plant within Ward Ditch. Because of a lack of
emergence of plants this year and concern that habitat degradation has significantly
impacted the population of bunched arrowhead in Ward Ditch, it is likely specimens will
be obtained offsite from other populations for propagation and reintroduction purposes.
Humic muck will be harvested and stockpiled from locations that are to be backfilled for
use in other components of the restoration efforts. Humic muck will be placed into the
newly constructed depressional areas to provide habitat for reintroduced plants and help
ensure survival of any plant stock remaining in the muck that may be dormant. In order
to reduce interspecific competition, mechanical and chemical invasive exotic plant
control will be conducted in the forested areas and along the edge of Ward Field.
Wetland and Stream Impacts
Temporary impacts to less than 0.005 acres of wetlands are unavoidable in order to install
in-stream structures and access the work proposed on Jankowski Tributary. Where in-
stream structures are required to be buried into the stream banks adjacent to wetlands,
temporary disturbance will be necessary. Efforts will be made to replace and restore
disturbed topsoil and re-establish native vegetation.
Unavoidable temporary stream impacts will occur on approximately 346 linear feet of
Jankowski Tributary in order to raise the bed of the channel and install the grade control
log-sills. Efforts will be made to minimize the impacts to the channel banks and where
disturbances occur bank stabilization techniques will be implemented to re-establish
native vegetation.
Approximately 1,154 linear feet of Ward Ditch will be backfilled in order to construct the
wetland and stream restoration in Ward Field. This stream footage will be replaced by
construction of approximately 697 linear feet of Ward Creek and by the extension of
Seep 3 of approximately 720 linear feet.
Summary
We anticipate that the immediate effects of the construction of this project will cause
ground disturbance due to the use of heavy equipment in the construction of the stream
and wetland restoration components. These activities are necessary to reverse the
extensive disturbance and degradation of the Site. The long term effects of the project
will result in an overall enhancement and restoration of wetland and stream functions and
critical habitat for the endangered Bunched Arrowhead. The site will be protected in
perpetuity through ownership by the State and stewardship by the NC Plant Conservation
Program.
Should you have any questions or if you require any additional information please feel
free to contact me at my office [phone] or on my cell phone [phone].
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Wolf Creek Engineering, plle
S. Grant Ginn, PE
President
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Site Photos
Wetland Determination Report
Soils Report
Deed Transfer
Construction Plans
2 0 1 0 0 5 9 9
o/???FryWjATF?9QG
olqii? -"?
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PC Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing ell
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? N Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Project
2b. County: Henderson
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Village of Flatrock
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: State of North Carolina c/o State Property Office
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Book # 1426, Page 056
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): NC Plant Conservation Program, Rob Evans
3d. Street address: 1321 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Project Sponsor
4b. Name: Kieran Roe
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
4d. Street address: 847 Case Street
4e. City, state, zip: Hendersonville, NC 28792
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: S. Grant Ginn, PE
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Wolf Creek Engineering, pllc
5c. Street address: 51 North Knob Lane
5d. City, state, zip: Weaverville, NC 28787
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.. [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN 9567685571
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.29138 Longitude: - 82.46308
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 26.73 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Mud Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: French Broad
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The proposed project is located on an agricultural field and adjacent forested tracts, all currently owned by the State of
North Carolina. Site streams exhibit significant erosion and down-cutting due, in part, to the dredging of a drainage ditch
bordering the agricultural field and to the continuing urbanization of the upstream watershed.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.94 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
2,614 linear feet (including 2,168 linear feet of agricultural ditch)
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to restore ecological function, natural stability, wetland hydrology, and aquatic and terrestrial
habitat to a historic swamp-forest bog complex and its hydrologically significant tributary.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will involve backfilling 1154 LF of agricultural ditch, construction of 697 LF of new stream, in-stream
enhancement/restoration of 346 LF of stream, construction of 5.62 acres of wetlands. Depositional sediment will be
harvested from the existing agricultural ditch for use as bed material in the restored reaches of stream. The harvested
bed material and in-stream structures will be installed to raise the profile of a tributary. Overburden will be excavated in
the agricultural field to expose historic hydric soils and create a low-gradient, wetland within which will be constructed an
E-type stream. The excavation of overburden will continue for several hundred feet upstream to connect a small seep-fed
wetland pocket to the proposed wetland restoration in the agricultural field. Spoil from the excavation will be used to
backfill the existing ditch along the entire length of the proposed wetland restoration in the agricultural field. Off-line pools
and habitat elements will be constucted within the wetland and tributary restoration reaches. Equipment anticipated for
construction efforts are track-hoes, skid-steer, and off-road dump trucks.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
t
i
l
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
projec
(
nc
uding all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Equinox Environmental
Name (if known): Sarah Marcinko, David Tuch Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Wetland determination report is attached.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? PH T construction Montain alluvial ® Yes ® Corps 0
005
access forest ? No ? DWQ .
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: Temporary impacts of weltands is necessary for installation of in-stream log structures.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - or
(PER)
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ®T Restoration UT (Jankowski ® PER ® Corps 7 346
Tributary) ? INT ® DWQ
S2 ®P ? T Fill UT (Ward Ditch) ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 12 1154
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: Ward Ditch is an abandoned agricultural ditch which provides little to no ecological function and lacks
morphological expressions. A portion of Ward Ditch will be backfilled to allow for the construction of Ward Creek and
associated wetlands.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Construction access will avoid all wetlands, only where placement of in-stream structures is required will stream bank and
minor wetland impacts occur.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Restoration of Jankowski Trib and the adjacent wetland hydrology in the forested area will be accomplished by raising the
channel bed in place and without reconstruction of the channel, minimizing the disturbance to the stream banks.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project will not increase runoff and
the drainage area has less than 24% impervious area.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ® No
Comments: US Fish and Wildlife is coordinating NEPA approval
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project is a stream and wetland restoration project. The site will be protected in perpetuity and will not result in future
or cumulative impacts.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater will be generated by the proposed project.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
US Fish & Wildlife Service
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NC Natural Heritage Program
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC State Historic Preservation Office
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? FZyes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: All fill activies occur outside of the FEMA Floodway and the
proposed impacts were modeled using HEC-RAS to verify there will be no impact on flood stages.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodmaps
S. Grant Ginn 7/20/10
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/A nt's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Site Photographs
D. Wetland Determination Report
E. Soils Report
F. Deed Transfer
G. Construction Plans
N??l
HENDERSON COUNTY
?tLAUR? '
PARS ..,..
FLAT
ROCK 05 1239 1127 \ R 1763 \ Q? .1
1759 \
/ o ^ 's c0 HerWerson-lilt Wix 779
'p -
RAd 1171 0 / \ \ \1758 17 1760 03 \ Airport
WAY
8 1170 \ 1 \ 175
1230 1172 i zs 1844 61 ?4
19184 759 qr 1920
1161 + 1162 1171 ' io \ \ VV
1127 1881
1160 s
\1270 1226 as •\- \ 1775 194
z, \ \\
1159 1882\ 18
1171 1164
A3 .05 R,. ! •\ \ , V 1950m 1781
1145 1162 1163,
605 1144 20 ,0 'cQ 1167 1169 17?2 1779 jY N 192
114 1222 $ a 1775
Cnopei • 4V ° J 1925 2
2104 1254 42 3 d^ ° 11166 inlnes •\ , 17818 $
- 7- 1168 \ ?? \ ?. 1782 '.'Ar a /
1 47 9 ` 1775 190 " 1te
st - 252 1164 12? zs3 1722 1884
.16 1266 1778 L `\ \ -?, IL?7 81 is
1166 °B
1140 ?e 229/ 0 ?. 1 1776 0 1955 „e 17
9 2160 1127 1164 1777 , ? Gospe
It 2161 ;q is... 1803 1785
1 : _yp s° rCreek d 1779/ 1784
O 1236 .17 %" Ch a _ - 1935 1780 .9
>s 1261 1783 1803
o-?n 1269 1264 1937 u r
2169 - 1818
?O 1263 ^ - - I164 . J 1783 1819 •\\ y
19 6 938 1817
7 1166 ll-k
1274 1268 1/ 2JK2 I 2133 8 2170
1783 10 178 0.2 0 0. 1820 19 11
? I 0.2 6 e\ .^ \
I Ce e er
SAE IN MILS 1821 1815 -
1Nol Creek Engineering
DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM SHEVI I E- ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
TAKE 1-240 WEST FROM DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE TO 1-28. LICENSE NO. P-0417
CONTINUE ON 1-26 EAST FOR 18.4 MILES TO EXIT 498 (US-64 WEST). 51 NORTH KNOB LANE WEAVERVILLE, NC 28787
TAKE EXIT 498 AND MERGE ONTO US-64 WEST (FOUR SEASONS BLVD.) TOWARDS HENDERSONVILLE. PHONE: [phone] WWW.WOLFCREEKENG.COM
AFTER 2.3 MILES TURN LEQ ONTO N. CHURCH STREET.
AFTER 0.6 MILES TURN SIGH[ ONTO KANUGA RD. PROJECT OCHLAWAHA BOG RESTORATION PROJECT
AFTER 1.0 MILE TURN I$ ONTO ERKWOOD DR. (COUNTY RD. 1164).
AFTER 0.4 MILES TAKE 3RD a& ONTO CHANTELOUP DR. (COUNTY RD. 1229) o"NER CAROLINA MOUNTAIN LAND CONSERVANCY
AFTER 0.1 MILES VEER SUE AT FORK. TITLE
AFTER AN ADDITIONAL 0.1 MILES, ACCESS TO SITE IS DRNEWAY BETWEEN TWO HOUSES ON IEEE VICINITY MAP
LAT/LONG COORDINATES FOR THE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ARE N 15.201 . W 82.46290.
sc" AS NOTED DR"N. BY CIIle PROJECT N0. DM111NG ll..
°?*E '7/14/2010 CR-. NY SGG 1044 FIGURE 1
m?
Nz
u
L j z? Fv
_? ,;muz
.L m a
v? "?oa
y d? am
S ? F
W 7 O a O
y ?z z
i z_a+ a a
v-iq0 ° z
? g ? h m o Z
O i x? x a
tm az Ll.
?_?? W
zzu¢ H
Y a O V ?
AP

W
a
n.
a
o
Milt
y
I
,a
Z w
X U

I wp
g

-A,
S
U
L
Ul }
OJ
az
Oz
a-w
am
zo
Qw
p J
C3 z
O
3Z
C7 Q
Z w
x
XO
w f-

'7?7
o?
0
4Z

? Y
N. ? ?'# J lY
fi t + y? C "? ? 'rr
l y

Ward Ditch - facing north 3/31/2010 Photo No. 2
Ward Field - facing southeast 8/7/2010 Photo No. 1
Ward Ditch - facing southeast 7/16/2010 Photo No. 3
DIs end of Jankowski Trib - facing U/s 7/16/2010 Photo No. 4
U/s Jankowski reference reach 7/16/2010 Photo No. 6
Eroded banks - U/s Jankowski Trib 7/16/2010 Photo No. 5
Seep 3 - facing U/s 7/16/2010 Photo No. 7
Wetland Determination
Of
Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Project
Prepared for
101 f C ree
ENGINEERING
Wolf Creek Engineering, pllc
51 North Knob Lane
Weaverville, North Carolina
Prepared by
EQUINOX
EN V I H0 N M ENTA 1.
Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
37 Haywood Street Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
June 16, 2010
1 Project Introduction
Wolf Creek Engineering (Wolf Creek) authorized Equinox Environmental Consultation
and Design, Inc. (Equinox) to perform a wetland determination for a portion of the
Ochlawaha Bog site in Henderson County, North Carolina.
Wolf Creek Engineering (Wolf Creek) has been contracted by the Carolina Mountain
Land Conservancy (CMLC) to pursue restoration opportunities for the project site, which
includes several tracts of land owned by CMLC, the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture's Plant Conservation Program (PCP), and Roy and Glenda Bentley, a private
landowner.
This report provides environmental documentation for the wetland restoration project.
An onsite routine wetland determination was performed for the project area on April
15, 2010 and June 11, 2010 by Sarah Marcinko, Equinox' staff botanist and plant
ecologist. David Tuch who is Equinox' Vice President and a registered landscape
architect with a background in plant and soil science also assisted with the wetland
determination on April 15, 2010.
A portion of the site includes the Ochlawaha Bog Significant Natural Heritage Area
(SNHA), which provides habitat for the federally and state endangered Bunched
Arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata), one of the rarest plants in North Carolina. The
species is declining across its range and only a small, remnant population survives at the
project area in a ditch adjacent to an agricultural field. The species was historically
reported within a wooded, extant occurrence of a swamp forest-bog complex natural
community adjacent to the agricultural ditch.
The primary goal of the Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Project is to restore the hydrology,
structure, and composition of the swamp forest-bog complex community that
historically existed at the site, but is now estimated to be of fair or poor viability by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). Through such efforts, the
restoration project will improve and expand suitable habitat for the endangered
Bunched Arrowhead. There are several seeps and a small tributary that drain from the
wooded section of the site into the agricultural ditch. Wolf Creek will have limited to no
impacts along the existing seeps, but plans to restore channel morphology to the small
tributary.
The project area is located off Chanteloup Lane (Co. Rd. 1229) in Hendersonville, North
Carolina. From Asheville, take 1-240 west to 1-26 east toward Hendersonville. Travel
approximately 19 miles and take exit 49B to merge onto 4 Seasons Blvd. /US-64 W.
Continue on US-64 for 2.5 miles and turn left at N. Church St. Travel 0.5 miles and turn
Wetland Determination 1
Equinox Environmental Consultation & Design, Inc.
right at Kanuga Rd. (Co. Rd. 1127) and continue approximately 1.0 mile before turning
left at Co. Rd 1164/Erkwood Drive. Chanteloup Lane is the third right and the project
area can be accessed at the end of Chanteloup Lane on the left.
2 Site Description
Most of the site, which is drained by Mud Creek, has been cleared for agriculture though
a small portion remains forested and the vegetation is characteristic of floodplain and
riparian forest communities (See Attachments: Aerial Photograph and USGS
Topographic Map). These communities are relatively degraded and low in biological
diversity. Wetlands were likely much more extensive at Ochlawaha Bog, but have since
been ditched and drained. According to local residents, the majority of the site has
been used for agricultural purposes for at least the past 75 years. During this time, a
drainage ditch was excavated along the eastern perimeter of the agricultural field
owned by CMLC and, until recently, was dredged every few years. Invasive exotic
shrubs and vines were abundant along the agricultural ditch and throughout the
forested section of the project area.
In addition, the surrounding watershed has undergone full suburban development,
which has increased impervious area and stormwater runoff, and has likely diminished
groundwater recharge at Ochlawaha Bog. Mud Creek no longer accesses its historic
floodplain and is effectively isolated from its terrace due to the construction of a 5 to 8-
foot levee on the western boundary of the agricultural field.
One tributary and several seeps drain the forested land owned by CMLC and the state of
North Carolina into the agricultural drainage ditch. The seeps have down-cut and
incised to varying degrees in response to the dredging of the ditch. High sediment loads
are being transported downstream and form sediment slugs along the drainage ditch.
This was particularly evident at the lower reaches of the main tributary. In an apparent
effort to arrest the head-cuts and restore groundwater levels, several check dams were
previously installed on some of these seepage areas. Depressional features were also
observed adjacent to the seeps and main tributary.
3 Wetland Determination
In accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual a routine
wetland determination was performed. According to Wolf Creek, the main tributary,
one of the seeps (Seep 3), and a portion of Ward Field will be impacted during the
construction phase of the restoration project. The main tributary and Seep 3 were the
Wetland Determination 2
Equinox Environmental Consultation & Design, Inc.
focus of the wetland determination as requested by the client and though wetlands may
occur in other areas on the site, they were neither evaluated nor delineated. Equinox
reviewed the following datasets of the project area:
• National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Henderson County 1980 soil survey
• North Carolina 2007 color aerial imagery
• North Carolina 2007 stream mapping data
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps for the Hendersonville quadrangle
in Henderson County (See Attachments)
• 2001 National Land Cover Database (North Carolina)
According to the Henderson County soil survey, the project area is primarily
characterized by Toxaway silt loam and Codorus loam soils, both of which are listed on
the national and county lists as either undrained, poorly drained, or frequently flooded
hydric soils. Furthermore, NWI data indicates the presence of 3.65-acre freshwater,
emergent wetland in Ward Field and adjacent to the western boundary of Ward ditch.
However, it appears the occurrence of this wetland is historic since aerial photograph
analysis, the USGS topographic map for the Hendersonville quadrangle, and land cover
data did not reveal any wetlands for this area.
In addition to analyses of the data resources listed above, an onsite field assessment
was conducted to verify and complement the offsite evaluation. Two representative
transects along the forested sections of the main tributary and Seep 3 were established
to identify the presence of wetland indicators and data forms were used to report the
findings (See Attachments, Soils Map). Several soil cores were taken throughout
portions of the Ward Field, but lack of indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation did not warrant additional sampling or the establishment of transects.
4 Results and Discussion
Seep 3
The plant community along Seep 3 is classified as a swamp-forest bog complex, which
occurs at sites with poorly drained bottomlands and visible microtopography of ridges
and depressions underlain by seasonally to semi-permanently flooded alluvial soils.
Seepage areas are often present in this community and because the ground is irregular,
relative wetness varies widely on a fine scale. One transect and three plots were
established across Seep 3 (See Attachments, Wetland Determination datasheets).
Hydrophytic vegetation was present in all plots across Seep 3 and primarily included
Acer negundo, Lindera benzoin var. benzoin, Viburnum dentatum, Acer rubrum, flex
Wetland Determination 3
Equinox Environmental Consultation & Design, Inc.
opaca var. opaca, Sambucus canadensis, and invasive species such as Ligustrum sinense
and Lonicera japonica. Taxonomic nomenclature follows Weakley (2008). Primary
wetland hydrology indicators were also documented along the transect in Seep 3,
including soil saturation in the upper 12 inches, wetland drainage patterns, and
inundation in depressional areas. In addition, Toxaway silt loam, which was mapped for
Seep 3 and most of the main tributary, is listed as a hydric soil on the Henderson County
soil survey and soil samples taken on site had a chroma value of 1 or less. Because Seep
3 meets the three mandatory diagnostic environmental conditions for wetland
determination and normal conditions exist, this area is a wetland and the boundary was
delineated using a handheld GPS unit and enumerated pin flags.
Tributary
The natural community along the site's main tributary draining into the existing ditch
was intermediate between swamp forest-bog complex and montane alluvial forest.
Flood-transported sediment provides nutrient inputs to the riparian forests, which is at
least intermittently flooded. Hydrophytic vegetation was recorded at two of the three
plots along this transect. Dominant species were Leucothoe fontanesiana, Acer
negundo, Rhododendron maximum, Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipifera, Smilax
rotundifolia, Woodwardia virginica, and Xanthorhiza simplicissima. However, a beaver
impoundment downstream along the existing ditch may have caused flooding and
sediment deposition at the mouth of the tributary. Although sediment deposits where
observed here, it is unclear whether they are an indicator of wetland hydrology or more
a consequence of inundation caused by the beaver impoundment. Hydrological wetland
indicators were absent from one plot along this transect. Soils are mapped as Toxaway
silt loam and had low chroma values, but soil samples taken during the onsite
assessment were not saturated and appeared to be somewhat well-drained. As a result
of these factors, it was initially determined that the site is not a wetland. However, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) verified the presence of a wetland in this area and
per USACE's request, additional sampling occurred further downstream on June 11,
2010 by Equinox' plant ecologist. Plant species composition was similar along this third
transect, but recent invasive exotic plant management removed considerable
vegetation, creating an atypical situation. Non-target effects were minimal and previous
plant species were probably indicative of hydrophytic vegetation.
Wetland Determination Summary
Atypical conditions exist for the Ward Field due to the removal of vegetation, but given
the land use history for the property and surrounding areas, the composition of
adjacent vegetation, and offsite data analyses, it is likely that hydrophytic vegetation
has not occurred at the site for some time. Wetlands were probably much more
extensive at the site before they were ditched, drained, and converted to agricultural
uses. It appears that soils in Ward Field and along the main tributary were historically
Wetland Determination 4
Equinox Environmental Consultation & Design, Inc.
hydric, but since groundwater levels no longer sustain wetland hydrology, most likely
because the site was ditched, water is draining more quickly through the site and the
upper 12 - 24" of soil have degenerated and become non-hydric. It is also likely the
tributary has become increasing channelized and no longer accesses its historical
floodplain or the swamp forest-bog complex. Equinox, however, will confirm the
validity of this determination with Tasha McCormick of the USACE.
The general area of Seep 3 is a wetland, though it is degraded due to land use
alterations and many years of dredging. The surrounding watershed has also undergone
suburban development, which has influenced decreases in groundwater recharge.
Depressional features still exist, but may have been historically inundated or saturated
for longer periods of time.
Similarly, wetland areas were probably better developed and more extensive along and
adjacent to the main tributary. Hydrological alterations have effectively eliminated
indicators of wetland hydrology and although soils have low chroma values, they are
considerably drier than the Toxaway silt loam series mapped for the area.
5 References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 1987.
Washington, D.C.
Weakley, A.S. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and
surrounding areas. 2008. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU). North
Carolina Botanical Garden. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, NC.
6 Attachments
• Aerial Photograph
• USGS Topographic Map
• Soils Map
• Wetland Determination datasheets
Wetland Determination 5
Equinox Environmental Consultation & Design, Inc.
EQUINOX
Wolf Creek Engineering
Ochlawaha Bog
Aerial Photograph
r1?11 ?,
a '.
- off Cree
e
ENGINEERING
V?AI? A5
1f'?3?`
M? ,.???s ?" rr.'J, G>d* air > I ?' ''v?- -9
.
N, 0
r<,. ` _ fi°'! erlrt'w7 .y „'' Ate.'a,j I(y ..aa ,Vy u+,+
2 a 4
t.,?y?? 1•f t,?,.. ,' '^a' ?My •,8,37. -C-?. g ..?
MAIN^TRIBUTARY
Y?l t
;? j ?•P ?? . *]:'Al. fix. , ? // ?.: ,.,t ?.. t / ? '? •! •.? ? u ??
y ? 8
k
A
r
a
It
. Bentley
?t
ii
lit,
? i
P ?
Ilk
04
if
r t +?? gp? y y A`
? AR
R #
St, t"
.. i• ,'
41.
I V,
` SEEP 2- Drs, far` r
Ya f ? ? . ? t
SEEP 1
Ochlawaha Parcels
•r ,t? NWI Wetlands
sa'? Existing Streams
R R 3 fP J ? „,.
r+ +? / V Existing Ditches
N
. ± 2007 Aerial Photograph
w E
his is not a survey and should
not be construed as such. S
0 125 250 500
,, h Feet
EQUINOX
III II\NI:NT 11.
vvuii LreeK uigmeermg
Ochlawaha Bog
USGS Topographic Map
Hendersonville Quadrangle
olfCree
ENGINEERING
f//,
`?i? • fr s ti` a `"•?, 7/(j r I } ,`} 1 .? t l 1?. f i / .?,. , I / ' .
• . ? = " y ? t F ! • ill S / / r II ? ? ?-?.: +L??.-. 1 ???'X r
f • i, n `? .. a E i 1 t_I r 4 ) fP 1'! I rr s t r- or tfl't 1.
? ?' j' _? ? ?'-• ,?rn-?- --" ? ' fly / -r .' J } / / Lr f - 11\\ _ i ? ? a f--,? J J?9 Y'-ai ? • ! ? ? 14! T/
y
t2
7
`' ' c. • ??? - \'`f ` ', { Ochlawaha Parcels
14. r'te' Tf i i ?
\ t i . ( F f y 1ao "" r r - `This is not a survey and should wi
not be construed as such.
s
?j`J(),/ 0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
EQUINOX
Wolf Creek Engineering
Ochlawaha Bog
Soils Map
-Q01 f C ree
ENGINEERING
Codorus loam (Co)
(hydric soil)
Hayesville loam (HyC)

Toxaway si loam (To)
(hydri soil)
4z??
Y
N
U
a
z
z l
SEEP 2
Edneyville z
fine
sandy andy loam (EdF) p x
` SEEP 1
Boundary
WI.
Transects
s
20' Contours
Existing Ditches
/ oo , o NWI Wetlands
Delineated Wetland
*This is not a survey and should
not be construed as such.
0 100 200 400
Feet
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION I,
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site ?J< (1 I n r.,.,I ?, « Y v ,• Date ?1 I1' i U
Applicant / Owner i, C'-" County lit I' l I . i ! , i
Investigator tt l f')0 y State r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO? Transect ID I
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES NO' Plot ID i
VEGETATION
V41' 1
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2 t. (ir. <? Ixi i 10
11
4 L c> t,1 c ? 1 r" 12
i
13
6 p 14
t 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) ! f `
r
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) W ETL

El Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indica
El Inu
El Aerial Photographs Q S
El Other ? W
? Dr
El No Recorded Data Available ? Se
FIELD OBSERVATIONS ? Dr
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indi
? Ox
W
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in)
? Lo

? FA
Depth to Saturated Soil (in) ? Ot
AND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
tors:
ndated
aturated in Upper 12 Inches
ater Marks
ift Lines
diment Deposits
ainage Patterns in Wetlands
cators (2 or more Required):
idized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
ater-Stained Leaves
cal Soil Survey Data
C-Neutral Test
her (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class: 6
Taxonomy (Subgroup)s li IV Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ( YES NO

Depth Horizon
inches PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ® Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
El. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YE,' NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? (YES, NO
Hydric Soils Present? YES NO
Remarks
DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Date
Applicant / Owner w t ( t ! t (, County t . I• < : ;,,
Investigator -10 Ve l.V 0 1 'Po ,*I, C ?1 ! C,t l,a 1 ti??, ;( t tAV, State p,l
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect lD i
Is the area a potential Prohlem /area? (if needed. explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 L ni,1 r (i 0 9
2 10
3 /\ r r t t a <? U it t ?J/ 11
4 i,)u uvf', <1(1 1eIut,?i 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 [16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ? Inundated
? Aerial Photographs Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
Drift Lines
? No Recorded Data Available ? Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit ? f ?(in) LJ Local Soil Survey Data

? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil ?? (in) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): LA/ ,,k 1 .1 I c ?a rF- Drainage Class: V,' vt,
Taxonomy (Subgroup) (v , I I c ?uvy,nJ ( r,, ., Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? j "YES NO
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
A. Iw r' 1t ? ? -

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime r? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions L':1 Listed on National Hydric Soils List
IR Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
! ?:.(/?1p??'? t, .;,.?(',?(air'?t?!??I?l1?o??? (r, ):'( 41?..??y??.??wlrt.?t
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? N NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hydric Soils Present? fES) NO
Remarks
DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site c ? Ia V,n (n a (- : , i-s Date t( / 'i l u
Applicant / Owner C., v Avg I <, , vt v? - til l S C Il ( i•? (5 County I ,t NllC F--" - f 1
Investigator-,,,,J)
(iG1 V 1 cl r? c
t (a,n I K\6/
State I I ,.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ES NO Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID I
Is the area a potential Problem Area? pr needed, explain on reverse) YES (NO" Plot ID
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 V AAA v y". V tit ?? < vl 1 A., N v1-I `, L Y, l_ 9
2 10
3 11
4
(-1r i??,t, , ,loop It,?
I
( A t.l
12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks
HYDROLOGY

El Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS

? Stream
Lake
or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
? I
d
t
d
,
, nun
a
e
? Aerial Photographs ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? No Recorded Data Available ? Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS © Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in)
©, Local Soil Survey Data

? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil (in) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
ACS{nwn.. i ?I Ir><.+v',` Drainage Class: W'
Taxonomy (Subgroup) r,., Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YE? NO

Depth Horizon
inches PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
-1.5 ye

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions F1 Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
V"Lk'iV,<I0?

r11
sM(7rt Vv
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? iES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES," NO
Hydric Soils Present? YES) NO
Remarks
i
DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Date
Applicant / Owner County t t l l % ? .: > r 1
Investigator State ?, I r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID 'i L,?•. i? %?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID
Is the area a potential Prohlem Area? (if needed, explain or, reverse) YES NO' Plot ID
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 eLA of oe U- 9
2 r , i I 11 r 1n/ 10
3 '?c,(c, Ynu 1,?; 1 AC 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks
? , I ,,•?isv:,Ic ?,?,•1r is ,?,ii? {',C' l r ?,. ..?.i.r r
HYDROLOGY

? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ? Inundated
? Aerial Photographs ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? No Recorded Data Available ? Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands

Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in) Local Soil Survey Data

? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil ! = (in) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS

I ?.
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): r,;%
Drainage Class-.'/"
Taxonomy (Subgroup)/, I Ip r: , III( .1 Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES (NO
PROF
Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist ILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Yf,

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime+ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
©,Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
YES
NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
f NO
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks
NO
DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Date
Applicant / Owner W) t . , eNC5 County
Investigator State
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES' NO Community ID ' I .r!
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO) Transect ID
Is the area a potential Problem F?rer?7 i? ?F•.? i??! ,?,;?,??, ?, -?-.'? YES NO, Plot ID
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

r
2 10
3 ?JOUtiil?rr?rG? vi,
4 11(P n . i, r? Ci ' E l r rid 12
5 r - (r r r' 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ? Inundated
? Aerial Photographs ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? No Recorded Data Available Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
i
, ,
,
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in) Local Soil Survey Data

? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil ` ( '. (in) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): ??? (??, ?„ • , (! Ir,,ra;; Drainage Class:w
( f
Taxonomy (Subgroup) It r r .+ (r„. . ; , „ r d Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES; NO

Depth
inches Horizon PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

? Histosol
? Histic Epipedon
? Sulfidic Odor
? Aquic Moisture Regime
? Reducing Conditions
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
? Concretions
? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
El Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
10 Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
%A/GTI AKIn n9=T=0RfiIw1AT1nK1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
NO
NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
i
YES; NO
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks
NO
DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site Date V /O 1 o
Applicant / Owner

1/JIT i t-rv tI(S County (t 1,L
'< < :-
Investigator% State N (...
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID 'i
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID ?i
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 (r? ?r:(I ?, + 1,F 9
2 f . i I /? C. ??? 10
3 ) t 11

1 ' 12
5 r JA 13

7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS

? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
? Inundated
? Aerial Photographs ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? No Recorded Data Available ? Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit (in)
?. Local Soil Survey Data

? FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil I
I ?' (in) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
4 t ;ni, 1-? r
(, l( tvo i ,) , Drainage Class:',/(
Taxonomy (Subgroup) / (s ,V,,, 'I,,,,'; I Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO,

Depth Horizon
inches PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
12 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r IpP(i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES' NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES (NO
Hydric Soils Present? ES NO
Remarks
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO/
DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Page 2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: 4 ! I
Applicant/Owner: i
Investigator: County:
State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes, No
Yes /No Transect ID: -
Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 1 (
2. 10
1
3. it-
4. ?. 12
5. I ??( 13.
& 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species t hat are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other / Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. (in) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit. (in } Local Soil Survey Data
/• FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks. i
SOILS

Map Unit Name
??? ?? ??
(Series and Phase):
? Drainage Class: ? J
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? (Yes) No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretion s,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ' Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes) No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes` No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes', No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: r, r i r t
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: 0? County:
State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ; Yep No Transect ID: ??•
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 'No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
r
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2.? d1< 10.
3. 11.
4. l' t 12.
5 13.
6. _ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks: r

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators'
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
1 Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
P(b
Ma
Unit Name
p
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class: r tier' i
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes: No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Rernarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yep No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: ( I' /
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: County:
State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Yes N'0 Community ID
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 'No Plot ID: ,
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
. iIJ-
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 tt
t 9
.

2 z ?S

--
10
3. ,, is ?`) 11

4. ti
12
13
i r
14
7 15
8 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-)
Remarks

HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Wetland hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Uppe• 1, Inches
No Recorded Data Available VVater Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Depcsits
Field Observations Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more require di
Depth of Surface Water (in 1 Oxidized Root Channels in Unp-,, 1
VVater-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free VVater in Pit (in) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil n 1 _,tnar ; Fxrlain n Re.— s
Remarks
SOILS

Map Unit Name '?
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup)' Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moistj (Mansell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Hrstic Eprpedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in RemarKs)
Remarks

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (YeS No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present's Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Porn, Wit", n a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks
i
Approved by HQUSACE T92
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1l1y''0 Project: cx14LRvJ'Ai4A Latitude: 35. 29133
Evaluator: clnc- Site: )ARw®wsK% TP-N% Longitude: --$2, 410-`I0
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Hgh®EI6t)1q if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
20.5
)
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak j Moderate ! Strong
_
_
1 a. Continuous bed and bank _
0
1 -- --
2
_3
2. Sinuosity - 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4 it texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 j
5. Active/relic floodplain _ 0 i 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 _ 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits j 0 1 _
2
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 i 2
11. Grade controls
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1
0 -_ 0.5
0.5 1
1 6
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. _
Yes 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = '::?, •'?; 1

14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0 1 -.__
2
?
F
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growingseason
0 1
2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 7 0.55
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 16.D5
I 1 I 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
-- ---- ---- 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es =
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.5
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2 -- 1 ; 0
22. Crayfish 0 _
(C. D5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish i 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 ! 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) I 0 ? _
1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 f 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2? Ot er = -
items Lu and zi tocus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: !i I i -111 C Project: ecNv.AWABA Latitude: gS . Z9 13-5
Evaluator: &v. E- Site: WA D Longitude: ..g7. 41/, 2110
Total Points Other
;l a nr^ =r' County: 1l,N?cg???t.f
Str?ar IS
i e.g. Quad Name:
)
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Absent
Weak ! Moderate Strong
_
1a. Continuous bed and bank j 0 -
1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
_
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence I ® 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 _ 2 ?3
_
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 _ 2
_
6 Depositional bars or benches _ 1 2 ! 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 !! 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 j 3
j 10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls (4) 0.5 1 _1.5
__
12. atural valley or drainageway ® 0.5 1 1.5
j
13. Second or greater order channel on existing I
USGS or NRCS map or other documented ! - - -

Yes = 3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= 14. Groundwater flow/discharge
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growin season
16. Leaflitter
17. Sediment on plants or debris
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0 -- -----1 2 3
0 --- 1 2 ! 0
1.5 j --" 1 0.5 0
0.5 j 1 1.5
CO 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es =
3 )
C. Biology (Subtotal=
LU . r1orous roofs In GndnI1C1
21b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
22 Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves j 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5?
25. Amphibians ! 0 j 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 j 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5 :.
,a b XAroti.nri ninntc in ctraamherl FAC = 0.5: FACW = 0.75 B =1.$ SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 4111J AV Project: oe"L.$vJA i+A Latitude: 3-?g. 211133
Evaluator: Site: SC-6f 3 Longitude: a-,?2. H4290
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County: 4 K Da Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ?•S ) Absent W
i_ eak
Moderate Strong
1 1 C n lno tino t uous bed and bank _ 0 CJ
- 2 3
2. Sinuosity i 0 _
1 G?) 3
3 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence _ 0- 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain _ 0 I 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3

7. Braided channel _
r8. Recent alluvial deposits j
6
65
1
1
2
2 _
3
3
9a Natural levees_ ! ® 1 2 ?3
10. Headcuts 2 g?
11. Grade controls I 0.5 1
j 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainag_eway_ 0 _
1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
man-made ancnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 j 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season_
0 --
1 r
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
- --- 1 -- 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris ?
- --- -- 0 1 1.5

18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Lines)
0 ----- -----
0.5 j - ---
1
1.5
_
19. Hvdric mils (rerlnAnnnmhir fPatnracl nracpnt? i ni., - n
C. Biology (Subtotal =. - 41.!5 )
20°. Fibrous roots in channel j 3 2 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 I 2 0
22. Crayfish 0 ---?-

Bivalves
23.
1 i
_
2 7-
?
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 f 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 j 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton % 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 j 1.5
ca . vvcuai w Nidnw ui bUCd111UUU rHG = U.t); t-AUVV = U. /b' UBIL ,..b SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
OCHLAWAHA BOG SITE INVESTIGATION
Ochlawaha Bog
Henderson County, NC
TCG Job #4136
Prepared For:
Mr. Grant Ginn, P.E.
Wolf Creek Engineers, P.C.
51 N. Knob Lane
Weaverville, NC 28787
Prepared By:
Tree
C7t en a
Group
41**?
The Catena Group, Inc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
April 22, 2010
G?aS?p SOIL
Michael G. Wood
? 12T9C'
MORTIi
INTRODUCTION
The Catena Group, Inc (TCG) performed the soil investigation portion of the Feasibility
Study on the Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Site in August 2008. Based upon that study, a
restoration design was developed by Wolf Creek Engineering which identified the
approximate limits of the project area. This restoration project is also unique in its
attempt to provide restoration for the federally endangered bunched arrowhead
(Sagittaria fasciculata). The goals of this investigation were twofold:
1. Further quantify the soil within the project area with respect to hydric soil
restoration.
2. Assess the historic groundwater levels and the effect the mitigation efforts will
have on restoring the hydrology.
SOIL INVESTIGATION
The field survey was conducted on April 14, 2010. Soil borings were advanced
throughout the Ward Field portion of the site and the CMLC Tract and the locations of
the Ward Field borings located via a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit
with sub-meter accuracy (Figure 1). Soil color was determined with a Munsell Soil Color
Chart. The topography, physical characteristics, and vegetation communities were noted
at these points in order to determine if any repeating patterns existed.
WARD FIELD RESTORATION
The soil borings indicated varying levels of fill, ranging from 6-14 inches. This is
consistent with the naturally occurring hummock wetlands of this region. As such, it is
recommended that generally 10 inches of soil be removed. Leaving small areas slightly
higher and lower would be beneficial in helping to restore historic conditions as well as
create wetter pockets that would likely create the environment more conducive for
bunched arrowhead (see below). These efforts, combined with plugging of the adjacent
ditch, are anticipated to create the conditions necessary for the site to begin to revert to its
natural conditions.
CMLC TRACT RESTORATION
The focus of the study within this tract was to assess the historic groundwater levels and
the physical factors that maintained these levels. There is a stream which roughly bisects
the tract which appears to have fairly recently incised and as such has lowered the
ambient groundwater level. Based upon multiple soil borings within the CMLC tract and
adjacent parcels, it is surmised that the historic ambient groundwater level was primarily
controlled by the hydraulic gradient as opposed to soil or rock layer acting as an aquatard.
As such, it is expected that the restoration design, which calls for plugging the ditch
between the CMLC Tract and Ward Field, coupled with several other cross gradient
barriers, will raise the water table back to historic levels and create conditions necessary
for the site to revert to its natural conditions.
Ochlawaha Bog April 22, 2010
TCG Job #4136
BUNCHED ARROWHEAD HABITAT RESTORATION
The habitat for bunched arrowhead is described as constant cool running water and 10-24
inches of mucky sand or silt, which was observed in the areas in the ditch where the plant
currently resides. It is likely that there were several pockets of this habitat throughout
Ward Field and the CMLC Tract prior to ditching, and in the case of Ward Field, clearing
and filling. Each area presents potential restoration opportunities.
There are several low areas in the CMLC Tract that may provide suitable habitat for
bunched arrowhead once the groundwater is restored to its historic levels. Given the
current vegetative conditions of the tract, identifying these specific areas prior to
implementing the restoration design would be difficult. Instead, it is expected that such
areas will become evident post-construction, at which point efforts to reintroduce
bunched arrowhead can be considered.
Ward Field provides an opportunity to be proactive in creating habitat for bunched
arrowhead. Areas in the field can be targeted to be wetter pockets with "constant cool
running water and 10-24 inches of much sand or silt" as determined by the designer.
Precisely determining the effects of the restoration efforts on the water table is not
plausible since the water table response to restoration efforts will be dynamic, however,
different depths of the wetter pockets can be considered in the design to allow for more
opportunities to provide the required habitat.
CONCLUSION
Ochlawaha Bog Restoration Site provides a unique opportunity to not only provide
stream and wetland restoration, but habitat restoration for bunched arrowhead as well.
Ward Field is an agricultural field that shows evidence of historically being a hummock
wetland that has been filled with 6-14 inches of soil. The CMLC Tract shows evidence
of historic wetland where the hydrology has been lost due to the incising of the stream.
The restoration design is expected to restore the groundwater level to the CMLC Tract.
The relocation of the stream coupled with soil removal is expected to restore wetland
conditions in Ward Field. It is anticipated that pockets of habitat will be created for
bunched arrowhead, areas in Ward Field will be actively designed while those on the
CMLC Tract will be identified post construction.
Ochlawaha Bog April 22, 2010
TCG Job #4136
- The Ochlawaha Bog Date. April 2010 F19Uf@
Catena Restoration Site Scale
G rou p As Shown
Henderson County, North Carolina Job No.. 4136
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
Excise Tax: 629.00
Parcel Identifier No. Verified by County on the day of
Mail/Box to:Scott H. Shelton, Attorney 206 3rd Ave. W Hendersonville N.C.
This instrument was prepared by: Scott H. Shelton, COINER HARRELSO r AND SHELTON PA
Brief description for the Index: THE. TRn TS VILLAGE O FLAT ROCK
THIS DEED made this 31st day of March , 2010 , by and between
GRANTOR
CAROLINA MOUNTAIN LAND CONSERVANCY,
INC., a corporation existing under
the lays of the State of North
Carolina
GRANTEE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAc/o State
Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
P.O. BOX 822
HENDERSONVILLE, NC 28793
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall
include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel
of land situated in the City of Township,
HENDERSON County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in Book page
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book page
NC Bar Association Form No. 3 C 1976, Revised C 1977, 2002
Printed by Agreement with the NC Bar Association - NCBA 006
Laser Generated by 0 Display Systems, Inc., 2003 [phone]
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee
in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same
in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title
against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, other than the following exceptions:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has duly executed the foregoing as of the day and year first above written.
CAROLINA MOUNTAIN LAND
CONSERVANCY
(Entity Name) (SEAL)
By Ot-41 (SEAL)
RICkARD ILL
Title:
SQ
By: (SEAL)
Title:
By: (SEAL)
Title:
State of North Carolina - County of
I, the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes
therein expressed. Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal this 31st day of Mareh 2010 .
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
State of North Carolina - County of
1, the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that-he is the
of?AROT__NA MOLnJTAIN LAND , a North Carolina or
corporation/] i m i led liability company/general partnership/limited partnership (strike through the inapplicable), and that by
authority duly given and as the act of such entity, _he signed the foregoing instrument in its name on its behalf as its act and deed.
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal, this 31st day of March , 2010 .
My Commission Expire s-
Notary Public
State of North Carolina - County of
I, the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal, this day of
My Commission Expires•
Notary Public
The foregoing Certificate(s) of
is/are certified to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the Book and Page
shown on the first page hereof.
By--
Register of Deeds for
Deputy/Assistant - Register of Deeds
NC Bar Association Form No. 3 © 1976, Revised © 1977, 2002
Printed by Agreement with the NC Bar Association - NCBA 006
Laser Generated by 0 Display Systems, Inc., 2003 [phone]
EXHIBIT A
TRACT 1: BEING all of that 0.99 acre parcel, more or less, as depicted on that Plat
of Survey entitled "Potential Conservation Acquisition Funded by the State of North
Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund for Carolina Mountain Land
Conservancy, CWMTF Grant No. 2007M-005", prepared by Associated Land Surveyors
& Planners PC, bearing Job No. 5-08-139, and dated June 26, 2008, said Plat being duly
filed of record at Plat Slide 7723, Henderson County Registry, reference to which is
hereby made for a more particular description by metes and bounds.
BEING a portion of that property deeded at Deed Book 1257, Page 524, Henderson
County Registry.
BEING all of that property as described in that Deed filed at Deed Book 1393, Page 138
Henderson County Registry.
TRACT 2: BEING all of that 2.86 acre parcel, more or less, as depicted on that Plat of
Survey entitled "Property of State of N.C., The Nature Conservancy" prepared by
Clarence A. Jenkins, R.L.S., dated June 4, 1997, said Plat being duly filed of record at
Plat Slide [INSERT METES AND BOUNDS OR PLAT REFERENCE IF NEW PLAT
RECORDED], Henderson County Registry, reference to which is hereby made for a
more particular description by metes and bounds.
BEING all of that property deeded at Deed Book 955, Page 135, Henderson County
Registry together with Rights of Way granted in said deed.
SUBJECT TO that restriction on use stated in the above-referenced Deed stipulating that
"the premises herein conveyed shall forever be held as a nature preserve, for scientific,
educational, and aesthetic purposes and shall be kept entirely in their natural state,
without any disturbance whatever of habitat or plat or animal populations, excepting the
undertaking of scientific research and the maintenance of such fences and foot trails as
may be appropriate to effectuate the foregoing purposes without impairing the essential
natural character of the premises."
TRACT 3: BEING all that property
Survey filed for record at Plat Slide
reference to which Plat is hereby made
bounds.
shown as Tract 1 and Tract 2 on that Plat of
8009, Henderson County Register of Deeds,
for a more complete description by metes and
ALSO CONVEYED herewith is a non-exclusive right of way for purposes of ingress,
egress and regress along all roads as shown on those plats recorded in Slides 1563 and
1564 in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Henderson County, North Carolina
together with a perpetual and non-exclusive right of way for purposes of ingress, egress
and regress over Estate Drive from its point of intersection with Erkwood Drive to the
point where Estate Drive enters the property shown and depicted on the plats described
on the plats described hereinabove.
TOGETHER HEREWITH is a non-exclusive right of way for purposes of ingress, egress
and regress along Chanteloupe Drive.
ALSO CONVEYED is a non-exclusive right of way for purposes of ingress, egress and
regress over that 30 foot wide right of way conveyed by Joyce A. Marsh, single to
William N. Fortescue Jr. and others dated June 29, 1983 and recorded in Deed Book 628
at Page 93 of the Henderson County Registry.
SUBJECT TO all rights of way and easements existing of public record of even date
herewith, including all matters shown on those plats described hereinabove, together with
the rights of others, if any, to use those rights of way or easements.
BEING that same property conveyed by deed to Grantor herein at Deed Book 1386 at
Page 39, Henderson County Registry.