20110645 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20110429

RD [2@ROW[q
April 29, 2011
APR 2 9 2011
DENR - WATER QUALITY
Eric Kulz WETLANDS AND STORMWATER WANCH
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650?
Re: For Your Record - Wetland Restoration Project,
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Kulz,
Attached for your review are a copy of mitigation plans for East Fork Pigeon River wetland
project in Haywood County. Per the discussion with Todd Tugwell and Tyler Crumbley, 404 is
not required for this project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan
(715-7571).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
- x'1C_AZ//-/('?
Lin Xu
Attachment: Mitigation Plans (1 original)
RCDENR
Ecosystem Nora, Cardin Enhancement Program, 16? all Service Center, Raleigh, N( 27699-16') ? 919-715-0476 f w ncee me
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
i
i
1
1
EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
SCO ID 10-07350-01
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
FINAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
March 14, 2011
1
Prepared by:
A"MACTEC
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
3301 Atlantic Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
MACTEC Project Number: 6470-10-0214
Telephone Number: [phone]
Facsimile Number: [phone]
Project Manager/Principal: Richard G. Harmon, PWS
Telephone Number: [phone]
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Planning ....................................................................................................................... ...2
2.1 Watershed Plan Description ...................................................................................................... .. 2
3.0 Project Site Wetlands .................................................................................................................... ...3
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................................................................. .. 3
3.2 Hydrological Characterization .................................................................................................. .. 5
3.3 Soil Characterization ................................................................................................................. .. 7
3.4 Vegetation Community Type Description and Disturbance History ........................................ .. 7
3.5 Site Topography and Geology .................................................................................................. .. 9
3.6 Site Photography ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan .......................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 10
4.2 Nuisance Plant Species Control ................................................................................................ 10
4.2.1 Bamboo ................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2.2 Cattail .................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2.3 Japanese Knotweed ............................................................................................................... 13
4.2.4 Kudzu .................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.5 Multiflora Rose ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.6 Japanese Honeysuckle .......................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Wetland Planting Plan ............................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Beaver Control .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Mitigation Assets ...................................................................................................................... 19
5.0 Preliminary Monitoring ..................................................................................................................21
6.0 Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy ...................................................................... 21
6.1 Legal Protection of Wetland Mitigation Area ........................................................................... 21
6.2 Long-Term Management Responsibilities ................................................................................ 22
6.3 Contingency .............................................................................................................................. 22
7.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 22
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland Mitigation
Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 2 Jurisdictional Surface Waters, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 3 Nuisance Species Areas, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland Mitigation
Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 4 Proposed Wetland Planting Area, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 5 Proposed Wetland and Stream Mitigation Areas, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands
Project, Wetland Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Plant Material for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina .................................................Page 18
Table 2 Potential Mitigation Assets for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina .................................................Page 19
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix B NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix C Specific Purpose Topographic Survey
Appendix D Ground Level Site Photography
ii

1

1

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
March 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) was awarded a Design Contract (SCO ID 10-
07350-01) for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) on July 27, 2010. Four deliverables were included under this contract; i.e., Delineation
of Jurisdictional Surface Waters; Mitigation Plan Development; Informal Contract Documents; and Final
Report and Record Drawings. The Wetland Mitigation Plan presented herein has been prepared by
MACTEC to meet the second deliverable, Mitigation Plan Development.
The East Fork Pigeon River project site is a 15.73-acre parcel of land that is located to the south of the Town
of Canton, in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project site can be reached via the
following directions: (1) from Interstate 40 at Asheville, take Exit 37 to access US 19; (2) proceed south on
U.S. 19 to Canton; (3) once in Canton, turn right to access Pisgah Drive (NC 110) and proceed along Pisgah
Drive for approximately five miles; (4) turn left onto Cruso Road (US 276) and proceed for approximately
two miles; (5) turn left onto Old Michael Road, which is a loop road with two points of access to Cruso
Road; and (6) project site is located on the south side of Old Michael Road near the center of the loop.
The project site presently consists of a bottomland hardwood forest, numerous shrub and groundstory
openings, and a small upland stand of eastern white pine (Pines strobus) (Figure 2). Surface waters include
a perennial stream channel, which occurs near the western project boundary, and the East Fork (of the)
Pigeon River, which includes braided channels and overlaps the southern project boundary at multiple
locations. The project site is owned by Ms. Helen Coleman. The NCEEP has obtained a conservation
easement for the project site. The easement is held by the State of North Carolina and has been recorded at
the Haywood County Courthouse. The Wetland Mitigation Plan and other project related components and
details have been discussed between representatives of MACTEC (Mr. Richard Harmon, Mr. James Cutler,
Mr. Josh Witherspoon, and Mr. Robert Sain) and Mr. Paul Wiesner of the NCEEP (Western Project
Manager), during discussions held from April through September 2010.
The Wetland Mitigation Plan for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project proposes wetland
enhancement of a bottomland hardwood forest which encompasses the floodplain of the East Fork Pigeon
River. Nuisance plant species have become established over time within the bottomland hardwood forest
(jurisdictional wetlands) on site. The Wetland Mitigation Plan will present methods for the control of six
(6) nuisance plant species. The Wetland Mitigation Plan will also include a planting program to install
desirable wetland plant species within the jurisdictional wetland area. The elements of the nuisance
I

I

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
March 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
species control program and the planting plan will be approved by the NCEEP prior to implementation.
The wetland enhancement will provide a quantified amount of NCEEP wetland mitigation credit for
various permitted projects which occur within the same U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). The East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project is not proposed to off-set or
mitigate for any particular project. MACTEC has prepared this Wetland Mitigation Plan for NCEEP to
facilitate the enhancement effort of the jurisdictional wetlands on the East Fork Pigeon River project site.
Finally, with regard to watershed planning, the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project is located in the
French Broad River Basin HUC 06010106010010. This HUC is identified as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) in NCEEP's 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP):
(http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/French Broad RBRP 15julyO9.pdf).
I Restoration goals identified in the 2009 French Broad Basin RBRP include:
• Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients
by restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring
natural geomorphology, especially in headwater streams.
• Restore and protect habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species in the basin [see
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) (2005) for complete list].
• Cooperate with land trusts and resource agencies to help leverage federal and state grant funding
for watershed restoration and conservation efforts.
Restoration goals and objectives for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project include:
• Protecting the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat with a permanent conservation
easement.
• Enhancing the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat by removing identified invasive plant
species through manual and chemical methods and by planting native species within the project
site.
2.0 WATERSHED PLANNING
2.1 Watershed Plan Description
The 2009 French Broad River Basin RBRP identified as 060101060 100 10, which includes the East Fork
Pigeon River Wetlands project site, as a TLW. The East Fork Pigeon River watershed is the most
forested of all TLWs in the French Broad, with 91% of the land in forest/wetland and 81% of the streams

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
with an aquatic buffer. About half of the land is in the Pisgah National Forest, where the headwaters of
1 the East Fork are High Quality Waters. All streams in the watershed are Water Supply Waters.
Restoration goals identified in the 2009 French Broad River Basin RBRP include:
• Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients
by restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring
natural geomorphology, especially in headwater streams.
• Restore and protect habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species in the basin [see
North Carolina WRC (2005) for complete list].
• Cooperate with land trusts and resource agencies to help leverage federal and state grant funding
for watershed restoration and conservation efforts.
Portions of the East Fork Pigeon River serve as a refuge for high priority aquatic species that depend on
high quality cool-warm water habitat
(http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/French Broad RBRP l5july09.pdf). The East Fork Pigeon
River Wetlands project will protect approximately 14 acres of wetlands in the floodplain of the East Fork
Pigeon River with a permanent conservation easement; therefore, this will protect floodplain function
along this biologically rich river. In addition, the project will enhance existing wetlands by removing
identified invasive plant species through manual and chemical methods and by planting native species
within the project site.
' 3.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The 15.73-acre East Fork Pigeon River project site is comprised of 13.95 acres of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) jurisdictional wetlands and 0.96 acre of non jurisdictional uplands (Figure 2). The
1 jurisdictional wetlands include a bottomland hardwood forest with shrub and groundstory openings. The
non jurisdictional uplands include an eastern white pine community, which occurs near the western
boundary of the project site, and linear areas of the shoulder (berm) of Old Michael Road, which extend
along the western, northern, and eastern boundaries of the site. Jurisdictional surface waters include
1,411 linear feet (0.77 acre) of the East Fork Pigeon River and 664 linear feet (0.05 acre) of a perennial,
unnamed tributary to the East Fork Pigeon River. The 0.05-acre perennial stream channel occurs near the
western project boundary and flows to the south to a point of confluence with the East Fork Pigeon River.
i The point of confluence is located near the southwest corner of the project site. The East Fork Pigeon River
enters the project site as a braided channel system at a point along the southern project boundary and leaves
1
1

1
0

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
the project site near the southwest corner of the site as a single thread channel system. Overall, the project
site is bordered on the west, north, and east sides by Old Michael Road. The southern boundary of the
project site abuts forested wetlands. The acreage values reported herein were based on the specific
purpose survey of the project site, as conducted by Cavanaugh in October 2010. The descriptions of on-
site plant communities were based on field observations made by MACTEC scientists during site visits
conducted between April and October 2010.
Note: According to February 9, 2011 correspondence from NCEEP to MACTEC (i.e., Draft Mitigation
Plan Documents Review Comments), the NCEEP is in possession of a land survey document of the
Coleman property that was prepared by Joel Johnson Land Surveying (JJLS). The survey completed by
JJLS presents a value of 18.10 acres for the total size of the Coleman tract, as including a boundary
survey and a conservation easement survey. The conservation easement portion of the JJLS survey of the
Coleman tract is 16.53 acres, which is the portion of the Coleman tract that has been put in a permanent
conservation easement by the State of North Carolina. An area of 1.57 acres (i.e., the difference between
18.10 acres and 16.53 acres) occurs within the Coleman tract (parcel boundary), but in a right-of-way;
therefore, these 1.57 acres cannot be deeded as conservation easement. The Project Area for the East
Fork Pigeon River Wetland project is 15.73 acres. The Project Area represents the area of land that was
examined to facilitate the preparation of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. During the initial review of the
project in May 2010 between NCEEP and MACTEC, aerial photography of the project site boundary was
provided by NCEEP. The site boundary on the NCEEP aerial photograph was used to delimit the Project
Area. The Project Area boundary was surveyed by Cavanaugh in October 2010. The difference between
the Project Area (15.73 acres) and the NCEEP recorded conservation easement (16.53 acres) is 0.8 acre.
This value of 0.8 acre of land encompasses a small area of uplands along Old Michael Road.
Jurisdictional surface waters, including perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, and other special
aquatic sites, are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 and are protected by Section 404 and other applicable
sections of the Clean Water Act (e.g., 33 USC 1344), which is administered and enforced by the USACE as
well as other federal and state government agencies. MACTEC professional wetland scientists delineated
the landward limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S, including streams and wetlands, on the East Fork
Pigeon River project site using the Routine Wetland Determination (Level 2 - Onsite Inspection Necessary)
method as defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
This technique uses a multi-parameter approach that requires positive evidence of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. MACTEC considered areas exhibiting the aforementioned three
4
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
wetland characteristics to be potentially jurisdictional surface waters and marked, with flagging tape, these
areas in the field. Finally, to facilitate the identification of potentially jurisdictional surface waters on the
project site, MACTEC reviewed readily and publicly available information sources, including the USGS
7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS 2010), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for
Haywood County, and relatively recent color aerial photography.
In the State of North Carolina, the USACE is the lead regulatory agency in regard to verification of the
landward extent of jurisdictional surface waters. MACTEC coordinated the verification of jurisdictional
surface waters with Mr. Tyler Crumbley of the USACE - Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Mr.
Crumbley conducted the site inspection of the landward limits of USACE regulatory jurisdiction on
October 6, 2010, with MACTEC professional wetland scientists in attendance. Following Mr.
Crumbley's confirmation of the wetland delineation, the landward limits of the on-site jurisdictional
surface waters were surveyed by Mr. David Alley of Cavanaugh, who is a registered Professional Land
Surveyor in North Carolina. The signed and sealed, specific purpose survey of the landward limits of
USACE regulatory jurisdiction for the East Fork Pigeon River project site was subsequently submitted to
Mr. Crumbley for review. Supporting documents, which were prepared by MACTEC and submitted to
Mr. Crumbley for review, included the completed Wetland Determination Data Form - Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region (data point for wetland side and upland side) and the completed Approved
Jurisdictional Determination Form (Rapanos form). The specific purpose survey and the supporting
documents were approved by Mr. Crumbley. The USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
for the East Fork Pigeon River project site was issued on November 3, 2010, under Action Id No. 2010-
01783. The Notification of Jurisdictional Determination is valid for a period of five years, with an
expiration date of November 3, 2015. A copy of the specific purpose survey, as approved (signed) by Mr.
Crumbley, and the aforementioned supporting documents are included herein as Appendix A.
3.2 Hydrological Characterization
The East Fork Pigeon River project site is located within the French Broad River Basin (USGS 8-digit
14UC 06010106 [DWQ 2010; USGS 2010]). The project site is situated within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone (Zone A7) according to Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) Panel No. 370120 0190B (effective date July 15, 1984; FEMA 2010). The completed NCEEP
Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included herein as Appendix B. It is presumed that the proposed
activities for this project will not require a FEMA development permit. Drainage on the site is generally
5
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
to the south and west through the wetlands, the East Fork Pigeon River, and an unnamed perennial
tributary to the East Fork Pigeon River. The East Fork Pigeon River is classified in the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Basinwide Information Management System as a Water Supply III (WS-III)
waterbody and Trout Waters (Tr).
Areas of the bottomland hardwood forest are shallowly inundated or saturated. According to personal
communication with the landowner, Ms. Helen Coleman (October 4, 2010), the East Fork Pigeon River
was historically located near the toe of Old Michael Road, along the northern and eastern property
boundaries. The shift in this portion of the reach to the south, where the reach now exists, occurred a few
decades in the past according to Ms. Coleman. The degree of change in the hydrologic regime from the
historic condition to the current condition is not specifically known. The location of the historic reach
near the southern shoulder of Old Michael Road is now occupied by a wetland drainageway. The western
end of the drainageway abuts a metal culvert, which allows for the passage of water from the wetland
drainageway to an unnamed perennial stream channel to East Fork Pigeon River located near the western
project boundary.
Based on further personal communication with Ms. Coleman (October 4, 2010), the majority of the
property was farmed in the past, with cessation of farming activities occurring a few decades ago. The
farming activities most likely included the establishment of small ditches to facilitate drainage of the farm
land. These drainage ditches do not appear to affect the current hydrology of the site. Some hydrologic
enhancement has occurred on the project site for an unknown period of time due to the activities of beaver
(Castor canadensis); i.e., because of two small dams within the eastern portion of the site. The beaver
dams appear to contribute to the impoundment of surface water within the eastern portion of the
bottomland hardwood forest. The various hydrologic changes through time have led to wetter site
conditions since farming activities were abandoned. Wetter site conditions have facilitated the
establishment of obligate wetland plant species on the project site.
Finally, other sources of hydrology for the project site include three culvert features which occur along
Old Michael Road. Stream flow (stream channel runoff) or stormwater runoff from adjacent properties is
conveyed onto the project site by these culverts. The locations of the three culverts are shown on Figure
2. The westernmost culvert conveys stream flow from an off-site, potentially jurisdictional, stream
feature into the perennial stream channel that occurs near the western project boundary. The central
culvert conveys stream flow from another off-site, potentially jurisdictional, stream feature into the
6
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
wetland drainageway that extends along the northern project boundary and Old Michael Road. The
easternmost culvert (cross culvert) discharges stormwater into the aforementioned wetland drainageway.
3.3 Soil Characterization
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the project site is underlain by the
Dellwood cobbly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (DeA) map unit, which
encompasses depressions and floodplains (landforms) (NRCS.2010). The NRCS considers this map unit
to include hydric soil inclusions; i.e., small areas of Cullowhee or Nikwasi soils in depressions (MRCS
2010). The hydric criteria for this map unit is listed by the NRCS as `2B3'; i.e., soils that are poorly
drained or very poorly drained and have a water table at a depth of 1.0 foot or less during the growing
season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches per hour in any layer within a depth of 20 inches. A
MACTEC Licensed Soil Scientist confirmed, through on-site soil probing, that the wetland areas within
the project site were underlain by hydric soils. The USACE confirmed the presence of hydric soils within
the on-site wetlands during an October 6, 2010 site inspection conducted by USACE regulatory staff.
The hydric soils observed in the field consisted generally of loam textures. Redoximorphic features
(mottles) were observed within one foot of the existing ground surface. Finally, in regard to wildlife
habitat, the Haywood County Soil Survey lists the Cullowhee and Nikwasi soil series as `Good for
Wetland Plants'. The surface horizons of these soils are generally loams and sandy loams with a pH
ranging from 4.5 to 6.5. Based on the aforementioned rating of `Good for Wetland Plants', it is presumed
that no soil fertility amendments will need to be applied to the planting bed during the wetland planting
operation. Soil fertility testing may be needed to determine actual soil fertility amendment rates, if
needed.
3.4 Vegetation Community Type Description and Disturbance History
The distribution, structure, and species composition of the plant communities that occur on the East Fork
Pigeon River project site partly reflect historic agricultural land use practices. The 13.95 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands on the project site, which will comprise the proposed wetland mitigation area,
consist of a bottomland hardwood forest with shrub and groundstory openings (Figure 2). These wetlands
are areas of poorly-drained, seasonally saturated soils in lowlands abutting the East Fork Pigeon River.
Areas of shallow seasonal pooling (i.e., areas of seasonal inundation of less than 6 inches) are also present
within depressions on site. Based on the USFWS NWI map and the Cowardin classification protocols
(Cowardin et al. 1979), the majority of the wetlands area on the project site is classified as Code PSS1A,
or Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporary Flooded. Based on the natural
7
1
1
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
community classification scheme for North Carolina by Schafale and Weakley (1990), the wetlands area
on the project site would be classified as `Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest'.
Within the scattered portions of the on-site bottomland hardwood forest that contain dominant or co-
dominant overstory vegetation, the canopy stratum is comprised of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
black willow (Salix nigra), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Areas comprised of shrubs and areas dominated
by groundstory plants are interspersed throughout the project site. These areas occur as openings within
the bottomland hardwood forest. The shrub vegetation primarily includes black willow (saplings) and
multiflora rose (Rosa mult flora). The groundstory is comprised of sedges, rushes, and herbaceous plants,
such as swamp aster (Aster puniceus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), sedges (Carex spp.), panic grass (Panicum sp.), blackberry (Rubus
sp.), multiflora rose, seedbox (Ludwigia sp.), and duck-potato (Sagittaria latifolia). Many of these
groundstory species also occur within the forested wetland portions of the project site.
Nuisance (invasive) plant species that occur within the bottomland hardwood forest on the East Fork
Pigeon River project site include bamboo (Phyllostachys sp.), common cattail (Typha latifolia), multiflora
rose, Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and kudzu
(Pueraria montana) (Figure 3). Three stands of bamboo are found in or adjacent to the project site. The
larger stand (0.88 acre) of bamboo (Bamboo Area 1) is present within the eastern portion of the project
site, along the northern bank of the East Fork Pigeon River. The other two stands of bamboo (0.10 acre
and 0.18 acre) are present along the northern project boundary, along the southern shoulder of Old
Michael Road (Bamboo Area 2) and the northern shoulder of the road (Bamboo Area 3). While both of
these latter two stands of bamboo occur outside of the project boundary, they may serve as a seed source
for this nuisance species. A scattered cattail area (0.61 acre [Cattail Area 1]) is present within the north-
central portion of the project site, within a shallow inundated shrub/groundstory opening of the
bottomland hardwood forest. Two smaller areas of cattail are also present on the project site: Cattail Area
2 (0.06 acre) occurs within the western portion of the project site and Cattail Area 3 (0.002 acre) exists
near the southeast corner of the site. Kudzu occurs on, or abuts, the project site at three locations. Kudzu
Area 1 (0.24 acre) abuts the northwest boundary of the project site along the southern shoulder of Old
Michael Road, while Kudzu Area 2 (0.11 acre) and Japanese Knotweed/Kudzu Area (0.02 acre) occur
within the southeastern portion of the site in the bottomland hardwood forest. Japanese knotweed is
sparsely scattered within the southeastern portion of the project site. The two observed locations of
Japanese knotweed include Japanese Knotweed Area 1 (0.06 acre) and Japanese Knotweed/Kudzu Area
8
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
(0.02 acre). Multiflora rose is scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest, under the forest
canopy and within the shrub openings. Multiflora rose is the most common of the six nuisance plant
species discussed herein, with regard to density and areal extent within the project site. Japanese
honeysuckle is sparsely scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest of the project site. A dense
patch of Japanese honeysuckle also occurs within an upland area that abuts the western boundary of the
site, which is off site. The locations and areal limits of the aforementioned areas of nuisance plant species
occurrence were obtained through global positioning system (GPS) technology, differentially-corrected to
sub-meter accuracy, as conducted by MACTEC scientists on October 4 and 5, 2010. Taxonomic
nomenclature for the aforementioned plant species is based on Weakley (2008).
3.5 Site Topography and Geology
Based on the review of the USGS topographic quadrangle (Asheville, North Carolina) for the East Fork
Pigeon River project site, no distinct variation in topography is apparent across the site. An elevation
(contour interval) of 2,760 feet mean sea level is depicted on the quadrangle along the north side of Old
Michael Road and to the south of the southern project boundary. No contour interval is depicted on the
quadrangle for the interior of the project site. More detailed topographic data for the project site are
provided through the specific purpose topographic survey of ground elevations conducted by Cavanaugh
in November 2010. The Cavanaugh field survey entailed the collection of ground elevation data at 100-
foot grid intersections. The Cavanaugh survey drawing is presented in Appendix C. One-foot contour
intervals are presented on the survey drawing. Based on the results of the topographic survey, the ground
elevations ranged from approximately 2,760 feet at Old Michael Road, at the southeastern corner of the
project site, to approximately 2,735 feet, at the southwestern corner of the site near the confluence of the
East Fork Pigeon River and the unnamed perennial stream. Low contour intervals (low surveyed ground
elevations), ranging from approximately 2,737 to 2,739 feet, occurred within the east-central portion of
the project site where shallow pooling was observed. Another area of low contour intervals and shallow
pooling occurred within the west-central portion of the project site, where the ground elevations ranged
from 2,738 to 2,739 feet. The surveyed 2,740-foot contour interval generally extended through the
western half of the project site.
With regard to the geologic setting, the project site is located in the Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah
Falls Formation of the Blue Ridge Belt of North Carolina (NCGS 1985). This formation is underlain by
muscovite - biotite gneiss. The East Fork Pigeon River is underlain by rocks of the Ashe Metamorphic
Suite. The rocks in this suite developed over 700 million years ago from sediment layers of gravel, sand,
9
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
and silt. After the sediment layers were buried, compressed, and lithified into rock, they were
' metamorphosed to form the mica gneisses and schists that are seen in the suite today.
' 3.6 Site Photography
Ground level site conditions of the East Fork Pigeon River project site were photographed by MACTEC
' scientists during site visits conducted in April and October, 2010. The ground level site photography is
presented in Appendix D.
4.0 PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN
4.1 Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives
The RBRP identified the following major stressors in the watershed: excess fecal coliform bacteria, nutrient
enrichment, habitat fragmentation from impoundments, and habitat degradation associated with
sedimentation, streambed scour, and streambank erosion.
L Mitigation goals for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project are to enhance and protect existing
wetlands and wildlife habitat along the East Fork Pigeon River. These will address the RBRP goal of
protecting habitat for priority species in the basin.
' The project objectives include:
• Enhance existing wetlands by removing identified invasive plant species through manual and chemical
methods and by planting native species within the project site.
• Protecting the project wetlands and on-site species with a permanent conservation easement.
' 4.2 Nuisance Plant Species Control
Based on site reconnaissance conducted by MACTEC wetland scientists from April through October
2010, wetland enhancement can be achieved for the East Fork Pigeon River project site through the
I control of nuisance plant species which currently inhabit the bottomland hardwood forest and
shrub/groundstory open areas on site. MACTEC recommends that the control of nuisance plant species
exclude the use of mechanized vehicular equipment. Mechanized vehicular equipment would most likely
' significantly disturb the soil substrate of the on-site wetlands. Furthermore, any opportunity to place fill
material in the bottomland hardwood forest to facilitate the nuisance species control operation (providing
ingress/egress of equipment) is not recommended, as this activity would likely entail the filling of
jurisdictional wetlands and therefore require authorization by the USACE. With these considerations,
10
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
MACTEC recommends that the treatment of the aforementioned six nuisance plant species encompass a
' combination of hand clearing (cutting by machete and/or chainsaw) and herbicide application, as
described below for each of the six nuisance plant species. A seven-year timeframe for the treatment of
nuisance plant species is proposed.
The timing of herbicidal control methods for the six nuisance plant species on the project site will be
dependent on the type of herbicide (chemical compound) and the target plant species. The window for
' optimum results may be narrower for one species compared to another. Furthermore, the "location" of
the chemical application (i.e., stems, leaves, roots, etc.) varies among species. These factors will
influence the implementation/duration of the nuisance species control operations when herbicidal control
methods are employed.
' By controlling the nuisance plant species the habitat for wildlife, the habitat for aquatic biota of the East
Fork Pigeon River, production export, visual quality/aesthetics, and the uniqueness/heritage of the project
' site will be improved. To complement the nuisance plant species control efforts, increased diversification
of native plant species will be provided through the planting of the wetlands on site with native
bottomland hardwood tree species. The target goal for these efforts will be the vegetative enhancement of
the existing wetland community on the East Fork Pigeon River project site.
4.2.1 Bamboo
Overview: The North Carolina Native Plant Society lists bamboo as having a `significant' threat (Rank 2
category) to* native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPS 2010). Bamboo is native to Asia.
' Some species of bamboo were first introduced into the United States in the nineteenth century for
ornamental purposes (SEPPC 2010). The control of non-native invasive bamboo must include the
' removal of as much of the root mass and rhizomes of the plant as possible. The use of power equipment
(chainsaws) is recommended for larger areas of infestation. Containment can also be a fairly effective
' method of controlling bamboo. As the rhizomes of bamboo are fairly shallow (i.e., growing less than one
foot deep in the soil), a barrier made of concrete, metal, plastic, or pressure-treated wood installed about
18 inches deep can prove effective. Bamboo rhizomes are not stopped by barriers but are merely
' reflected. Therefore, the areas surrounding the barriers should be monitored regularly for escaped
rhizomes. As it will most likely be impossible to remove all pieces of bamboo, a follow-up treatment
1 with herbicides is generally required. In conjunction with removal or containment, a non-selective
herbicide with the active ingredient glyphosate (i.e., Roundup or Eraser) is commonly used. Glyphosate
11
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
does not have residual soil activity and will only kill plants that receive direct application. However, for
glyphosate to be effective, the bamboo must be mowed or chopped and allowed to regrow until the new
leaves expand. Glyphosate can then be applied to the leaves. Typically, one application of glyphosate
will not eradicate a bamboo infestation. Therefore, it can potentially take two to three years to achieve
complete control. For bamboo control next to creeks, wetlands, or other water sources where spray drift
will contact the water, a glyphosate product labeled for use near water (Eraser AQ, Rodeo, Pondmaster,
Aquamaster or Aquapro) is required. Aquatic formulations of glyphosate can be mixed with a non-ionic
surfactant, such as Ortho X-77 or Southern Ag Surfactant for herbicides, to improve control (Ferrell et al.
2006).
Proposed Treatment: For Bamboo Areas 1, 2, and 3, the control operation should include: (1) the cutting
of bamboo stalks by hand (machete) and/or chainsaw in the spring (June); (2) the disposal off site of the
cut plant material; (3) the basal spraying of the cut bamboo stalks in October/early November, following
leaf growth, with one of the aforementioned glyphosate products labeled for use near water; and (4)
retreatment, if necessary. The eradication of Bamboo Areas 2 and 3, which occur off site, is
recommended to prevent further recruitment of this nuisance species within the project site. More than
one treatment may be necessary if the initial treatment does not eradicate all of the bamboo in the target
areas.
4.2.2 Cattail
Overview: Common cattail is native to North America. No ranking of threat to native plant communities
is assigned for cattail by the North Carolina Native Plant Society (NCNPP 2010). Herbicidal control
methods generally provide suitable treatment of cattail. Two chemical compounds, diquat and
glyphosate, are the most effective in controlling cattails and are approved for aquatic use. Diquat is a
contact herbicide; therefore, complete coverage of the cattail is needed to eliminate the plant. This
requires spraying the area of cattails from several directions, which is considered a drawback. Another
drawback is that diquat does not travel through the plant and therefore does not reach the roots of the
plant. Since the root system is not killed, new shoots will emerge from the roots the following year.
Using diquat will require yearly applications. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide; therefore, it will travel
throughout the plant and kill both the roots and vegetative portions. Systemic herbicides are preferred in
the elimination of perennial plants such as cattail. There is no need to spray from multiple directions
when using glyphosate. Another advantage of glyphosate is that one application of this systemic
herbicide can often eliminate a cattail stand (Lynch 2002).
12
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
Proposed Treatment: For Cattail Areas 1, 2, and 3, the control operation should entail the spraying of the
target areas with glyphosate in mid-summer through early fall. A second treatment will most likely be
necessary if the initial treatment does not eradicate all of the cattail in the target areas.
4.2.3 Japanese Knotweed
Overview: Japanese knotweed, native to Japan, was introduced into the United States prior to 1890. By
the turn of the century, it was established in the eastern United States and was reported naturalized around
Philadelphia, PA, Schenectady, NY, and Atlantic Highlands, NJ. Current distribution is from
Newfoundland to Ontario, in many parts of the north and southeastern United States, and west to
Minnesota and Iowa (SEPPC 2010). The North Carolina Native Plant Society lists Japanese knotweed as
having a `severe' threat (Rank 1 category) to native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPP 2010).
Japanese knotweed spreads rapidly from stout long rhizomes. Seeds are distributed by water in
floodplains, transported with fill dirt, and to a lesser extent are wind-blown. Once established,
populations are quite persistent and can out-compete existing vegetation. Japanese knotweed can tolerate
a variety of adverse conditions including full shade, high temperatures, high salinity, and drought. It is
found near water sources, in low-lying areas, waste places, utility rights of way, and around old home
sites. It can quickly become an invasive pest in natural areas after escaping from cultivated gardens. It
poses a significant threat to riparian areas, where it can survive severe floods. Japanese knotweed
typically takes advantage of areas disturbed by humans (or wildlife, such as beaver); i.e., areas affording
ample sunlight and friable soil for the invasive roots. Therefore, the clearing of forested land should be
avoided until the eradication of this species is completed. Mechanical control includes grubbing.
Grubbing can be used for small populations or environmentally sensitive areas where herbicides cannot
be used. The entire plant, including all roots and runners, is removed with a digging tool. Juvenile plants
can be hand-pulled depending on soil conditions and root development. Any portions of the root system
not removed will potentially resprout. All plant parts, including mature fruit, should be bagged and
disposed of to prevent reestablishment. Herbicidal control methods (glyphosate or triclopyr) include the
aforementioned foliar spray method or the cut stump method. The cut stump method can be used in areas
where Japanese knotweed is aggressively established within or around non-target plants. The foliar spray
method can be used to control large populations. It may be necessary to precede foliar applications with
stump treatments to reduce the risk of damaging non-target species (Remaley and Bargeron 2003).
13
' Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
' Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
Proposed Treatment: For Japanese Knotweed Area 1 and the Japanese Knotweed/Kudzu Area, the
control operation should entail the careful spraying of individual stems of the species with glyphosate or
triclopyr in mid-summer through early fall. Juvenile plants may be hand-pulled; however, since there is a
' potential for resprouting from uncollected roots, herbicide application may provide better results. A
second treatment will most likely be necessary if the initial treatment does not eradicate all of the
' Japanese knotweed in the target areas.
4.2.4 Kudzu
Overview: The North Carolina Native Plant Society lists kudzu as having a `severe' threat (Rank 1
category) to native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPP 2010). A native of Asia, kudzu was
introduced into the United States at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. The Soil Erosion
Service (later renamed the Soil Conservation Service) distributed approximately 85 million seedlings
' starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. In 1953, the United States Department of
Agriculture removed kudzu as a cover plant and listed it as a common weed of the South in 1970. It is
estimated that kudzu now covers seven million acres in the southeast. Distribution is as far north as
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Connecticut and from eastern Texas to central Oklahoma in the west. The
' largest infestations are found in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia (SEPPC 2010).
' Kudzu is an aggressive vine which will occupy forest edges or disturbed areas, such as abandoned fields
and roadsides. Mechanical control methods include grubbing or cutting. Grubbing, with a digging tool,
' will remove the entire plant, including the taproot. Removed vegetation should be destroyed by burning
or bagging. As kudzu roots often extend five feet below ground, eradication by this method is very
difficult and is primarily used for small initial incursions. With regard to cutting, the vines and runners
are chopped just above the groundlevel and the cuttings are destroyed. Cutting does not typically kill
' roots and should only be used to control the spread of kudzu. Herbicidal control methods (glyphosate or
triclopyr) include the cut stump method, foliar spray method, and the root crown method. The cut stump
' method can be used in areas where vines are established within or around non-target plants or where vines
have grown into the canopy. The foliar spray method can be used to control larger populations. It may be
necessary to precede foliar applications with stump treatments to reduce the risk of damaging non-target
' species. After the stems and leaves have been brought under control (i.e., all above ground portions of the
plants have been effectively treated), further treatment should follow with the root crown method. For the
' root crown method, the young or resprouting stem of the plant is located down to the root. A digging tool

14
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
' Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
is then used to cut into the root crown. Herbicide is then applied to the main root crown and any below
' ground runners (Remaley and Bargeron 2003).
' Proposed Treatment: For Kudzu Areas 1 and 2 and the Japanese Knotweed/Kudzu Area, the control
operation should be completed using the cut stump method. Kudzu has infested the canopy stratum at all
three target areas. The foliar spray method is not recommended because the population (areal coverage)
of kudzu at these locations is not large and the non-target plants (trees) could be impacted. Kudzu Area 2
occurs near the East Fork Pigeon River and the foliar spray method would impact this surface water if
spray drift occurred. A second treatment will most likely be necessary if the initial cut stump application
' does not eradicate all of the kudzu in the target areas.
4.2.5 Multiflora Rose
' Overview: The North Carolina Native Plant Society lists multiflora rose as having a `severe' threat (Rank
1 category) to native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPP 2010). Multiflora rose was
' introduced from Japan, Korea, and eastern China in 1886 as rootstock for ornamental roses. In the 1930s
it was widely promoted as a "living fence" for soil conservation and in wildlife programs. Present
' distribution is throughout the United States with the exception of the southeastern coastal plains, Rocky
Mountains, and western desert areas. Multiflora rose invades natural areas, especially fields, floodplains,
' and light gaps in forests (SEPPC 2010).
' Mechanical control methods for multiflora rose, such as mowing or cutting, can be used for small
populations or environmentally sensitive areas where herbicides cannot be used. Repeated mowing or
cutting will control the spread of multiflora rose, but will not eradicate it. Stems should be cut at least
once per growing season as close to the ground as possible. Herbicidal control methods, such as the foliar
' spray method or the cut stump method, can be alternatively used. The foliar spray method is suited for
large thickets of multiflora rose, where risk to non-target species is minimal. Glyphosate can be used for
control; however, as a non-selective systemic herbicide, this chemical may kill non-target partially-
sprayed plants. Triclopyr is a selective herbicide for broadleaf species; therefore, in areas where desirable
grasses are growing under or around multiflora rose, triclopyr can be used without non-target damage.
' The cut stump method can be used to treat individual bushes or in situations where the presence of
desirable species preclude foliar application (Remaley and Bargeron 2003).
1 15

11

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
Proposed Treatment: Multiflora rose is scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest, under the
forest canopy and within the shrub openings. The control operation for multiflora rose will be labor
intensive and will cost more than the control operations for the other nuisance plant species. The
recommended treatment for the control of multiflora rose on the project site is the cut stump method.
Under this method, individual bushes would be cut and treated with glyphosate or triclopyr herbicide
(basal spraying). Herbicide applications of glyphosate and/or triclopyr, using the foliar spray method, are
not recommended for the project site, as this method will deleteriously impact non-target, desirable,
wetland plant species within the groundstory. More than one treatment may be necessary if the initial
treatment does not eradicate all of the multiflora rose in the target areas. Due to the aggressive nature
(recruitment) of multiflora rose and the prevalence of this species on the project site, the control program
will most likely be more difficult to implement than the control programs for the other five nuisance
species.

4.2.6 Japanese Honeysuckle
Overview: Japanese honeysuckle is a native of eastern Asia. It was first introduced into North America
in 1806 in Long Island, NY. Japanese honeysuckle grows extremely rapidly and is virtually impossible to
control in naturalized woodland edge zones due to its rapid spread via tiny fruit seeds. It forms a tall
dense woody shrub layer that aggressively displaces native plants (SEPPC 2010). The North Carolina
Native Plant Society lists Japanese honeysuckle as having a `severe' threat (Rank 1 category) to native
plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPP 2010).
The control of Japanese honeysuckle includes the following methods: mowing, grazing, prescribed
burning, and herbicides. While grazing and mowing reduces the spread of vegetative stems, prescribed
burns or a combination of prescribed burns and herbicide spraying appears to be the best way to eradicate
this vine. Systemic herbicides which can be used for treatment include glyphosate (Rodeo for wetlands
and Roundup for uplands) and triclopyr (Garlon). Other chemical compounds with varying levels of
efficacy are available for use (MAEPPC 2010).
Proposed Treatment: The control of Japanese honeysuckle through careful herbicide spray application
(glyphosate or triclopyr) in mid-summer through early fall is recommended for the project site.
Mechanical control methods (mowing) or prescribed burning are not recommended for the control of
Japanese honeysuckle within the wetland areas.
16
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
March 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
4.3 Wetland Planting Plan
The Wetland Mitigation Plan for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project will entail the control of
nuisance plant species and the installation of wetland plant species within the project site. After the
nuisance species control program is completed, a portion of the jurisdictional wetlands will be planted in
late winter with wetland tree species that are native to southern mountain wetlands. Figure 4 depicts the
general boundary of the proposed wetland planting area based on aerial photography and groundtruthing.
Approximately 8.31 acres of the total, jurisdictional, wetland area (13.95 acres) will not be planted,
however. The wetland areas to be excluded from planting encompass: (1) the deepwater wetland
drainageway which occurs along the southern shoulder of Old Michael Road; (2) the stream banks of East
Fork Pigeon River (bankfull bench and spoil areas); and (3) the forested portions of the bottomland
hardwood forest. Therefore, only the portion of the bottomland hardwood forest that is open and lacking
an overstory of trees and large saplings/large shrubs will be planted. With these planting exclusions, the
size of the proposed wetland planting area is approximately 5.64 acres. Based on qualitative observations
of the species composition and density of the canopy and sapling/shrub strata of the bottomland hardwood
forest during the 2010 field reconnaissance, the aforementioned 5.64-acre planting area lacks an intact
overstory of hardwood tree species. Therefore, to restore the hardwood overstory, the planting of trees
(seedlings) is necessary. The control of nuisance plant species is necessary to provide a suitable `bed' for
the planting of seedlings; i.e., competition for nutrients with nuisance species will be removed, as will the
effects of too much shading.
Under the proposed wetland planting plan, the native wetland tree species will be installed at a density of
435 stems per acre (ten-foot centers). The plant material will be representative of the species composition
of bottomland hardwood forested wetlands along the East Fork Pigeon River. The final selection of plant
stock may be determined to some extent by availability. The selected tree species will consist of
containerized and/or bare root stock protected by tree shelters (i.e., TUBEX® or Miracle Tube tree
shelters). The tree shelters will provide protection from wildlife depredation, wind, or other natural
influences. The tree seedling material that is recommended for installation on the East Fork Pigeon River
Wetlands project is presented in Table 1 below. The palette of wetland tree species will be finalized
before installation and after consultation with NCEEP.
17
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO 1D 10-07350-01
Table 1. Proposed Plant Material for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitiaatinn Plan- Anvwnrbd C'nunty- Nnrth C nralina-

Common Name
Scientific Name' Number of
Tree Seedlings
to Plant' Wetness
Toletness

_
_
American Elm Ulnius americana 409 FAC W
Bitternut Hickory Ca rya cordi ormis 409 FAC
Che bark Oak uercus pagoda 409 FAC+
Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 409 FACW
Su arberry Celtis laevi ata 409 FACW
Swam Chestnut Oak uercus michauxii 409 FACW-
' Taxonomic nomenclature based on Alan S. Weakley in Plora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States, March 8, ZULU Working
Draft, University of North Carolina Herbarium.
z Values of number of seedlings to plant are based on: (1) a total of approximately 2,454 seedlings to install, with the installation
of plant material equally divided among the six tree species selected for installation and (2) a proposed wetland planting area of
approximately 5.64 acres and a planting density of 435 stems per acre.
3 Wetness Tolerance based on Plant Indicator Status in National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (Region 2 -
Southeast), Resource Management Group, Inc., 1999. Abbreviations: FACW = Facultative Wetland; FAC = Facultative.
Site preparation will be necessary prior to the planting of individual tree seedlings. The site preparation
will include manual disking with shovels, spades, rakes, or other hand tools to remove or loosen the
existing groundstory vegetation and create a suitable planting bed for seedlings. The portions of the on-
site wetlands that contain minimal groundcover should not require site preparation. Minor field
adjustments during planting operations are expected; i.e., moving the planting location of tree seedlings
when obstacles are encountered, such as existing trees or shrubs, large logs, or stump holes.
The planting plan will exclude the installation of wetland plant material within any of the non-
jurisdictional upland areas on the project site. The uplands include the eastern white pine community
occurring near the western boundary of the site and the sloped areas extending along the southern
shoulder of Old Michael Road. Bamboo Areas 2 and 3 occur outside the project boundary and encompass
uplands; therefore, these areas will be planted with upland tree species common to the region, such as
eastern white pine or white oak (Quercus alba).
Finally, the Wetland Mitigation Plan does not include any enhancement or restoration activities for the
East Fork Pigeon River or the unnamed perennial stream that occurs within the western portion of the
project site. These surface waters are essentially unimpaired and provide suitable habitat for endemic fish
and benthic macro-invertebrates. However, it is recommended herein that these jurisdictional waters be
considered as available preservation credit.
18
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
4.4 Beaver Control
March 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
During the April - October 2010 field reconnaissance, sign of beaver was observed, including tree and
shrub girdling/cuttings, a lodge, and two dams (Figure 3) within the eastern portion of the bottomland
hardwood forest. MACTEC recommends herein that the control of beaver, via acceptable trapping
practices, be conducted on the project site during the wetland planting operations and for a period of at least
seven (7) years following planting to ensure that depredation to the planted tree seedlings by beavers is
minimized. This activity is necessary for the survivorship of the planted wetland species and the overall
success of the wetland enhancement effort. NCEEP, or appointed State agency, shall be responsible for any
long-term beaver control efforts on the project site.
4.5 Mitigation Assets
The potential mitigation assets that will be provided from the implementation of the Wetland Mitigation
Plan for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 includes
the following information:
• Linear feet of stream preservation and the corresponding (available and generated) Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs).
• Acreage of wetland preservation and the corresponding Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs).
• Acreage of wetland enhancement and the corresponding WMUs.
Table 2. Potential Mitigation Assets for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
MitiLation Plan, Havwood Countv. North Carolina.
Wetland/Stream Mitigation Quantity of On-site

Feature'
Type Habitat Ratio Mitigation Units2

Perennial Stream Preservation 664 linear feet 5:1 132 SMUs
East Fork Pigeon River Preservation 1,411 linear feet 5:1 282 SMUs
Bottomland Hardwood

Forest - Planted Enhancement 5.64 acres 2:1 2.8 WMUs
Bottomland Hardwood

Forest - Not Planted Enhancement 0.02 acre 2:1 0.1 WMUS
Bottomland Hardwood

Forest - Not Planted preservation 8.29 acres 5:1 1.6 WMUs
WV Wcuauu cuua.uccruem areas are proposea; i.e., a 3.04-acre area of bottomland hardwood forest habitat which is lacking a
mature overstory (canopy and tall shrub strata) and is proposed for control of nuisance plant species followed by planting of tree
seedlings (groundstory openings) and a 0.02-acre area of bottomland hardwood forest habitat with a mature canopy, which is
infested with kudzu and Japanese knotweed (Japanese Knotweed/Kudzu Area), will be treated, but not planted.
The wetland preservation area (8.29 acres) includes the remaining portion of the bottomland hardwood forest habitat that is
comprised of a canopy stratum and/or tall shrub stratum, which is proposed for control of nuisance plant species, but not the
planting of tree seedlings.
2 SMUs = Stream Mitigation Units-, WMUs = Wetland Mitigation Units.
19

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
March 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
The NCEEP mitigation credit ratios that will be applied to this project are as follows:
• Stream preservation at 5:1 for SMUs.
• Wetland preservation at 5:1 for WMUs.
• Wetland enhancement at 2:1 for WMUs.
The following conditions apply to this project with respect to the mitigation assets:
• Mitigation credit will be created for preservation and/or enhancement of on-site wetlands and
streams only; i.e., the preservation and/or enhancement of off-site areas will not yield any
mitigation credit. The rationale for this determination is that a conservation easement will insure
that management/maintenance activities for on-site mitigation areas are provided in perpetuity,
while off-site mitigation areas have no such protection and management/maintenance activities
can be discontinued at any time.
• Jurisdictional streams on the project site (i.e., streams occurring within the conservation
easement) must have a 30-foot buffer from edge of bank on each side of the channel to be
available for stream preservation credit.
• Wetland areas occurring within the project site that will be treated for nuisance species, but not
planted, will receive preservation credit only. One exception is the Japanese Knotweed/Kudzu
Area (0.02 acre), which occurs outside of the planting area; i.e., this area of nuisance species will
receive enhancement credit for the control of nuisance species due to the aggressive nature of
kudzu and the potential expansion of this species into the surrounding forested wetlands.
• The two areas of bamboo that occur along the north side of Old Michael Road, beyond the project
site boundary (i.e., Bamboo Areas 2 and 3), will be controlled; however, no mitigation credit will
be provided for this control effort as the two bamboo areas occur off-site, on other property.
• The area of kudzu that abuts the northwest boundary of the project site along the southern
shoulder of Old Michael Road (Kudzu Area 1; 0.24 acre) will be controlled; however, no
mitigation credit will be provided for this control effort as the kudzu occurs either outside the
project site boundary or within uplands.
• Areas of nuisance species that occur within the 5.64-acre wetland planting area include: Bamboo
Area 1 (0.88 acre); Cattail Area 1 (0.61 acre); Cattail Area 2 (0.06 acre); Kudzu Area 2 (0.11
acre); and Japanese Knotweed Area 1 (0.06 acre) (see Figures 3 and 4). Multiflora rose is
scattered throughout the wetland planting area.
1 20
r
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
Figure 5 presents the proposed wetland and stream mitigation areas (i.e., the potential mitigation assets)
for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project, as including the perennial stream preservation reaches
and the areas of wetland enhancement and wetland preservation within the bottomland hardwood forest
i and imbedded shrub openings.
5.0 PRELIMINARY MONITORING
The purpose of the wetland monitoring program for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project is to
determine the degree of success the project has achieved in meeting the objectives of providing wetland
enhancement. Data on the survivorship, vitality, and growth of the planted vegetation, the areal coverage
of nuisance plant species, and wildlife utilization can be gathered annually to show how well the proposed
mitigation plan is working. At a minimum, the monitoring plan should include:
• Identify parties responsible for monitoring;
• Determine the data to be collected and reported, how often and for what duration;
• Define the assessment tools and/or methods to be used for monitoring;
• Determine the format for reporting monitoring data and assessing enhancement status (success
criteria); and
• Identify monitoring schedule (monitoring will be conducted for a minimum period of five years).
It is presumed that the wetland monitoring program will incorporate the NCEEP CVS monitoring
protocols to determine if success criteria for the planted species have been met through the enhancement
efforts. At a minimum, either CVS Level I or CVS Level 2 monitoring (sample plots) will be conducted
in the project wetlands. Ground level photography will be acquired to document site conditions in the
r wetlands. Monitoring activities will be conducted over a seven-year timeframe. Overall, the wetland
monitoring program will be conducted in accordance with current NCEEP standards. Monitoring reports
should contain a discussion of any deviations from baseline conditions and an evaluation of the
significance of these deviations and whether they are indicative of a stabilizing or destabilizing situation.
6.0 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
6.1 Legal Protection of Wetland Mitigation Area
The wetland mitigation area will be protected through the establishment of a conservation easement. The
NCEEP has obtained a conservation easement for the project site. The easement is held by the
State of North Carolina and has been recorded at the Haywood County Courthouse.
21
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
6.2 Long-Term Management Responsibilities
Long-term management and maintenance of the wetland mitigation area will be assured through the
placement of the conservation easement on the mitigation area. Formal management/maintenance of the
wetland mitigation area beyond the monitoring period will be the responsibility of NCEEP. Ownership of
the wetland mitigation area will reside with the landowner, Ms. Helen Coleman, or her respective assigns.
If the wetland mitigation area should ever be sold, all appropriate protective mechanisms (which will have
been recorded) would remain in effect and would remain with the site.
7.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp.
Division of Water Quality. 2010. North Carolina River Basin Map. North Carolina Department of
r Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Web Site:
http://www.ee.enr.state.nc.us/public/ecoaddress/riverbasinsmain htm. Accessed via the Internet on
November 8, 2010.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 p. plus
appendices.
FEMA. 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 370120 0190B, effective date July 15, 1984.
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the North Carolina Floodmaps Program. Web Site:
http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/. Accessed via the Internet on November 8, 2010.
Ferrell, J., M. Czarnota, and K. Langeland. 2006. Bamboo Control (Document SS-AGR-75). Agronomy
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.
Lynch, W.E. 2002. Cattail Management (Document A-11-02). School of Natural Resources, Ohio State
' University Extension Service, Ohio State University.
1 22
r
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
MAEPPC. 2010. Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council. Web Site: http://www.ma-eppc.org/.
Accessed via the Internet on November 10, 2010.
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. The North Carolina Geological Survey, Division of
Land Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
NCNPP. 2010. North Carolina Native Plant Society - Invasive Exotic Species List. Web Site:
http://www.ncwildflower.org/invasives/list.htm. Accessed via the Internet on November 19, 2010.
Neal, J.C. 2005. Controlling Bamboo in Landscape Plantings. Department of Horticultural Science,
North Carolina State University.
NRCS. 2010. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Data Mart Web Site:
http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed via the Internet on November 9, 2010.
Remaley, T. and C. Bargeron. 2003. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual.
r Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Web Site: http://www.invasive.org/eastern/eppc/introduction.htmi.
Accessed via the Internet on November 10, 2010.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina -
' Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
I SEPPC.2
010. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. Web Site: http://www.se-eppc.org/. Accessed via
the Internet on November 19, 2010.
' USFWS. 2010. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory database. Web
Site: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed via the Internet on November 9, 2010.
USGS. 2010. 8-Digit Cataloging Units - North Carolina. United States Geological Survey Web Site:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/hucs.aspx. Accessed via the Internet on November 8, 2010.
1 23
r
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTEC Project No. 6470-10-0214
Haywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10-07350-01
Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding
Areas. Working Draft of April 7, 2008. University of North Carolina Herbarium, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
1
r
r
r
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1

1
r

I
1
1
1

1
FIGURES

HAYWOOD COUNTY o 25 so
o 100
Miles 23

NORl 1-1 CAROLINA 13
25
197
? 19
PROJECT VICINITY
09 ?i
63 5
83

,ASHEVILLE

276 70
19 CANT ON 19
19 74

WAYNESVILLE 10 PROJECT LOCATION
23 (151

74 191
25
276
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
15
r

107 o ?
ti, Usk aC?
'`
"?crr
8 276
?r
'
rt in
Ae^ }am rYp
0 4 8 16 PROJECT LOCATION
Miles 64
Source: http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap/mapserver, dated 2010.
N

PROJECT VICINITY MAP

O
MACTEC EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED
BY SJM DATE
11/9/2010 CHECKED
BY JDC DATE
11/23/2010 JOB NUMBER
6470-10-0214 FIGURE
1
rt ! }?
Y?yi
:AND r11,OLD MICHAEL Rr

t

47,
.a ?
1q r 4
t . v :.
UPLAND
IV,
s Y ?
EASIPEORK-
rt ? s? IGEO R VERB *
.<
MAW.
t f F ! ?`
vy P
f ?t a
.r
1p r
?C 11f T -?'?r ,i <,
276
!e
?r
Source: http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_lmagery/MapServer, dated 2010.
Project Boundary -- Perennial Stream -East Fork Pigeon River ? Wetland ?m Culvert N
0 100 200 400 600 800
Feet
JURISDICTIONAL SURFACE WATERS
J MACTEC EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE JOB NUMBER FIGURE
BY SJM 11/9/2010 BY JDC 11/23/2010 6470-10-0214 2

-attailtr a,2
44
" CattaillArea,>1._;.
p Bambow 'rear1
13 aV erA J m Beav m .
`t y,a Japanese Kriotweed
,p
>
Kudzu A 2 `
?? Ca tai_I(A'# 3, '?
?.
q , Japanese Knotweed/
dzu Area 10
4wo
off
276. '? t
it `
Y w n. 4b
Source http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_lmagery/MapServer, dated 2010.
Project Boundary -East Fork Pigeon River - Perennial Stream ? Wetland N
0 100 200 400 600 800
Feet
NUISANCE SPECIES AREAS
MArTEC EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE JOB NUMBER FIGURE
BY SJM 11/9/2010 BY JDC 11/23/2010 6470-10-0214 3
AIS 4
OLD MICHAEL ROA0­
08.vdads�ed Wetland
47%
276 ---qqppqpqll;41 I"
FIT
Source: http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_lmagery/MapServer, dated 2010.
— Project Boundary Perennial Stream — East Fork Pigeon River N
0 100 200 400 600 800
— —i Feet
PROPOSED WETLAND PLANTING AREA
EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
_�J'�MACTEC WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPAREDJDATE ICHECKED JDATE 1,10B NUMBER FIGURE
BY SJM 11/9/2010 BY JDC 11/23/2010 6470-10-0214 4

- 4
tr
,. t

ilk
"
%
t •

4q

???[[[ Y
i ?_ er

OLD MICHAEL J

IN
P
;

f' ?"ea

•
? t.
?
?.
'? i ?+'?' Via: 3.
1
004

?
k
- A 4

EAST FORK .? ? All
PIGEON RIVER-

Wetland/Stream Feature Mitigation Type Quantity of On-site Habitat
Perennial Stream Stream Preservation 664 linear feet R
East Fork Pigeon River Stream Preservation 1411 linear feet 1 -
Bottomland Hardwood Forest - _?
Planted Wetland Enhancement 5.64 acres -? -
Bottomland Hardwood Forest-
Not Planted Wetland Enhancement 0.02 acre
. ) g' ,
- A? -
Bottomland Hardwood Forest-
, • ,?? j
Not Planted Wetland Preservation 8.29 acres
/
i ? "? ?g 1 e

Note: Stream preservation assets were calculated with a 30-foot buffer on each side of the
?? ii •
stream.
1R c
.
+y +9{ •t
lj

Q
276
r
f, a
Source: USDA FSA NAIP Aerial Photography, dated 2009.
-Project Boundary-Stream Preservation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation N

0 100 200 400 600 800
Feet
PROPOSED WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION AREAS
EAS T FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
MACTEC WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED
BY SJM DATE
2/28/2011 CHECKED
BY JDC DATE
2/28/2011 JOB NUMBER
6470-10-0214 FIGURE
5
APPENDIX A
USACE NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

' U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ld: 2010-01783 County: Haywood U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Cruso
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: MACTEC for Ms. Helen H. Coleman (owner)
' Address: 7347 West Friendly Avenue, Suite E
Greensboro, NC 27410
Telephone No.: 336-294-4221
' Property description:
Size (acres) 13.9 acres wetland and 2,076 LF streams Nearest Town Cruso
Nearest Waterway UT to East Fork of Pigeon River and East Fork of Pigeon River
' River Basin French Broad
USGS HUC 06010106 Coordinates 35.4604492 N, -82.8431099 W
Location description The project site is located off Old Michael Road (SR 1885) along the East Fork of the Pigeon
' River in Cruso, Haywood County, NC. Coordinates in Decimal Degrees are: 35.460449 N, -82.8431099 W.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
' A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters and wetlands on the above described property. We strongly
suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be
' considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
' our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are waters and wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters and wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property
and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a
more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by
the Corps.
The waters and wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We
strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the
' . Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your
property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to
exceed five years.
' _X The waters and wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on 3 November, 2010. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Action Id. 2010-01783
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Tyler Crumbley at 828-271-7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and is adjacent to stream channels
located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The stream channel on the property is an unnamed
tributary to UT to East Fork of Pigeon River and East Fork of Pigeon River which flows into the French Broad River and
ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will fmd a Notification
of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must
submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
' Attn: Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
' In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 2 January, 2011.
' **It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official: -Tyler Crumbley
Issue Date: ffft=fftqd Expiration Date: 3 November, 2015
3 Nav ? ?
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
' ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
'Ms: Helen H. Coleman

wl. t? t MhN Y ?L ST '? 1.. 3 ?
.
?
M ;
?
?
r 'V"'Y?
.Y.ed +
??
Y •e'3:C'^y-•y,ry,,4,. I ?-?y ?, '?.
_4'+?..ti???lS? , `
i ?'ra HkSp. ?aav P MH. ? }l.? L ? ?3>?`.vkF ?w?''c. vr,L: !,`
.v
y
{z
r
•
1`
f
'
'?
y
,
?
•
i' .:
W .J L
N
:iS?
.a'.?%cdeti w
C? ? ?iY' . i
- is=^?ir ?'k "y'"".t?„?. fi .wl 'A'° S 'a' ?. ?e? "'+. qu nM .,,e. w??'« f'''t r :"`>-'S' r .? • _ 1u
i•. `"2. ?'i`]'.C-
W ,.la.r ?
:• nC ^k
? K1
YS
?hP4
'
'? Y
...
.
: ?
? ..
??
4.
Cf
s:.. •:,,.
.i . V
SSafi;C
F^ '
-~ + -
.Helen H.
Applicant: MACTEC for Ms. File Number: 2010-01783 Date: 3 November, 2010
Coleman (owner)
At tached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at h ://www.usace army mi] inct/fimctibns/cw/cecwo/rep or
Corps regulations at 33=CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section H of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
3
1
1

i

1

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION 11- REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR fNFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review
USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office Officer
151 Patton Ave CESAD-ET-CO-R
RM 208 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, NC 28806 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
828-271-7980 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
government consultants
,
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801.
4

OL
Z?
U_
??o
tip
W0:`mgOmf
f <u1?UW
3 Z >c
V?WQFW?
?rFZOV1
Y•UtA?00
_j 14J
?qm
gZgZmO?
rnUi- gj?
iEooaCL c?
apq?=?O
}ZZgWaN
q
,,ry?NZ
US2 =?
m h q W
C:": W- y
?-
?
?Wrm O?
WF=OZV?W
-,mote~z
L O C.1 of
Q
?z5(C
Uo
xUz iE C)
FmQZv U
0
I

v
o z
k U
O
e? U
n N W O
I iA
N M N
r 1n
m ?
M O
10 N b lCl
F d• n ? n ? 1.
m w
th "
to d W M N n W M N W IMn ? h r O O N i - 0 0 b 0
ZZ
t- N
lf.-i W
-0 O
mt0 O
nd•
LO ?
0
N
r) M
? m
M W
M
N t?
t C4
N
M
tf1 N
•C t
M v
t(I ;
K)
M W
r d'
N
? W
W N
n W
n
a'? M
n ,
?
IA W
O N
tO p tM
to O
It n
W N
W W
tq .-
00 r
m0
2
' 8
O
W W W W W 3 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W tai W W W W W W W W W W W ^Z' W 3 3
io t n W m m mp?
' m m .- tn
- m
d' W
'
In m i? `o,
m m
d' W
M .r
In ?
w .-
M m
N
? n
N N
N m
N n
M n
•- M
M n
N 'o,
M
? m
O in
O r
M ln
O v
M ln
t?1 o
t
"7
(? .- M
n N
N N
W ?
M M
m d
M N

p
$ M

In
O M

r
IO .

^
'N

1?
d' ?

o
?t

d d
M

O

M
N O

.-
N ?

t.
1,

O
tM

N

0

d
M

W
N

,,rr??
t

M

M
.-

N

p
M

m
O

W
M

?
O

W
d•

O
•-

W
O

lp
o

d
m

?
N

f?
O

Ig
M

O
o •

N
O
Z N
to
N O
in In
b r-
io
0 /n
lo
0 O
8o
0 to
in
M 2?
0 o?
r i?
m ir
0 F
m
ad to
m to
d in
m F
m F
m Fo
m to
m F?
? :t
r a
m :-
n F
to b
n ?
m b
m '
in io
m '
?
ti? F
N '
? to
C4 .- $ N
o r?
. ?
n b
n
< m Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z tn Z N m rn (/7 tn o w w V w w w V7 fll tn w w w o w O W W N Z Z

Z ?
J NN
J I?f
J
J 11[(?}
J
J
J pppp
J ppf?
J O
J r•'
1 N
J M
J d
J ln
J to
J r
J m
J W
J ONN
J NN?
J ????yyyy
J NMN
J NdN
J NN
J ?m?y1
J nNN
J NmN
J NWN
J O ? 1C1?4
J 1?
J 11d?r?
J 1.11.?
J

to N?

nM

?Mp

W

O

W

N 1 (n ?z(n
Ih
'n$n ? z4
sign \ \\ .,
`,Ittllltlf tlllllll l//IIII,,i
?i
.w I :
. 7:C. QUO
Z Qn
JJJ?JJJ .-1 N?O<<o
>~
Oa ?'??
Q5 VOIq? 3WWW)
?
02?

? a ?

b Z U
a
?
W
z ?ooz
a \
"s y w
q(n
(n Q

E p v L38
:E Iz S z / X36 L37

r
???
cnn o
?
? ?
!
sp'
N m
?2w ? g,?
Qa n? i /
?
w?' 8.r p
i2'??
_ s V nli /
V Y?g

0 1
ZW O G?
Ong ? ? / `J?

>°

?'? / N
1 la 1
/
a
ox 'p

Qoz ?
?o
3
Ohs W
p ViV t
FWD ?'
L Rv = I
n ?I y ? W
Us?
xmz i
? '.? ? ?' Wt3 I?y /
pp low
? ta'? ? 2?W 'ty , 1
b q
?W W •t-
cz 4.1 -.6
3Z W?? W W ? 4 a z a
?I I4a °3
N?
I ?N
l IY
a
Z<
/
tJ, /
sy i
L58ggj v ?
Z97
X67 L43

?
/t 1P yan?
wV. &P ? Caw om
ri ?t Q

` 1
Sao
1 1 3
I

z w)
2

?

x
F
Q
z
(LOOZ/£9 6YN) aISO ON)
.7699 Gans .o I3Nm f?
dVM NO 63SV8 NOLLYIPOSO r W

g ? o 0 -- n r ln ol M
n n
d' M
N ?
Y M
N rn
O
tn M?
d o
W r t1?n
't
m In
W N
I
W
N n N
N C4
IV
0
U) I
.-
t?
d'
M 1i
n
fn .
O
*
O
K)
t,
-
N
*
to
n W
W
M
.-
ln
?
r
m
n n
r
F• M d r M M C4

3 w w w w 3 w w w w w 3 3 3 3 w 3 3 w 3 3 3 3

Q N M d ??pp
?
to m O iO ? C
4 0
W m io d ln v
g in In Gl
N
yi
t?
"
0
M
m .-
.-
M
O Y
W
.^
O tO
m
N] N
?
N N
m 1n
N
fV
ln
IA 0
m C
4
B ) d
"co M
d d
O
O
?
r
d'
N
r
M
O
m
d'
I
4O
In
M
?
d
N
N
W
In
N
s
i
•s
Z
O Z_ N
d
O ?
o1
H O
? S
F?
N :-
O tO
? Pn
O ?
to
m t? i,
r h
O h
r• h
^t in
•- b0
N r-i
O sup 1n
d M ?
.-
? ?
O
in k)
to b
rn
m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z w w w t
o w t o w N N o w o w

? J J J J J ? J ? 1(7
J LLLL
]]
J ,?7
J 11
J t
J 1
??
J ? ? J J J J J J J
8£l
.t
J
ti
I?
r
a?Z
Q?s
ti
I
_ Irani I W
3W Wq~WFZ-
_
?00
t/'I
4
???W3~?n2
=
a ociz
wz
a?"cn
II ?'
"?
a.1 02 "
a N." ?(?e0.?N c
r-a W Lu
U
28 O
^ p
?
8m
C
d UZtiz U

Cyr-. II
C4) qe_
q??UN??o4
"
cd V)
M ' Q?WWI?NLL v,
cn W 1?
0)
J
}0
j
j
W U ?: U tOD c ! c! 0?
-
I
ii-
? + (c M ai o
+
I
I m?
u?a
a?QC) ?b
?

a 00 II
V) C\
Q' v
3
tu
3
w
3

i
II O ro" t en pp n
u W II 1"'t C/? w Z NN.- n N O O
z
a _ 69 tn to cn z
Q
w
u m (n
a?z0Q

o

w0?
¢4F,W °
Q

C) c
C
¢ II
a
Z zz
0 0 0 o w z

3

c

P4 Z C/) C40)
rX
R R
O
O P
,
1 1 i 1 1 M q
? N ?'

O ,
?Or N W o
Ltii v
a v
O ,
/ cq (5 O'
' ao C
i:? z
0 .0
48
4. *F
G
C) Z
\ 0 ti O
y Y y
pg
m 1^u O
O
N
??uu

<
a? Z
3 ? g p? 1.
v R to '3 3 2
y ? 1? ? 1py

(~.1 z O 4 G 9
y?
}
? W
?

\
? y
2

O p
O ?i!
1
1
1w?
C
N

0 ooox)I(©;C7m
a 3
I I I I I I
® 3

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
' SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville
' C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project area = 15.73 acres
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Haywood Citv: Canton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.4606° N, Long. -82.8430° W.
' Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: East Fork of Pigeon River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Pigeon River
' Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): French Broad / USGS Cat. Unit No. 06010106
F Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
' D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
©, Field Determination. Date(s): October 6, 2010 site inspection conducted with Mr. Tyler Crumbley, USACE, Asheville.
' SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ;ire no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters: (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 2,076 linear feet: variable width (ft) and/or 0.820 acres.
Wetlands: 13.952 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
' A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
' and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
t Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
' 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
' B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
' The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
' (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
' EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
' If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
' the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for.
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
' 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
' Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows throueb Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
' Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
' Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
' Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
' Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
' Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
' ? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
' Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
' (c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
' the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
11
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Fick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
1

D

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
I wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
' D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Rationale: The subject tributary (RPW) is identifeid as the East Fork of Pigeon River. At the project
site lcoation, this tributary was classificed by MACTEC scientists as a perennial stream based on the protocols in NCDENR
DWQ document "Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, Version 4.1." This
perennial stream (RPW) is mapped as a blue line feature on the USGS topographic quadrangle.. The stream (RPW) flows into
the Pigeon River, which is presumed to be the TNW. Finally, a smaller, unnamed tributary of the East Fork of Pigeon River
occurs along the western boundary of the project site. This unnamed stream channel was characterized as perennial based on
the aforementioned DWQ protocols.

1

1

1
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: 2,076 linear feet variable width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
[] Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Rationale: Based on the Cowardin Classification, the jurisdictional wetlands occurring
within the project site are characterized as Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous (PFOI), Palustrine
scrub/shrub broad-leaved deciduous (PSSI), and Palustrine emergent persistent (PEM1). These wetlands directly
abut the bank of the RPW (i.e., the East Fork of Pigeon River) along the southern project boundary, as
determined by direct visual observation made during the wetland delineation field effort.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 13.952 acres.

1
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

1

6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U. S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
' Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
' Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
' Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
' ? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
fact ors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
' ? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Pro vide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
?' Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
F'i Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES
.
A. SUP PORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Wetland/Stream Survey prepared by PLS (encl.).
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
' ? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: See MACTEC JD request package provided to USACE (09/2010).
'
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: See MACTEC JD request package to USACE (09/2010).
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
' ? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
to Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

t
1
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
WETLAND SIDE
Project/Site: East Fork Pigeon River City/County: Haywood
Applicant/Owner: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (Applicant) State: NC
Investigator(s): Josh Witherspoon and James Cutler Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform: (hillslope, te rrace, etc.) Floodplain Bottomland Local Relief (c oncave, convex, none): concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) N Lat: 35.4612 at RD point Long: -82.8444
Soil Map Unit Name: Dellwood cobbly sandy loam (DeA) NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes EJ Cbo, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ? , Soil ? , or Hydrology ?significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes
Are Vegetation ? Soil ? , or Hydrology ?naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Slope (%): <1
-Datum: WGS 84
PSSIA
No ?Q ?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No ? Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No ? within a wetland? Yes 0 No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No ?
Remarks: Invasive plant'Multiflora Rose' is abundant in understory within wetland.
NWI Code PSS IA = Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporary Flooded.
Narrow transitional boundary between upland area and wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar y Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply): ? Surface Soil Cracks (136)
? Surface Water (Al) ? Water-Stained Leaves (139) ? Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (138)
? High Water Table (A2) ? Aquatic Fauna (613) ?' Drainage Patterns (610)
? Saturation (0 ? True Aquatic Plants (1314) ? Moss Trim Lines (616)
? Water Marks (131) ? Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ? Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
? Sediment Deposits (132) ? Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0) ? Crayfish Burrows (C8)
? Drift Deposits (83) ? Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ? Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
? Algal Mat or Crust (134) ? Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ?D Geomorphic Position (D2)
? Iron Deposits (135) ? Thin Much Surface (C7) ? Shallow Aquitard (D3)
? Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7 ? Other (Explain in Remarks) ? FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ? No ? Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ? No ? Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes 2 No ? Depth (inches): 6 inches Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Sampling Date: 10/5/2010
Sampling Point: Flag W1-8 (L55)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants

SamDline Point: Flae W1-8 (1-55)
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Salix nigra 15 y OBL That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Platanus occidentalis 15 y FACW Total Number of Dominant
3 Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4 Percent of Dominant Species
5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 86% (A/B)
6.
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
30 = Total Cover OBL species 75 x 1 = 75
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species 55 x2= 110
1. Salix nigra 25 y OBL FAC species 5 x3= 15
2. FACU species 0 x4= 0
3 UPL species 25 X5= 125
4. Column Totals: 160 (A) 325 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.0
6.
7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) ? Dominance Test is > 50%
1. Salix nigra 10 y OBL ?r Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2. Rosa multiflora 25 y UPL ? Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
S. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
35 =Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
1. Aster puniceus 25 y OBL approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6
2. Impatiens capensis 25 y FACW cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
3. Juncus effusus 5 FACW Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4. Boehmeria cylindrica 5 FACW approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5. Rubus sp. 5 FAC in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6. Corex sp. 5 FACW Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8. Herb - AII herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11. m) in height.
12. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
70 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratur (Plot size:
1.
2.
2. Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation Yes ?? No ?
2. Present?
0 = Total Cover
Remarks : (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Invasive plant'Multiflora Rose' is abundant in understory within wetland (pockets).
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: Flag W1-8 (1-55)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0 to 18 7.5 YR 3/2 90 7.5 YR 3/1 10 D M Loam Mottles common and faint
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
? Histosol (Al) ? Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U) ? 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
? Histic Epipedon (A2) ? Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U) ? 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
? Black Histic (A3) ? Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O) ? Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
? Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ? Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
? Stratified Layers (AS) ? Depleted Matrix (173) ? Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
? Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U) ? Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
? 5 cm Mucky Mineral (0) (LRR P,T,U) ? Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ? Red Parent Material (TF2)
? Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) ? Redox Depressions (F8) ? Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U)
? 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T) ? Marl (F10) (LRR U) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
? Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ? Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
? Thick Dark Surface (A12) ? Iron-Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O,P,T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ? Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P,T,U) wetland hydrology must be present,
? Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) (LRR O,S) ? Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
? Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ? Reduced Vertic (1718) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
? Sandy Redox (S5) ? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A)
? Stripped Matrix (S6) ? Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
? Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ?Q No ?
Remarks: Low chroma
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
UPLAND SIDE
' Project/Site: East Fork Pigeon River City/County: Haywood Sampling Date: 10/5/2010
Applicant/Owner: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (Applicant) State: NC Sampling Point: Flag W1-8 (L55)
Investigator(s): Josh Witherspoon and James Cutler Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Hillslope (toe) Local Relief ( concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1
' Subregion (LRR or MLRA) N Lat: 35.4612 at RD point Long: -82.8444 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Dellwood cobbly sandy loam (DeA) NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologi c conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes (21 Do, explain in Remarks.)
' Are Vegetation ? , Soil ? , or Hydrology ?significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ? ?
Are Vegetation ? , Soil ? , or Hydrology ? naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important Teatures, eic.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No ? Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No within a wetland? Yes ? No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ? No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondar y Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply): ? Surface Soil Cracks (136)
? Surface Water (Al) ? Water-Stained Leaves (139) ? Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (138)
? High Water Table (A2) ? Aquatic Fauna (613) ? Drainage Patterns (1310)
? Saturation (A3) ? True Aquatic Plants (614) ? Moss Trim Lines (616)
? Water Marks (131) ? Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ? Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
? Sediment Deposits (132) ? Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0) ? Crayfish Burrows (C8)
? Drift Deposits (63) ? Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ? Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
? Algal mat or crust (134) ? Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ? Geomorphic Position (D2)
? Iron Deposits (135) ? Thin Much Surface (0) ? Shallow Aquitard (D3)
? Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137 ? Other (Explain in Remarks) ? FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ? No ?D Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ? No [?] Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ? No ? Depth (inches): Wetla nd Hydrology Present? Yes ? No 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No hydrologic indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

11

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Flag W1-8 (1-55)
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Pinus strobus 70 y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
6.
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
70 = Total Cover OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1. Carpinus caroliniana 20 y FAC FAC species 60 x3= 180
2. Pinus strobus 20 y FACU FACU species 100 x4= 400
3. UPI-species 10 x5= 50
4. Column Totals: 180 (A) 650 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.6
6.
7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
= Total Cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) ? Dominance Test is > 50%
1. Rosa multiflora 10 y UPL ? Prevalence index is <_ 3.01
2. Pinus strobus 10 y FACU ? Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5, be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
20 =Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
1. Lonicera japonica 10 y FAC approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6
2. Toxicodendron rodicons 30 y FAC cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
3. Boehmeria cylindrica 10 y FACW Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5. in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7. approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8. Herb - AII herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11. m) in height.
12. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratur (Plot size:
1.
2.
2. Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation Yes ? No 0
2. Present?
0 =Total Cover
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)

US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version
n
SOIL

Sampling Point: Flag W1-8 (L55)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC Texture Remarks
0 to 1 7.5 YR 2.5/2 100 Loam
1 to 18 10 YR 3/3 100 Loam
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
? Histosol (Al) ? Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U) ? 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
? Histic Epipedon (A2) ? Thin Dark Surface (59) (LRR S,T,U) ? 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
? Black Histic (A3) ? Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O) ? Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
? Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ? Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P,S,T)
? Stratified Layers (AS) ? Depleted Matrix (F3) ? Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
? Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U) ? Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
? 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U) ? Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ? Red Parent Material (TF2)
? Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) ? Redox Depressions (F8) ? Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U)
? 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T) ? Marl (F10) (LRR U) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
? Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ? Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
? Thick Dark Surface (A12) ? Iron-Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O,P,T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ? Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U) wetland hydrology must be present,
? Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S) ? Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
? Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ? Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
? Sandy Redox (S5) ? Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
? Stripped Matrix (S6) ? Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
? Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ? No Q
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

APPENDIX B
NCEEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST
1
1
1

I
i

Ecosystem
PKOtmRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project: `East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands'
Name if stream or feature: East Fork Pigeon River
County: Haywood
Name of river basin: French Broad River Basin
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county: Haywood County
Wetlands JD through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DFIRM panel number for
entire site: 3701200190B
Consultant name: MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Phone number: [phone]
Address: 3301 Atlantic Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27604
East Fork Pigeon River Completed FEMA Floodplain Checklist.doc
Pagel of 3
Design Information
' Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500". Project Description and Figure 1 are
attached to this checklist.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Nnto • Ctronm nra.cervntinn only

0

r

I
I
Reach Length Priority
Northwest Perennial Stream 664 linear feet Equal priority
East Fork Pigeon River 1,411 linear feet Equal priority
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
t. Yes t- No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r- Redefineation
Detailed Study
I" Limited Detail Study
W Approximate Study Per FEMA, the land area covered by the floodwaters of the
base flood is the SFHA on NFIP maps for Haywood County.
`J Don't know
List flood zone designation: A7 (A1 A30 = `Areas of 100 year flood; base flood
elevations and flood hazard actors determined. ).
Check if applies:
r- AE Zone
f- Floodway
Non-Encroachment
" None
A Zone
r Local Setbacks Required
(- No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: Thirty (30) feet from stream TOB for
perennial streams depicted on USGS map (Haywood County Ordinances: Chapter 151
[Watershed Protection] - Section 151.34 [Buffer Areas Required]).
East Fork Pigeon River Completed FEMA Floodplain Checklist.doc Page 2 of 3

' EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
' WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
Haywood County, North Carolina
Project Description - March 2011
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) was awarded a Design Contract (SCO ID 10-
' 07350-01) for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). The project site is a 15.73-acre parcel of land that is located to the south of the Town of
' Canton, in Haywood County, North Carolina. The project site presently consists of a bottomland hardwood
forest, numerous shrub and groundstory openings, and a small upland pine island. Surface waters include a
perennial stream channel and the East Fork Pigeon River. The NCEEP has obtained a conservation
' easement for the project site. The Wetland Mitigation Plan for the project proposes wetland enhancement
of the bottomland hardwood forest which encompasses the floodplain of the East Fork Pigeon River.
' Nuisance plant species have become established over time within the bottomland hardwood forest
(jurisdictional wetlands) on site. The Wetland Mitigation Plan presents methods for the control of six (6)
' nuisance plant species. The Wetland Mitigation Plan also includes a planting program to install desirable
wetland plant species within the jurisdictional wetland area. The elements of the nuisance species control
' program and the planting plan will be approved by the NCEEP prior to implementation. The wetland
enhancement will provide a quantified amount of NCEEP wetland mitigation credit for various permitted
projects which occur within the French Broad River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code 06010106010010. This
1 UC is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in NCEEP's 2009 French Broad River Basin
' Restoration Priority. The restoration goals and objectives for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands
project include: (1) Protecting the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat with a permanent
' conservation easement and (2) Enhancing the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat by removing
identified invasive plant species through manual and chemical methods and by planting native species
' within the project site.
i y
dR 1 4 A; Pigeon River
A 0
`... 4k i ,
4., p
Haywood County
j # East
ff Fork
Pigeon
1 River
Project Site Location
X ° c
UPLAND } OLD MICHAEL R
°UPL?ANDw `.' PEREI N10 TREAM L
T . '
r w" < 4
r a
•? 1 e a• _? '! &UPLAND
f
701 4
t?
EASTOFORK- a + ,
' PIGEON RIVER • '?°
j 4 A`
.?. 1. ?.
Y-
Source: http://services.arcgisonIine.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_lmagery/MapServer, dated 2010.
Project Boundary Perennial Stream East Fork Pigeon River Wetland 7:1? Culvert
N
0 100 200 400 600 800
Feet
EEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST
OMACTEC EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE JOB NUMBER FIGURE
BY SJM 3/11/2010 BY JDC 3/11/2010 6470-10-0214 1

APPENDIX C
SPECIFIC PURPOSE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

1•' hNNNNNNN
z?
N?VhNNNNN

9
.1 ?cc
G
m d
N
yyad
a
R?q
D
jsc 4
a?
m ^+ N
ZzW
?? A A
n? np
H s
n4?1
2wi-il d
C
1 w
A

1-a ? x 1
t

N„
t a
,? ` Noss

0
gx a -
?
1
?« w?a
Nnf
HqM?
Pi ZWfii
,3 s y 1 1
'EE
N S
U0
?a? ? Z W w H ? P
s
Hiv
t

(L?/fB OW) ON$ ON) la
3= :. AM
4W NO GM NOUVZONO °x

? ? ? ??1yyy ^ ?
ON^
z MR,
y }
oa.®J xoko. s x l I 1 1 1 ?
&ad
a
N
0
D
0
N
? :;'odd ?' aO r p .
z"
ow o Q
?W?QSW?t4
a a Z n
N
3
cP H:j
v? a

??VlNmavf
LLJ g rn
ix
4oU4°,I?.wQ
w j? C
4
j3Z
O
$
?
Z
3
[4W q C
o 4
??
2
W4
Z
U ? (Q??
lz
Y?WW3W 11?
gWQ?F, 47t
c3?+Cj????q? < U
Z

1
[l

I

1

C

APPENDIX D
GROUND LEVEL SITE PHOTOGRAPHY

J,
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
Haywood County, North Carolina
y} AN
44
Photograph #1: View of the East Fork Pigeon River along Southern Boundary of the
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (April 30, 2010).
Photograph #2: View of Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Wetlands) within Western
Portion of the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (April 30, 2010).

1?.a'4 e 4 yes.,' •i ??. 3 ?1''".
Photograph #3: View of Open Shrub/Groundstory Area (Wetlands) within Western
Portion of the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).

?.?: tel. e?? x _wy «?,'? r ? ? _ ?i,&,?'???Sp;?e '. S i p?h?i ?'k`1 o?1 r ?..«i?,? s?.
t?.*..• A' r. v'?,As.. ? 3:tfr. +o-'?IY=J~?rf.'?+?kf r'.??1 ?',. a'u6a?v?.,?v +. x .>- i??S
Photograph #4: View of Bamboo Stand within Eastern Portion of the East Fork Pigeon
River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).
Photograph #5: View of Bamboo Stand along Southern Shoulder of Old Michael Road,
Abutting East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).
Photograph #6: View of Bamboo Stand along Northern Shoulder of Old Michael Road,
North of East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).

I F-1
}?'7dv r?4? y t g A? `??4 a rti `? z +? a
i
s.?¢t
?? "??e?,i?` ' •.a !yx y -?''? c Q is ?Ic : t 4 k1r3
f? 4 ,!
d S _ i r,t1 9',t ??
";V 07
r` 6y k' xe >3}'.y?1a r s' ?? AY` l
pr I•}i, 'M "- ,fit"e"e,?_4 r: ?' ? ?i!$
a § ?` ? t `a a
x t 3Jt ?yny • ps 5)_ 4 ?r1 ?} °• n ade.???
* &#3fi,Ftiy? 4 .l r?ra,? a ?3Y tapi «. ?1f,
.F(i?1??. Fwaa ,.. ??9 'i ....? ti'i?m? d ?,„A. m§ ?... eEY??7'?.. _I? ?S?i????N.?_ I;
Photograph #7: View of Cattail Cluster in Open Area (Wetlands) within North-Central
Portion of East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).
' Photograph #8: View of Japanese Knotweed within Southeastern Portion of East Fork
Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).

2
Or-,
w?

Photograph #9: View of Kudzu within Southeastern Portion of East Fork Pigeon River
Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).

Photograph #10: View of Kudzu along the Southern Shoulder of Old Michael Road,
Northwestern Portion of East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (April 30, 2010).

t! Y y,/i -.". T?.,,j
A Y r?? "s? _?F? ? x+^'A? ?7??y ?+;. ?9 ?? T. w; ? t.,,?'a " '"k?;a, ,- i 1? ? '?Y.
Photograph #11: View of Japanese Honeysuckle along the Eastern Shoulder of Old
Michael Road, Western Portion of East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (April
30, 2010).
' Photograph #12: View of Beaver Dam within Eastern Portion of East Fork Pigeon River
Wetlands Project Site (April 30, 2010).