19930501 Ver 2_More Info Received_20091019

WDICKSO iftwl< ?.
community infrastructure consultants
October 16, 2009
Mr. Ian McMillan
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Central Office
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
q3-05ol Y;-
QP= k@-%1N0nRN
OCT 1 9 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
RE: Revisions to Individual Permit Application for a 401 Water Quality Certification
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project
Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina
lotla Creek [040401, 2-27, C]
DWQ Project # 93-0501 Ver 2, Macon County
Dear Mr. McMillan:
On behalf of the Macon County Airport Authority (applicant), WK Dickson & Co., Inc. (agent) has
prepared the attached revisions to the Individual Permit (IP) Application submitted on August 20, 2009
requesting a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters
and wetlands resulting from the proposed runway extension project and past impacts at the Macon
County Airport. The revised cumulative impacts associated with these projects now include 7.01
acres of freshwater wetlands and 809 linear feet of stream. Compensatory mitigation is currently still
available through payment to the NCEEP In-Lieu of Fee program.
The original (August 2009) Individual Permit application described cumulative impacts as 1,011.36
linear feet of stream and 6.42 acres of wetlands. The attached revisions have been made based on
comments and recommendations from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Asheville
Regulatory Office following their initial review. These revisions include the following:
Stream impacts reduced from 1,011.36 linear feet to 809 linear feet: The USACE has
recommended removing stream channel impacts resulting from the 2006 perimeter fencing
project from the cumulative impact total. Since the Airport Authority proposes to remove the
un-permitted culverts and restore stream channels in-kind to their pre-construction conditions,
the USACE considers these impacts temporary. Also, the total length of stream to be restored
was listed as 202.5 linear feet in the original application. This total has now changed due
discrepancies listed in the pipe lengths. Pipe #4 was described as a 21 inch CPP extending 30
feet. The correct description is a 30 inch CPP extending 21 feet. Pipe # 8 was described as a
34 inch CMP extending 20 feet. The correct description is 24 inch CMP extending 10 feet. The
11 ;tit Oriw

correct total of linear feet that will be restored is 183.5 linear feet and is described in Section
2.6.5 of the attached revised permit narrative (October 2009).
Supplemental soils investigation in area of Wetland G: The USACE requested that Wetland G
be re-delineated in order to identify a finer hydric soils boundary since only one hydric soils
profile was identified during the April 2009 Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS) investigation. Wetland
G is considered "atypical" since all three wetland parameters cannot positively be identified
due to past land disturbances. A new boundary was delineated during September 2009. This
boundary reduced the acreage of Wetland G from 1.56 acres to 0.83 acre (Figure 8). Because
of the atypical characteristics of Wetland G and the un-permitted ditch maintenance observed
by regulatory personal during May of 2007, the USACE is requiring that the Airport Authority
mitigate for previous impacts to Wetland G. In order to determine impacts, the USACE is
using the 1991 jurisdictional determination (J.D.) boundary to decide the size of the impact
(Figures 3 and 8). As a result, a total of 0.43 acre has been included in the cumulative impacts
for un-permitted ditching within Wetland G.
Proposed filling and grading of wetlands in Eastern Floodplain: Through many discussions
with both the DWQ and the USACE, it has been noted that wetlands located in the eastern
floodplain (Wetlands F/G, G, GA, and GB) are within an area that must be maintained free of
wildlife attractants. FAA regulations require that areas surrounding the immediate 500 feet of
the runway surface or the Object Free Zone be free of objects non-essential for air navigation
or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. This includes standing water to eliminate potential
attractants and reduce collisions with wildlife. In the original application, the Airport Authority
proposed continual maintenance of these areas through ditching, which has not been entirely
effective since wetlands still exist within these areas. Instead, the Airport Authority is now
proposing the filling and grading of 4.17 acres of wetlands (Wetlands F/G, G, GA, and GB)
located within 500 feet of the Object-Free Zone in order to comply with FAA safety standards.
Additionally, the USACE determined that Ditch 1 located within the boundaries of Wetland
F/G is not jurisdictional, which reduced the wetland acreage of F/G from 2.88 acres to 2.72
acres.
Compensation for previous unsuccessful mitigation locations: In 1993 the Macon County
Airport was issued Section 404 and Section 401 permits for the construction of the parallel
taxiway. The permit requirements included the creation of several onsite mitigation locations
for compensation of unavoidable impacts. Currently, only one onsite mitigation location is
functioning. As a result, the USACE is requiring compensation for the remaining 1.29 acres of
non-functioning mitigation areas. The original application only accounted for 0.43 acre of the
1993 mitigation locations.
The following tables have been taken from the original submission (August 2009) and the revised
October 2009 documents in order to compare changes in stream and wetland impacts.
c/fe/97084/5-7asbi I. doc
Ori
ginal Cumulative Impact Table (Submitted in August 20
Im acts
Jurisdictional Waters &
Wetlands Stream
(Linear Feet) Wetland
(Acres)
lotla Branch 748.86
Wetland 1 0.06
Wetland 2 0.05
Wetland 3 0.06
Alder Bog 1.38
Fence impacts (Temporary) 202.5
Equipment Access Culverts 60
Wetland G 1.56
Wetland F/G 2.88
1993 Wetland Mitigation
Site

0.43
Total 1,011.36 6.42
Revised Cumulative Impact Table (October 2009)
09)
Im acts
Jurisdictional Waters &
Wetlands Stream
(Linear Feet) Wetland
(Acres)
lotla Branch 749
Wetland 1 0.06
Wetland 2 0.05
Wetland 3 0.06
Alder Bog 1.38
Equipment Access Culverts 60
Wetland F/G 2.72
Wetland G 2009
Delineation
0.83
Wetland G 1991 delineation 0.43
Wetland GA 0.11
Wetland GB 0.08
1993 Wetland Mitigation
Site
1.29
Total 809 7.01
c/fe/97084/5-7asbi I.doc
Additional revisions have also been made to the Stormwater Management Plan described in Section
5.3 of the permit narrative. These revisions result from recent survey data taken on newly installed
NCDOT culverts located under S.R. 1434. The NCDOT replaced the eroded double 60" culverts
under S.R. 1434 to prevent a possible failure of the culverts and roadway. Since the proposed project
will tie into the newly installed culverts, the updated survey data has been incorporated into the
design which has resulted in changes to pre-construction and post-construction stormwater conditions.
The following is a list of the attached revised documents that need to be incorporated into the original
permit binders:
• Macon County Permit Application and Narrative October 2009: Replace the August 2009
version with the Revised October 2009 version. This includes the cover page, Corps submittal
Cover Sheet, Application for Department of the Army Permit, and Permit narrative (pages 1 to
42). Please note, that the narrative has an original date of February 2009;
• Appendix A- Revised Wetland Delineation: Replace the August 2009 version with the Revised
October 2009 version.
• Appendix C- Supplemental Soils Report: Add to Appendix C: Certified Soils Scientist
Investigation;
• Appendix M- Supplement to MOA: Add to Appendix M: Memorandum of Agreement;
• Appendix N- Revised Alternatives Analysis: Replace the February 2009 Alternatives Analysis
with the Revised October 2009 Alternatives Analysis;
• and Appendix Q- FAA Advisory Circulars: This is a new appendix that has been added to the
permit application following Appendix P.
Please insert the revised attachments accordingly. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
this information, please contact me directly (Julie Ball 864-963-7674, 864-387-0504 cell, or
[e-mail]) or Eric Rysdon (704-334-5348 or [e-mail]).
We appreciate your assistance and we look forward to continuing to work with DWQ on this project.
Sincerely,
c/fe/97084/5-7asbi I.doc
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
?r
Julie V. Ball
Staff Scientist
Attachments
cc: Lori Beckwith, USACE Asheville Regulatory Office
c/fe/97084/5-7asbi I.doc
•
•
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina
Application for Section 404 Individual Permit,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and
Section 26a Shoreline Construction Permit
Prepared for
Macon County Airport Authority
1241 Airport Road
Franklin, North Carolina
28734
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
1001 Pinnacle Point Drive
Suite 110
Columbia, South Carolina
29223
NC License No. F-0374
• October 2009
• Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
1. Project Name: Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
2. Name of Property Owner/ Applicant: Macon County Airport Authority,
Mr. Milles Gregory, Chairman
3. Name of Consultant: WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Julie V. Ball, staff scientist
4. Related Previous Action ID Number: SAW 2009-00321
5. Site Address: 1241 Airport Road, Franklin, North Carolina 28734
6. Subdivision Name: None
7. City: Franklin
8. County: Macon County
9. Lat: 35.2225952 N Long: -83.4190441 W
10. Quadrangle: Franklin, North Carolina 7.5 ' USGS Quadrangle
11. Waterway: Waters and Wetlands of lotla Creek
12. Watershed: Little Tennessee River Watershed (HUC# 06010202)
13. Requested Action: 404 Individual Permit and Jurisdictional Determination
.7
FROM : GQEGOQYQEALTY
q3-oS0t Va
PHONE NO. : 17045277522 Jul. 29 2009 01.20HIl P3
APPLIC4ATfON FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT 1 OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
f33 cFrl 3251 Expkes December ?1. 2004
The Public burden for this collection of infomation is $*"meted 1u Rverape 10 holes per nCwonse, efthough the majorfty of applieptione sben,ld .a.7uk 7
8 hours or knee. This includes the time for reviewing insteuclions, searching exlstkV data mureex. gathering and wo4rtaining the data neoded, and
eompieft and rev6ware the cellectlpn of informations. Sand aommonte nsawding tees burden estitwte or any other aspecs of dm collection of
entonnepon, including aoggoatione for reducing th6 burden, to Deportment of Defense, Wastdngton Hendquartets Servk* Denote mur o iniewmation
Opererons artd Roporm, 1215 Jefferson Davis Itipbway, Sulte 1204. Arlington, VA 2Z202.4d02; and to the Offico of Merw9smant acrd Budget,
fqs ework RwkwKton Project M710-0003!. Wae hkgton, DC 20603. Respondents shotdd be aware that notwidmUndifty any other provision of brH.
no person sfrad be su nt to any Penn" for fairrn to t»mply with a collection ell information if it dose not display a currently vend OIHB control
number- Pleas DO NOT RETURN year form to wither of Owes addressda, Completed appilaatfoas nVArt be submitted to the District Englneef having
Jwisda4m over the bastion of th* Proposed activity.
1411VACY ACr STATEMENT
Audwrifies; liven and l isrbors Act. Section 10, 33 USC: 403; Gees Water Act, Section 4034:, 33 U8C 1344: Marius protection , PAhu*mh ww
SalWaidies Act.. 33 USC 1413. Soedort 103. principal Punwee; Information providod on this lane will he used in erelusting the application tar a
permit. Rptrikw t%m- This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and abbot federal, state, and teem government agencies.
Submission of net mtod adormetion Is voluir y. however, If information it. not provided the permit appfie:etion car-mt be evaluated rrer can a permit
be Ward.
One set of Q*WW draarilgs rr good reprodudWe copies wtwb show Mrs location and ehrrnerer of Ms proposed activity must be strae bW to this
application see ineripb drawlnpic and instructions) and be subgtltAvd to Nrs Oistnat Engloom havfrrg jurisdiction evcr the lorAdon of the proposed
activity. An eppgcatiAn that is not ooi+iplered kt full wig be ,aturned_
...
11. EAME KNT W. WHOM=
I bersby avih tw, WK Dickson &Co. ,,Inc . to act in MY bshaif as my agent in the processing of thia appA"tion and to
iurniall. upon r a information in support of thiq permit application.
d TO 4 9 F
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CbDE f9AT6 RECEIVES 4. DATE APPLICATION GOMPLIFTEJ

6. APPLICANT'S NAME 9. AUTHORIZED 4GENrS NAME AND TITLE m,,awuaarc arid)
Macon County Airport Authority WK Dickson & Co.,Inc.
S. APKJCANT'SADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADORM -
Miles Gregory, Chairman 1241 Airport Road Julie V. Ball, 1001 xoinnac a Point Drive,
Franklin, North Carolina 28734 suite? 110,Columbia, SC 29223
_ a
7. borRE'S PHONE NOS- W /AREA CORI 0. AG 'S PHONE AREA CODE
a Fiesidenee 3. Residsn-o 864-963-7674
b; Busk- 826-524-7121 I b. guan- 864-367-0504
APPi.tCANT'S IJAE DstT?
NAME. LOCATiCtf1l AM DESCRIPTION OF M ECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAM& OR TITLE leere,w,.on
Macon County Airport Authority Runway F.Xteneion Project
13. NAME OF WATERSODY. IF KNOWN I,t„a.A"hw 14. OAt Ai r STREET AODFWSS Ir nr i .r
Waters and Wetlands of lotla Creek 1241 Airport Road
Franklin, North Carolina 28734
19. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Macon County, North Carolina
MONTY STATE
?6. OTHM LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, rrtrhsfrr,Wa ) --
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Take Highway 28N from Franklin and then turn weft onto Airport Road. Continue for I mile and
look for the Macon County Airport sign on the right-
IN MW " 07 EE1r6dm of FES 94 is OBSOLETE IP,oponeert
18. Nature of Activity (Dwcdprionof prgea kmtdesUfmrU j
The overall nature of activity includes extending Runway 7 and adjacent taxiway 600 feet to
the west. This development includes filling and grading of Iotla Branch (tributary of Iotla
Creek) and adjacent wetlands (Wetlands 1,2,& 3).This application also includes impacts
resulting from past runway maintenance activities. Refer to Section 2.1.
19. Project Repose Wescroe me resron or pwpose of the protect, sec iravwttvnW
To bring the Macon County Airport in compliance with current NCDOT & FAA safety standards and
to continue to maintain the runway in accordance with NCDOT & FAA regulations as well as CWA
Sections 404, 401 and Section 26a of the TVA Act(Section 2.2).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Waters and wetlands located within the proposed project area will be filled to design
elevations in order to meet the required runway criteria. Also waters & wetlands located
within 500 ft. of the runway must be maintained for runway safety purposes. Refer to Section
2.3.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Approximately 147,000 cubic yards of clean sand will be utilized to fill jurisdictional
waters and wetlands. Refer to Section 2.4 for a description.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled rs"iwnwoom)
Approximately 7.01 acres of freshwater wetlands and 809 linear feet of stream will be
impacted. Refer to Section 2.5.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes = No IF YES. DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Portions of work completed for this project include past impacts resulting from runway
maintenance. Refer to sections 2.1 and 2.6 for descriptions.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees. Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody Ilf more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
Refer to Section 4.0 for a list of adjoining property owners. Refer to Figure 9 for locations
of all adjoining properties.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvsk/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
FAA, NCDOT 1-15-09
FONSI
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
rlki? 'al
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent it the statement in block 11 has bean filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing some to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than 910,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
I
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
0 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Application for Department of the Army Individual Permit ............................. 1
2.1 Nature of Activity (Block 18) ............................................................................ 1
2.2 Project Purpose (Block 19) ............................................................................... 2
2.3 Reasons for Discharge (Block 20) .................................................................... 7
2.4 Type & Amount of Material Being Discharged in Cubic Yards (Block 21) . 7
2.5 Surface Areas of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (Block 22) ...................... 7
2.5.1 lotla Branch ................................................................................................ 7
2.5.2 Wetland 1 ................................................................................................... 8
2.5.3 Wetland 2 ................................................................................................... 8
2.5.4 Wetland 3 ................................................................................................... 9
2.6 Previous Impacts (Block 23) ........................................................................... 13
2.6.1 Background Information ......................................................................... 13
2.6.2 Alder Bog (Wetland AB) ......................................................................... 15
2.6.3 Equipment Access Culverts .................................................................... 18
2.6.4 Eastern Floodplain ................................................................................... 18
2.6.5 2006 Fencing Project .............................................................................. 25
3.0 Other Regulatory Agencies Comments ............................................................. 26
• 3.1 Wetland A ........................................................................................................
3.2 Western Floodplain ......................................................................................... 27
28
4.0 Names and Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners (Block 24) .................. 28
5.0 Information on Approvals or Denials by Other Agencies (Block 25) ............ 31
5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Studies ............................................... 31
5.2 Secondary Impacts .......................................................................................... 32
5.3 Stormwater Management Plan ...................................................................... 33
5.4 Archaeological Studies and Findings ............................................................ 34
6.0 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................... 35
7.0 Prior Project History ............................................................................................ 36
8.0 Proposed Mitigation ............................................................................................ 37
8.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ....................................................... 37
8.2 Restoration of Streams Impacted by Perimeter Fence ................................. 38
8.2.1 Monitoring ............................................................................................... 41
8.3 Preservation Components ............................................................................... 41
8.4 NCEEP In-Lieu of Fee (ILF) Mitigation ........................................................... 42
9.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 42
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................4
Figure 2. USGS Map ..........................................................................................................5
• Figure 3. Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................6
_Figure 4. Plan View of Proposed Runway .........................................................................10
-i-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• Figure 5. Runway 7 Profile ...............................................................................................11
Figure 6. Profile of Taxiway ..............................................................................................12
Figure 7. Previous Impacts: Alder Bog and Culvert Locations ............................................17
Figure 8. Previous Impacts; Eastern Floodplain and Culvert Locations ...............................24
Figure 9. Adjoining Property Owners ...............................................................................30
Figure 10. Stream Bank Detail and Seed Mixture ..............................................................40
List of Tables
Table 1. Proposed Impacts from Runway Extension Project ................................................7
Table 2. Equipment Access Culverts .................................................................................18
Table 3. Perimeter Fence Impact Table .............................................................................25
Table 4. Cumulative* Permanent Impact Table .................................................................26
Table 5. List of Adjoining Property Owners ......................................................................28
Table 6. Proposed Mitigation ...........................................................................................42
List of Graphs
Graph 1. Drought Levels from 2000 to 2009 ...............................................................14
40 Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix O
Appendix P
Appendix Q
APPENDICES
Wetland Delineation Request and Jurisdictional Forms
Stream Assessment
Licensed Soils Scientist (LSS) Investigation (2009)
1993 Nationwide No. 26 Permit & 401 Water Quality Certification
Construction Plans for Parallel Taxiway-Aircraft Ramp-Helipad (1994)
Copies of Historical Photographs
Construction Plans for the Security Fencing Project (2006)
1991 jurisdictional Determination
1968 Airport Layout Plan
2002 Property Deed
Endangered Species Assessment and FWS Correspondence
Archaeological Survey (Chircora Report, 2000)
Memorandum of Agreement and Consultation Meeting Minutes
Alternatives Analysis
NCEEP Approval Letter
2007 FEMA Floodplain Mapping
FAA Advisory Circulars
r?
U
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
C?
1.0 Introduction
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
On behalf of the Macon County Airport Authority (Owner), WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
(Agent) is requesting a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 Permit, a NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification, and a Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) Section 26a Shoreline Construction Permit for: the proposed extension of Runway 7,
associated taxiway and Runway Safety Area (RSA), and for impacts associated with past
runway maintenance projects. In total, the cumulative impacts result in permanent losses
to 7.01 acres of freshwater wetlands and 809 linear feet of stream. Additionally, the Airport
Authority is proposing to restore 183.5 linear feet of stream previously impacted by the
placement of un-permitted culvert pipes.
The airport facility is a general aviation airport utilized by business and recreational aircraft
and is located within the lotla Valley on Airport Road (SR 1434) approximately 3 miles
north of the town of Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project area is
located at approximately 35.2225952 N and -83.4190441 W within the Little Tennessee
River Watershed (HUC 06010202). The nearest surfaces waters are lotla Branch and lotla
Creek (Refer to USGS Map, Figure 2). DWQ has classified both lotla Branch and lotla Creek
as Class C waters. As defined by the DWQ, Class C waters are protected for uses such as
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture.
is Seven structures currently exist within the airport property (the main terminal, an office, a
maintenance hangar, and 4 T-hangar buildings).
2.0 Application for Department of the Army Individual Permit
2.1 Nature of Activity (Block 18)
The overall nature of activity includes extending Runway 7, associated taxiway, and
RSA 600 feet to the west. This permit application also includes impacts from
previous work resulting from ongoing runway maintenance projects that have
occurred primarily within the last 18 years.
The extension of Runway 7 includes the filling and grading of 749 linear feet of
lotla Branch (tributary of lotla Creek) and 0.17 acre of abutting and adjacent
wetlands including Wetlands 1, 2, and 3. Of the 749 linear feet, 139 linear feet will
be relocated to an open rock-lined channel in order to divert hydrology into 575
feet of 72 inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) and 130 feet of double 60 inch RCP.
The newly installed pipes will tie into the existing double 60 inch RCP culvert
located under Airport Road and outlet into lotla Creek south of the runway (Figure
4).
This permit application also includes impacts from various un-permitted activities
performed within the last eighteen years in waters and wetlands of the U.S near the
• runway. First, fill material was placed in 1.38 acres of freshwater wetlands
previously identified as an alder bog (Wetland AB) north of the runway (Figures 3 &
-1-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
7). It has been determined that this occurred during the construction of the 1991
runway extension. Secondly, 60 linear feet of stream throughout the property
contains un-permitted culvert crossings (Pipes #11, #12, and #13) for accessibility
of mowing equipment (Figures 7 & 8). Thirdly, in order to address an ongoing
runway safety issue specifically to avoid bird air strike hazards and to comply with
FAA runway safety regulations (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, 8-28-2007
and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, 9-29-2006, Appendix Q), the Airport
Authority is currently proposing to fill wetlands located within the eastern
floodplain including Wetland F/G, Wetland G, Wetland GA and Wetland GB
(Figure 8). In the past the airport has attempted to maintain these areas through
ditching which proved to be ineffective.
Finally, several wetland mitigation sites constructed in 1994 have also been
identified throughout the eastern floodplain. The development of the onsite
wetland mitigation areas was required as compensatory mitigation under
authorization of the Section 404 (Nationwide 26) and Section 401 permits issued in
1993 for impacts resulting from the construction of a parallel taxiway. Currently,
the majority of these mitigation areas are non-functioning. As a result, the USACE is
requiring additional compensation for the unsuccessful mitigation areas created
during the 1994 taxiway construction project. The non-functioning wetland
mitigation sites include 1.29 acres and have been included in the cumulative
i m pacts.
• Additionally, in 2006 culverts were installed throughout the perimeter of the airport
property during the upgrade of the security fence without proper authorization. This
resulted in un-permitted impacts to 183.5 linear feet of stream (Figures 7 & 8). The
airport is currently proposing to remove all culverts associated with the fencing
project and restore the impacted stream channels to their pre-construction
conditions.
2.2 Project Purpose (Block 19)
The purpose of this project is to bring the Macon County Airport in compliance
with the North Carolina Division of Aviation and FAA safety standards. Such
standards require having at least 5,000 feet of available runway and appropriate
runway safety area to improve the overall safety of the airport. Currently, the
existing 4,400 foot long runway and extended runway safety area at Macon County
Airport does not meet this requirement for the aircraft operating on the runway.
Because of this, the Macon County Airport does not provide an enhanced facility
for distressed aircrafts in emergency situations. Having such a facility at the Macon
County Airport is vital to the major surrounding national and regional airports
located in Asheville, Charlotte, Knoxville, Greenville, and Atlanta.
Construction of the runway extension is anticipated to begin once all required
permit approvals have been obtained. This project will be funded through grants
already issued from the FAA and NCDOT Division of Aviation.
• Additionally, the airport must also maintain the runway in compliance with FAA
safety standards as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 404, 401 and the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act Section 26a. FAA regulations require that the
-2-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• runway safety areas remain clear of all objects not fixed by function (i.e. runway
lights, NAVAIDS). Additionally objects that are wildlife attractants should be
removed from the nearest air operations area that extends to 5,000 feet for piston-
powered and 10,000 feet for turbine-powered aircraft in order to avoid potential
aircraft collisions with wildlife (Appendix Q).
In order to bring the Macon County Airport into regulatory compliance, previously
un-permitted wetland impacts as well as unsuccessful compensatory mitigation
locations from the 1993 404/401 permit application for the taxiway construction
have been included in this permit application. Compensatory mitigation is
proposed for all of the project's anticipated impacts, previously un-permitted
impacts, and past unsuccessful mitigation.
•
-3-
V
O
0
a
O Z
rz Q _
W Q
t
= Q�
Qcc
w
t V
O j
�0
Q O
O
U�
aaJ�
{
9 la
_ -
0 o
o
a
a i
Y /a� L= 0, s9
NG�tyoil
P
P O
Ferguson .gy
r, s N o w C
uollea paj=jl a
8
sjapuneg
co
w
Gr°�ja A
Hoa
l� i
s64lu e
'•��
aii�
a
a
Gr japuo
ooh
i\el
�
m
G°s JAZ
C
_
illvie Iarks C
N ° yl
e
�
a
Cra
Lu tiJae wig
G
x a
° Pann e e
Bro
Fav-
a I.ak gtlo
;oda0�LL
uo °lej
.
\\
u w off �
•�: � 4P
)
V
0
oy iseuel
a
ec
_
N
=
0
~ \\G
A Ja��S
ell
A
o w \\m
�(J\\'a l l
o
Parsons o
e
`
m`>
Q
'.0 u tie
S c\
00 a
o od
o
`—° rN
`�
a
m Nell m
`O�j
°
00 p
°'
m `p%
an cj CD
ueo S c
-00
uaneypoo
e`� b
Q y Idro ?
a�oOSI
aero g°j
o
�� A4,Ci cry
mac
pooM� Pine r Gb t
O
ArborMay s
o o
yuGi
Ge S
i
kp
c
m m ti�C
s
9°`)gyp
40
iU°
N
�sv� �\n
p�
6'
Q`Qe
�,`JB
�
GcG to o
a
0
\c
i
Five
'
a y1l
2
°
�
ve
o
O P
m
O
uts
Y
Gr°
M r Fore t
0 p p m
o
(� O LMis PIO
o
J
i ;nu;say
U Q Grannys
10o
a
Jas n
p /q
/
�e
o
Country Club M�
V
O
0
a
O Z
rz Q _
W Q
t
= Q�
Qcc
w
t V
O j
�0
Q O
O
U�

`1
4 r 1
�,'+,fir, � -�// J `. � � ` - , rrr • I ;''L f ' �,t ' �Avoo
w
-J
a, �.'
� u
r, s._� - � •'C. � p rig / . h. - � � !!� 1
' r `', , � ,. I 4'a, it j tr •,I � � `� • •/ I �, .� • � µ' � / �
Y4tii
v N an
• r
j ,C
Y CEM II.41
��.Af ; I� •* l` { s--
ly
r , "t l �� 1 � �''~L t- rte- - ,�•
y L nd' strip �, - r�B� •;^ �� � ,f .
• r _ Runway
►�; 1 Extension �� .c'
1 \�• a �" y
--p��A � �1 y, �� ,.�, �•_jf`r.� p I �� r+ �,1:, '� 1� 4 � }��+ �.,1 .r r'�
V•71:' Q '.s�Y�iil r•�'<`.! `'� :rr - I `L AA�y�t_.�•.•.11t.1,�,1. •�
�t I ,•9�1,,, k�"�' � r {I +=r^ sir-- 12��j -.
Vvi
lot
r a�°'r'q >;`•4,
C •' ie. � =i"`. - - : / � l: .
M
It
I , � � �-. `,_..r-� '"3 ' � + � rem" � � . % �"a t� � - M •AI
4 I �ti l.l� �1y �f�n�•--•-� —1-7
.. }
41
v Runway Extension Project Scale 1 : 19,200
RVDICKSON Macon county Airport Authority 1" = 9600 ft FIGURE *TN
=i00 80012200 IWO 2M NIN
Y •nNaalruClulf c�nypu•onls USGS Map x
0 180 020 "N .0 W, m � 0.0°E

J�\
N Q
U Ln -' m
ry
l
li
1
N
w
z*z
U
ii
Q
L
vo
N
o=n x
o
m
m.
U
O U
W
cn
O w
0Oa
U U
s =
z
O
Q ae z
ozu
O
a- o
Of
of Za
oo
Zo
Z
0
1 F
QZo
Do
U
F-- o
Of
Z
Z w ?
Y��
F-
V)
o >- 1
I , Q
J�\
N Q
U Ln -' m
ry
l
li
1
u rn
w
z*z
U
0
Z
Q
J
W
Q
CY
rt m'�
_ Q
_ --- --�-�- I z
N
J
z W I �liy.
JI���
W I W ~m
zQ I <a
W i Q
o_m
U
W
o- Ln
m
0
N
:5i z CD >- 71
QOz<0
W�--Fy3:
�U <D
O
W J 0Z
mz~rn0
OZQm
U
Li
=m
U
w
z*z
U
ii
L
vo
N
JI���
W I W ~m
zQ I <a
W i Q
o_m
U
W
o- Ln
m
0
N
:5i z CD >- 71
QOz<0
W�--Fy3:
�U <D
O
W J 0Z
mz~rn0
OZQm
U
Li
=m
U
Q I
z
LLJ
LLJ
C�
J � I
w
U
vo
o=n x
o
Up
W
O U
W
cn
O w
0Oa
U U
s =
z
O
Q ae z
ozu
O
a- o
Of
of Za
oo
Zo
Z
0
1 F
QZo
Do
U
F-- o
Of
Z
Z w ?
Y��
F-
V)
o >- 1
I , Q
° a
�W
o
O D
U
E�
z
Q
3z
0
W
Q=
Q
�m
�
wJ~
ow
J
0
z
m
>
Q>-
Q
F
�o
W
Q
B
3 -
Q I
z
LLJ
LLJ
C�
J � I
U
Q
W
W
O U
W
Z
J
Q> -
z
ZLLJ
Z LLJ
O
O
Om
Q
cn 0
cn
Q
F-- o
Of
Q W
Q
U
U z
W
Ia-
0
o
00
W
z
0
W
Q=
Q
�m
�
wJ~
J
0
z
m
>
Q>-
Q
F
O
W
Q
Z
O
Z
O
Q
Wf=
Q
a-
C -D
U Q
S
F7 -viz
0
zF---p
UW
U
X
0
U
m
W
� a-
E
CD
F
W
a-
� —
�
D
Q
Q I
z
LLJ
LLJ
C�
J � I

•
U
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
2.3 Reasons for Discharge (Block 20)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
The reason for discharge results from the required fill material needed to raise the
current elevation of the proposed runway extension area to the design elevation.
Current FAA and state regulations require a minimum of 5,000 feet of available
runway and appropriate runway safety area to be in compliance with current safety
standards. Additionally, wetlands have been drained and filled in the past as a
result of maintaining the Object Free Zone a 500 foot area surrounding the runway
as noted in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 and to reduce the chance of
wildlife collisions by removing wildlife attractants within the airport property per
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B (Appendix Q.
2.4 Type & Amount of Material Being Discharged in Cubic Yards (Block 21)
It is proposed that approximately 115,000 cubic yards of clean material will be
utilized to construct the runway, runway safety area and parallel taxiway resulting
in the filling of Wetlands 1, 2, and 3 and a portion of lotla Branch for the runway
extension. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of clean material will be utilized to
fill wetlands located in the eastern flood plain (Wetland F/G, Wetland G, Wetland
GA and Wetland GB). It is estimated that approximately 2,350 cubic yards of local
upland soil was utilized to fill the alder bog wetland (Wetland AB) during 1991.
2.5 Surface Areas of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (Block 22)
Table 1. Proposed Impacts from Runway Extension Project
Aquatic Resource
Proposed impact
lotla Branch
749 linear ft.
Wetland 1
0.06 acre
Wetland 2
0.05 acre
Wetland 3
0.06 acre
Total Impact
749 ft.
& 0.17 acres
2.5.1 lotla Branch
Approximately 749 linear feet of stream channel identified as lotla Branch is located
within the proposed runway and taxiway extension area. During onsite
investigations, the surrounding landscape of
lotla Branch included rolling terrain of grass -
covered fields. lotla Branch was identified as
a relatively permanent waterway (RPW) and
second order stream. Its headwaters are
northwest of the airport property. lotla
Branch flows south into lotla Creek (south of
the project area), and eventually into Little
Tennessee River. At the time of the
investigation riparian vegetation along lotla
View of lotla Branch taken on 4-16-07.
-7-

0
•
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
Branch had been cut down and is continually mowed for runway safety and
obstruction purposes. It is dominated by tag alder (Alnus serrulata, FACW+).
Additional species observed within the riparian corridor include swamp dogwood
(Cornus stricta, FACW-), black willow (Salix nigra, OBL), soft rush Uuncus effusus
FACW+), and bearded sedge (Carex comosa, OBL). lotla Branch was identified
and delineated during the initial wetland investigation performed on April 16,
2007. The USACE field verified this stream as jurisdictional on May 30, 2007. The
proposed design includes relocating a portion of lotla Branch (139 linear feet of the
total 749 linear feet) into an open rock lined channel (Figure 4) parallel to the
runway. Mitigation for relocating this portion of the stream channel is proposed at a
ratio of 1:1 per recommendation of the USACE. Mitigation for the remainder of lotla
Branch (610 linear feet) is proposed at a 2:1 ratio due to the quality of the stream
and recommendation of the USACE (Table 6: Proposed Mitigation).
2.5.2 Wetland 1
Wetland 1 is a linear palustrine emergent wetland that abuts lotla Branch to
the northeast (Figure 3). Due to the shape, it is likely that Wetland 1 was
formerly a man-made agricultural ditch that eventually reverted into a
wetland community. At the time of the investigation, vegetation along the
wetland boundaries had been mowed. The airport continually maintains
this area for runway safety. During the onsite investigation, it appeared that
black willow and swamp rose (Rosa palustris, OBL) once dominated.
Additional vegetation observed included soft rush, spikerush (Eleocharis
obtusa, OBL) and sedges, (Carex, spp. FACW). Soils from 0 to 12 inches
were loam with a dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2) matrix and many common
yellowish red (5YR 5/8) mottles.
Wetland 1 was delineated during the initial wetland investigation performed
on April 16, 2007. The USACE field verified this wetland as jurisdictional
on May 30, 2007. The proposed design includes the filling and grading of
Wetland 1. Since Wetland 1 abuts lotla Branch, mitigation is proposed at a
2:1 ratio (Table 6: Proposed Mitigation).
2.5.3 Wetland 2
View of Wetland 2 taken on 4-15-09.
6/8) mottles from 0 to 10 inches
Wetland 2 was delineated during
April 2009 and is located east of
Wetland 1. Wetland 2 is adjacent
to lotla Branch. This area was not
delineated in any of the previous
delineations (1991 and 2007).
Wetland 2 is in a topographic
depression of a mowed area just
north of where runway 7 ends
(Figure 3). Soils were silt loam
with a very dark grayish brown
(10 YR 3/2) matrix and 1 percent
of coarse brownish yellow (10YR
Soils from 10 to 12 inches were dark olive

•
•
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
brown (2.5Y 3/3) clay loam with 3 percent of coarse light olive brown (2.5
Y 5/6) mottles. Water observed within the boring hole was at 11 inches
below the surface. Vegetation observed included fescue (Festuca
arundinacea, FAG), mustard (Brassica spp., NI), and soft rush. It is likely
that Wetland 2 was created through continual soil compaction from use of
mechanized maintenance equipment. As a result, surface infiltration has
been reduced within the shallow depression and ponding has been
enhanced. The proposed design includes the filling and grading of Wetland
2. Since Wetland 2 is adjacent to lotla Branch, mitigation is proposed at a
2:1 ratio (Table 6: Proposed Mitigation).
2.5.4 Wetland 3
Wetland 3 is located within a topographic depression and is adjacent to
lotla Branch (Figure 3). Soils from
0 to 9 inches were a dark brown
(10 YR 3/3) loam. Soils from 9 to
10 inches were dark brown (10
YR 3/3) silt loam with 5 percent of
coarse brownish yellow (10 YR
6/8) mottles. Soils from 10 to 13
inches were dark reddish brown
(5 YR 2.5 /2) clay loam with 5
percent of coarse yellowish red (5
YR 4/6) mottles. Water was
View of wetland 3 taken on 4-15-09. observed at the surface. Existing
vegetation was a monoculture of
soft rush. It is likely that Wetland 3 was also created as a result of continual
compaction of soils through mechanized maintenance of the airport
property which has reduced surface infiltration and enhanced ponding
within shallow depressions. The proposed design includes the filling and
grading of Wetland 3. Since Wetland 3 is adjacent to lotla Branch,
mitigation is proposed at a 2:1 ratio (Table 6: Proposed Mitigation).

rA
C�
LLI
V)
ry
(.D
UJ
U) LLJ
<
0 (n LLJ
/0-U)
. - I
I
o
GL 0 Cf)
C,
3.1
LLJ
C�
LLI
V)
ry
(.D
M-4
0 0 �--
<
. - I
I ,
C,
3.1
LLJ
V)
0!.'
0 u
1: LJ
C) t
LLI LLI
V) 1--
u
LJ
V)
0 X
W W<
D x
0
0
0
cn (D
0
C)
I
Z -.g
a- 07
0 x
<
Li 0
W 0
Z U
< <
to
0-
w0
z
X
Z w>
D
M-4
0 0 �--
. - I
I ,
3.1
LLJ
V)
0 u
1: LJ
LLI LLI
V) 1--
0
>LLI
0 X
W W<
D x
0—
0
0 0
C)
I
Z -.g
a- 07
0 x
<
z "Of
0
Z U
< <
to
0-
w0
z
X
Z w>
D
<
Z
0 < <
of
z
cl�
z
E
z
a -
<
z U
LL -
0
C)
<
< <
ci
Z wZ
WW0
2O2
W
U�
C)
cn 0
—
I--
z
_j
LLJCo
o
0
<
LLJ
< <
of
LLJ
LLJ
In
0
LLJ
< 0
LLJ <
LLJ Cf) Ln
<
LLJ >
cn
Of
<
Of LLJ
<
0
U a- -
Of LL-
o
L L -Li
—i
_j
0,
w
< 0 ol
-Li
D
0!�
<
3:
<
z
<
z
Z
0
CI-
0
w
cn0
0 m
<
Qom
a- 0
LLI
Q
F--
(-)
0
0
C7
0
Z
F-
V)
0
LLI
cn
Q
C)
(J)
Z
F-
X
0
a<
-
0
c/,)
<
V)
V)
cn
a-
x
D
D
Ld
Q-
CD
--D
--D
—j
LLJ
<
'y
T 1 1-1
z
C) C) z
Lij
Lli 0
V, F --
ZI
LLI
L -J
U) < Lj L-
at
opo Lj
0 o F-
x
0 0 < z --j
GC CCW
LLI
0- 0 LLJ Z
(T)
0 cj:� <
0
:;7fi
a- o
fa
-1
cl� LLJ = rl-)
o
<
a- cl� U-) u
c—n
Z
x
X
Li
WI
0 >-
0
+ <
cn
;0
10
m
LLJ
LLJ
U� Lj 0
0
0
00 U
< <
(n L'i
IL (n -i
0 <
< z L'i
< cn
0
0
fy
p a- �t
<
J
n
_j O��
_j a_
0
1-7
0
E-- 'oo
M-4
0
0
U)
LLJ LLJ
Y) L -Li I
U'
m U)
LLJ LLJ LLJ
z :�E C/')
Z LLJ U�
> <
NO
0
0 0 0
3.1
LLJ
V)
0 u
1: LJ
LLI LLI
V) 1--
0
>LLI
0 X
W W<
D x
0—
0
0 0
C)
00=
Z -.g
a- 07
0 x
<
z "Of
0
Z U
< <
Lli
0-
w0
z
X
Z w>
D
<
Z
0 < <
of
z
Z
O
z
E
z
D
<
cQc
C)
<
ci
Z wZ
WW0
2O2
W
<
F--
cn
cn 0
—
I--
z
_j
LLJCo
o
0
<
<
Ld
of
LLJ
LLJ
< 0
<
cn
Of
<
Of LLJ
<
0
0
U)
LLJ LLJ
Y) L -Li I
U'
m U)
LLJ LLJ LLJ
z :�E C/')
Z LLJ U�
> <
NO
0
0 0 0
LLJ
>LLI
C)
LLJ
>
<
C)
<
Z U
< <
<
0-
LLJ
<
C)
<
0
Z wZ
WW0
LLJ
<
U�
<
F--
cn
cn 0
—
I--
z
_j
LLJCo
o
0
<
<
Ld
of
LLJ
LLJ
< 0
<
cn
Of
<
Of LLJ
<
Of LL-
o
<w—i
3:
—i
_j
0,
w
LLJ
LL -
z
D
D
0!�
<
3:
<
z
<
z
Z
0
CI-
0
w
cn0
0 m
<
LLI
Q
F--
(-)
F--LL-
U LLJ
0
C7
Z
F-
V)
0
LLI
cn
Q
C)
(J)
Z
F-
X
0
a<
-
0
c/,)
<
V)
V)
cn
a-
x
D
D
Ld
Q-
CD
--D
--D
—j
LLJ
<
0
0
U)
LLJ LLJ
Y) L -Li I
U'
m U)
LLJ LLJ LLJ
z :�E C/')
Z LLJ U�
> <
NO
0
0 0 0

•

2030.0
2020.0
2010.0
2000.0
48+00
47+00
50 0 50 100
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 50'
5 0 5 10
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 5'
46+00
2030.0
2020.0
2010.0
2000.0
45+00
RUNWAY 7 PROFILE
MACON COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RUNWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
FRANKLIN, NORTH CAROUNA
.,. caa.woE ..,E
? ?D CKSON FIGURE
F ,mmaw
K
?. wEq. w.we.E. ea.,t.a oud
?
5
=
E, ?
¦c umeE ¦n r-nna s.
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• 2.6 Previous Impacts (Block 23)
Previous impacts were discussed during the May 2007 regulatory agency site visit at the
airport property. As a result, the USACE and the DWQ requested that all impacts (past and
proposed) be included in the forthcoming permit application. Additionally, in March of
2009 DWQ requested that the alder bog wetland located north of the runway be included
as an impact in the permit application. DWQ also indicated that the Airport Authority's
1993 Nationwide 26 Permit and associated 401 Water Quality Certification drawings
(Appendix D) depict large areas of wetlands that were not identified in 2007. To address
this inconsistency they requested that the floodplain south of the runway be reviewed for
potential fill material.
2.6.1 Background Information
Additional desktop and field evaluations were performed during March and April of
2009. Desktop evaluations included a review of 1953 and 1980 NRCS aerial
photographs; Google Earth aerial photos from 1994 to 2005; State Climate Office of
North Carolina CRONOS precipitation data dating back to 2004 (www.nc-
climate.ncsu.edu/cronos); Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Water
and Climate Center (WETS) Table Data; and archived data from North Carolina
Drought Management Advisory Council (NCDMAC).
Various individuals were also contacted regarding past projects on the property. In
• March of 2009, all culverts installed during the 2006 fencing project were identified
and mapped. Additional wetlands were also delineated in March and in April of
2009. Finally, in April of 2009, soils throughout the property were evaluated by a
North Carolina Licensed Soils Scientist (LSS) in order to determine if any wetlands
areas identified in 1993 had been filled. It was later determined by the USACE at
the May 6, 2009 interagency meeting that the 1993 Jurisdictional Determination
was not signed and therefore the 1991 Jurisdictional Determination was the most
recent authorization for the property (Appendix H).
2.6.1.1 Changes in Hydrology
During the 2009 wetland investigation, it was noted that hydrologic
conditions had changed at the Macon County Airport since the 2007
investigation. In fact, hydrologic conditions have continued to change since
the mid 1990's. Currently, wetland hydrology within the airport property is
primarily supported by a typically high water table within areas of the
floodplain south of the runway. However, following the completion of the
taxiway construction in 1994, wetland hydrology within the floodplain has
decreased due to the relocation of a stream channel. These activities were
permitted through the Nationwide 26 and 401 General Water Quality
Certification issued in 1993. In addition, increased drought conditions
experienced throughout the region have also lowered the water table at the
Macon County Airport during the past nine (9) years.
•
-13-
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
0 2.6.1.2. WETS Table Data
•
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
WETS Table data was reviewed from the Franklin NC3228 WETS Station.
Data from this station has been collected from 1971 to 2000. The WETS
Table indicates that total average rainfall for Franklin, North Carolina is
typically 54.51 inches. According to NC CRONOS Database retrieved from
the State Climate Office of North Carolina, the Macon County Airport
station (K1 A5) recorded 17.56 inches of annual precipitation in 2007 and
18.95 inches in 2008. The WETS Table also indicates that the growing
season is 185 days at a threshold of 28* F or higher and typically begins
April 17th and continues through October 19th.
2.6.1.3 Drought Data
Archived records from the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory
Council (NCDMAC) documented from January 2000 to April of 2009 were
reviewed in order to determine if a change in climatic conditions affected
hydrology on the property. NCDMAC classifies drought levels from:
• D4- Exceptional Drought
• D3- Extreme Drought;
• D2- Serve Drought;
• D1- Moderate Drought; and
• DO -Abnormally Dry.
Graph 1 represents the changes in Macon County drought levels from 0
(abnormally dry) to 4 (exceptional drought) during the past 9 years. These
records were obtained from www.ncdrought.org/archive.
Graph 1. Drought Levels from 2000- 2009
Macon County Drought Levels 2000-2009
)-03
1,:n -Ori Jan 09
Drought conditions did not occur between January 2003 and March 2006
and therefore did not receive a drought classification. Macon County
-14-

•
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
experienced the highest levels of drought between April of 2007 and
December of 2008 with extreme drought (level 3) and exceptional drought
(level 4) classifications. Specifically, Macon County was given a level 4
classification from August of 2007 to December of 2008. As shown in
Graph 1, Macon County was downgraded several times to a level 3 within
this timeframe, but the majority of months remained at a level 4
classification. At the time of the April 2009 onsite investigations, drought
classifications had been downgraded to Moderate Drought (level 1).
Changes in climatic conditions likely caused drawdown of groundwater
levels below typical conditions. Wetlands delineated during 2009 likely
reflect the improved drought classifications relative to 2007.
2.6.1.4 North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist Investigation
To address DWQ concerns regarding the floodplain, a North Carolina
Licensed Soil Scientist performed an onsite investigation on April 16, 2009
to identify potential fill material within the floodplain. The results of the LSS
investigation found no evidence of fill within the floodplain. Instead, soils
were found to be typical of an alluvial floodplain system and the surface
horizon contained natural alluvial deposition. Positive evidence of fill
material was confirmed within the alder bog wetland (Wetland AB) located
on the north side of the runway during the investigation (Appendix Q.
2.6.2 Alder Bog (Wetland AB)
The "alder bog" wetland, currently identified as Wetland AB, was initially
delineated during the 1991 wetland delineation. The 1991 Wetland Delineation
states that the alder bog was once dominated by alders, red maple, buttonbush,
swamp rose, sedges and soft rush. The 1991 report also states that this community
was probably created when a small tributary of lotla Creek was partially impounded
during the construction of the airport (Appendix H).
During the April 2009 wetland investigation, Wetland AB was delineated
surrounding an unnamed tributary of lotla Creek. Soils from 0 to 3 inches were
yellowish red (5YR 4/6) silty loam with large pieces of gravel. Soils from 3 to 8
inches were very dark grayish brown (2.5 Y 3/2) silty loam with 3 percent of coarse
light red (2.5 YR 6/8) mottles. Water was observed at 3 inches below the surface.
Soft rush was the dominant species.
FIX
View of Wetland AB taken on 4-15-09.
-15-
As noted in the LSS report
(Appendix C), approximately 6 to
16 inches of fill was identified
across most of the former bog. The
LSS report also indicates that the fill
material appears to be local upland
soil, most likely from the adjacent
hill slope during the most recent
runway extension construction
which occurred in 1991. Google
Earth aerial photos from 1994 show

February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
what appears to be a haul road through the center of this wetland
(www.earth. googIe.c:om). Approximately 1.38 acres has been identified as fill and
0.16 has been identified as non-fill during the wetland investigation.
The LSS report also states that one soil profile typical of this site is recorded
showing 13 inches of fill with the surface containing a dark yellowish brown clay
loam. The report adds that redoxomorphic features of brown mottles have begun
to form in the fill material from saturation, indicating the fill has been in place for
an extended period. It is underlain by black silty clay loam with red and dark gray
mottles with a water table observed at 24 inches.
Based on the information collected on the alder bog wetland, it is concluded that
during the time of the 1991 runway extension, the airport created a haul road
through this wetland to construct the extension of Runway 7. Additional fill may
have also been placed south of the haul road and adjacent to the runway in order to
eliminate water from ponding in this area. This portion of the wetland is located
within the airport's Runway Safety Area and primary surface that extend around the
runway to a distance of 500 feet. As previously mentioned, the airport's Runway
Safety Area is required to be maintained free of objects on and below the runway
surface elevation. It has been noted that during the early 1990's the unnamed
tributary located within the alder bog had significant beaver activity and the airport
constantly removed debris to prevent clogging of the culvert under the runway.
• Based on this information it is likely that the alder bog wetland (Wetland AB) was
created as a result of the original airport construction (1968) and was filled during
the 1991 runway extension without proper authorization. Per recommendation
from the USACE, mitigation for impacts to Wetland AB is proposed at a 1:1 ratio
(Table 6: Proposed Mitigation).
•
-16-
Q N
8 3unc
13 - 3NI-IHOIVW
,4
o�
2
p
w
D�
c�
0n
� U
Z
U
O
CD�
p
Z Q
z
Q
Z U
J
O
0
M O
i
U Z
�
z O
Ii
Q F
D Z
0�O
Q
Q�z
w o
mr�qCD
vl
CY)F
Z o
U
a-3:wQ
0z�-w
2
w
D�
c�
0n
� U
� p w
w o..
e~^ o
�s v�
w�
0 cn
ZO�Q
Q_ Ln
lY
Q Q
QOz<O
0
JOQ�
jEQ_O
i
I!
n
N
Ii
Q' --JD
D Z
0�O
I
Q�z
w o
vl
of z —
OZQ�
Z o
U
a-3:wQ
0z�-w
_n
(n U
Li
o_:
Q'Dxry
O
r X
o_Q-w<
iM
Ii
I`
i
2
w
D�
c�
0n
� U
e~^ o
�s v�
w�
Q_ Ln
w U
w
QOz<O
0
Q_
i
U p Q 3
N a_
N
O
cn J
Q' --JD
m
w � i
s..
I
Q�z
w o
w:
of z —
OZQ�
Z o
U
� !.n
_n
(n U
Li
o_:
_
I
O
r X
Y2r
o
Z W
D Y
a
U%q
-o
I
N
���
0
Z
O
z
zW
Q
N
o
J
J
Q
o; S
Li
Q
U
w
D�
c�
0n
� U
e~^ o
�s v�
w�
Q_ Ln
oo
w
QOz<O
0
wf-E��
N
U p Q 3
0 U
w
cn O ~�
O
cn J
Q' --JD
m
w � i
s..
WJ O z
Q�z
w o
Q W
Z
a
of z —
OZQ�
Z o
D
Cr (A
_n
(n U
U
Ue
w
D�
c�
e~^ o
�s v�
s=M x
oo
U
w
F-
0 U
w
°�
O
cn J
�
Q
m
w � i
s..
U F-
Q�z
w o
Q W
Z
a
Q' Q
U
Z o
D
Cr (A
00
(n U
Q Z p
Z
Ue
O
r X
Y2r
> Z
w Q
Z W
D Y
a
U%q
-o
0
O
U
���
M
of
ZZ
z
zW
o
J
<
Q
o; S
Q
U
S S 3
Ing
Q
U
W
O
Q_
Q
U
Q
Z
O
w
�F
U5
Z
O U
—
w
Z
J
Q>
Z
J
m C/)
LIJ
ZLLJ
O
O
Z
O�
Q
LLJ
Z
~
W Z
X
cn 0
C/')Q
p
~
:
J
Y w
>-
W
W
O U
z�
W
a-
Q
LLJ
Z
<
3:
Q=
Q
J
m
O
Z
J
V)LLJ
W
z
J
J
D Z
(n
w
Z�
Q
a�
zm
Q
z
F
Q
w�
�
o
Q o
0
o
Q
Q
Q
Q
C7
�
V)
H p
U W
1-
U
F-
—
Z
(n —
-
X
�
X
�
X
� z
Q W
Es
Zw
O
O
O
pU
F-
O u)
0 �
NO
J
X
p�j
w
0-
0_
Q_
O U
W
0
p
Q
Q
Q
(n Z

February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
• 2.6.3 Equipment Access Culverts
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
Three (3) culvert pipes identified as Pipes #11, #12 and #13 are located within the
floodplain portion of the property (Figure 3). Pipes #11 and #13 are located in
Wetland G and Pipe # 12 is located in Wetland J/M. Due to the location of each of
these pipes, it has been determined that their purpose is to provide access for large
mowing equipment at wetland/tributary locations. As previously mentioned, the
entire airport property is continuously mowed to maintain a low herbaceous layer.
These pipes are corrugated metal (CMP) and have not been identified on any
previous permit drawings or USDA historical photographs and therefore have not
likely been authorized. It has also been determined that these pipes are not
associated with the 2006 fencing project (Figures 7 and 8) since they are not
located near the fence. Impacts to stream channels from Pipes #11, #12, and #13
include 60 linear feet (Table 2).
Table 2. Equipment Access Culverts
•
•
Pipe tC? Description Culvert Size length
(inches). (ft)
Type
Pipe #11 Ditch 2 Corrugated 36" 20'
Metal Pipe
Pipe #12 Tributary in Corrugated 15" 20'
Wetland J/M Metal Pipe
Pipe #13 Ditch 3 Corrugated 15" 20'
Metal Pipe
Total 60 Linear
Impacts _ feet
Mitigation for equipment access culverts is proposed at a 1:1 ratio (Table 6) per
recommendation of the USACE.
2.6.4 Eastern Floodplain
According to 2007 FEMA mapping (Appendix P), the airport property south of the
existing runway entirely occupies Flood Hazard Zone AE (formerly 100 Year
Floodplain). The airport entrance road bisects the floodplain into two (2) areas
identified as the eastern and western floodplains. The following describes findings
from the eastern portion of the floodplain during the 2009 investigations. Findings
from the western portion of the floodplain are described in Section 3.2.
Currently, three (3) ditches parallel to the runway exist throughout the eastern
floodplain and have been identified as Ditch 1, 2 and 3 respectively (Figure 8).
Ditch 1 is located in the northern portion of the floodplain and is directly adjacent
to the existing taxiway constructed in 1994. According to the 1993 Nationwide
No. 26 and 401 Water Quality Certification Documentation (Appendix D) this ditch
was created as part of the taxiway expansion. Ditch 1 was constructed to collect
runoff from the parallel taxiway and outlet into the existing Wetland F/G (Sheet 7 of
-18-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
20, Appendix E) area. As a result, the USACE has determined that Ditch 1 is non-
jurisdictional and will not be included in the cumulative wetland impacts.
In order to determine the history for the remaining ditches, aerial photographs of
the airport property from 1953 and 1980 located at the Macon County NRCS office
were reviewed. The 1953 photo depicts the property in agriculture. The 1953
photograph shows two (2) parallel ditches located throughout the agricultural fields
(Appendix F). These ditches have been identified as Ditch 2 and Ditch 3 (Figure 8).
Ditch 2 is located south of Ditch 1 and Ditch 3 is located south of Ditch 2. Ditch 2
has also been identified on the original airport layout plan developed in 1968
(Appendix 1). As a result, Ditches 2 and 3 were originally created prior to the
development of the airport to drain agricultural fields and have been maintained as
ditches throughout the change in land use. During the May 2007 agency field
view, the USACE and the DWQ observed earthmoving equipment being utilized to
maintain these ditches. As a result, the agencies requested that this impact be
included in the Runway Extension Permit Application. Additionally, in
conversations with Macon County Airport personnel, it was noted that Ditches 2
and 3 have been maintained throughout the years to drain excess water from this
area in an attempt to manage ongoing problems with Canada geese.
As a result of the ditch locations, the eastern floodplain has been divided into
Upper, Middle, and Lower Quadrants for description purposes. The Upper
Quadrant (Wetland F/G) is located south of the runway and north of Ditch 2. The
Middle Quadrant (Wetland G) refers to the area of the floodplain between Ditches
2 and 3. The Lower Quadrant (Wetlands GA and GB) is south of the Middle
Quadrant and borders lotla Creek. Refer to Figure 8 to locate each quadrant of the
eastern floodplain.
As previously noted, FAA regulations require that areas surrounding the immediate
500 feet of the runway surface or the Object Free Zone be free of objects non-
essential for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. This includes
standing water to eliminate potential attractants and reduce collisions with wildlife.
In addition the general separation criteria for hazardous wildlife attractants on or
near airports are 5,000 feet for piston aircraft and 10,000 feet for turbine aircraft. In
the past, the airport has attempted to ditch and drain areas for this purpose. In
order to effectively address the ongoing problem of standing water specifically
located in wetlands adjacent to the runway, the Airport Authority is currently
proposing to fill Wetlands F/G, G, GA, and GB, which are all located within the
500 foot radius of the Object Free Zone (Figure 8). The following sections describe
wetlands located within the eastern floodplain that will be impacted in order to
maintain this portion of the eastern floodplain in compliance with FAA safety
regulations.
2.6.4.1 Upper Quadrant (Wetland F/G)
Wetland F/G was delineated during the 2007 wetland investigation and is
located in the Upper Quadrant of the eastern floodplain. Wetland F/G was
identified as a palustrine emergent and scrub shrub system. This wetland is
adjacent to lotla Creek (RPW). NWI mapping shows this wetland as
-19-
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• Palustrine scrub -shrub, broad-leaved deciduous temporality flooded and
partially drained or ditched system (PSS1Ad).
•
•
Dominant vegetation observed during the 2007 wetland delineation
included soft rush, New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis, FAC+),
jewel weed (Impatiens capensis, FACW), three-way sedge (Dulichium
arundinaceum, OBL), cardinal flower, (Lobelia cardinalis, FACW+),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus, OBL), blue vervain (Verbena hastata, FAC),
dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum, FACW+) swamp rose mallow
(Hibiscus moscheutos, OBL), blackberry (Rubus arugtus, FACU), cattail
(Typha latiflolia, OBL), and peppermint shrub (Mentha piperita, FACW).
Soils were black (5 Y 2.5 / 1) clay loam within the upper eight inches. Soil
saturation was observed within the upper six inches of the profile.
According to the 1993 Nationwide No. 26 and 401 Water Quality
Certification documentation (Appendix D), 0.76 acre of this wetland
described as a shrub/ herbaceous wetland, was permitted to be filled and is
now the existing taxiway and apron area.
A network of eight (8)
ditches perpendicular
to runway have been
identified in the
northernmost portion
of Wetland F/G. Based
on aerial photos from
1953 (Appendix F), at
least one (1)
perpendicular ditch
was located in this
area at that time.
Additional ditching
has occurred in this
View of Wetland FIG facing west (taken on 8-22- 2007). area between April 1,
1998 and July 27, 2005
(Google Earth aerial photos www. earth. google.com). These ditches were
created in an effort to remove standing water from this area and eliminate
waterfowl habitat near the runway.
2.6.4.2 Middle Quadrant (Wetland G)
Wetland G is located in the Middle Quadrant and is also adjacent to lotla
Creek. This wetland was delineated in 2009 as an "atypical" wetland due
to the lack of positive evidence of the three parameters utilized to identify
and delineate wetlands (Figure 8). As a result, the USACE requested that this
area be reviewed to determine a hydric soils boundary since wetland
hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation cannot be positively identified.
-20-

February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• During the initial soils investigation on April 16, 2009, four soil profiles
were reviewed within Wetland G. At that time only one soil profile (DP -5)
contained hydric indicators within Wetland G. Soils observed in DP -5 were
dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam with 4 percent of fine dark yellowish
brown (10 YR 4/6) mottles from 0-7 inches. Standing water was observed in
low spots, but could not be determined as wetland hydrology since the
investigation was performed prior to the growing season. Fescue and soft
rush were observed as dominant species. Based on this information, the
USACE requested an additional investigation of this area to delineate further
the limits of hydric soil indicators. On September 2, 2009, a supplemental
soils investigation was performed by the LSS (Appendix Q. A hydric soils
boundary was determined and flagged on the ground and surveyed. The
new boundary parallels the ditches and is an approximate east -west
orientation, with the wetter soils to the north toward the runway and ditch
2, and dryer soils to the south near lotla Creek. Vegetation within the new
boundary primarily consisted of barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli,
FACW-), straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus stigosus, FACW), broomsedge,
golden rod (Solidago canadensis, FACU), and elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis, FACW).
•
•
Because of the atypical characteristics of Wetland G, the USACE is requiring
that the Airport Authority mitigate for un -permitted ditching which was
observed by regulatory personal during May of 2007.
Historical photos from
the NRCS office
provide evidence that
the surrounding
ditches (Ditches 2 and
3; Figures 3 and 8)
have been in existence
since 1953 (Appendix
F) when the property
was utilized for
agriculture. Therefore
this area has been
continually ditched
and drained since that
time. However the
View of Wetland G taken on 3-12-09. USACE has indicated
that no evidence exists
to determine if the dimensions of the ditches have changed since 1953.
Any changes to the former agricultural ditches are considered wetland
impacts by the USACE. As a result of having no positive evidence regarding
past ditch dimensions and the observed ditching activities that took place in
2007 by regulatory personal, the USACE will assume that there have been
alterations to the ditches and considers the atypical characteristics of
Wetland G an impact.
-21-

February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• The USACE currently views the 1991 Jurisdictional Determination (JD) as
the most recent authorization on the property and has determined that the
1991 JD will be utilized to measure the amount of impact to the lower
portion of Wetland G. As a result, previous impacts to Wetland G have
been calculated at 0.43 acre (Figure 8). The 1991 JD boundary has been
superimposed on the permit drawings for the area of Wetland G only
(Figures 3 and 8).
P--�
•
2.6.4.3 Wetland GA
Wetland GA is located in a topographical depression south of Wetland G in
the eastern floodplain and is
adjacent to lotla Creek.
Soils observed were a
brown 00YR 4/3) loam
from 0 to 8 inches. Soils
from 8 to 15 inches were
clay loam and contained a
grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2)
matrix with 2 percent of
coarse red (2.5 YR 4/8)
mottles. Soils below 15
inches were clay loam and
contained a very dark gray
(2.5Y 3/1) matrix with 2
View of Wetland GA taken on 3-12-2009.
percent of fine red (2.5YR
4/8) mottles. Fescue and soft rush were the dominant species. Soils were
saturated within the upper 12 inches of the profile. Wetland GA has likely
resulted from the continual compaction of soils from mechanized
maintenance practices which reduces surface infiltration, and enhances
ponding within shallow depressions.
2.6.4.4 Wetland GB
Wetland GB is located west of Wetland GA in the eastern floodplain. Soils
were brown (IOYR 4/3)
loam from 0 to 8 inches.
Soils from 8 to 12 inches
were dark gray (10YR 4/1)
clay loam with 7 percent
of fine strong brown (7.5
YR 5/8) mottles. Fescue
and soft rush were the
dominant species.
Wetland GB has also
likely resulted from
continual compacts of
soils resulting from
-22-
View of Wetland GIB taken on 4-15-09.

February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• mechanized maintenance practices.
Through discussions and various field views with the USACE, Wetlands F/G
Wetland G, Wetland GA, and Wetland GB are considered fair quality
wetlands and mitigation is proposed a ratio of 1:1 for impacts (Table 6:
Proposed Mitigation).
2.6.4.5 1993 / 1994 Onsite Wetland Mitigation Areas
According to the 1993 permit documentation, the proposed taxiway
construction resulted in losses to approximately 1.88 acres of waters and
wetlands of the U.S. (Appendix D). Compensatory mitigation at that time
included onsite creation of waters and wetlands within the floodplain. Of
the four (4) mitigation areas described in the 1993 permit documentation
(Appendix D), three (3) have been identified as non-functioning wetlands
that do not meet the three parameter wetland criteria described in the 1987
manual.
These areas include two former sedimentation basins that were to be
converted into wetlands following the construction of the taxiway and an
area of prior converted farmland located centrally in the eastern floodplain.
These areas are called out as the 1993 Non -Functioning Wetland Mitigation
Locations on Figures 3 & 8. The non-functioning mitigation areas are
described in bullets A, C, and D of the 1993 mitigation plan (Appendix D).
• During an on site visit with the DWQ on March 11, 2009, these wetland
mitigation areas were noted as unsuccessful and did not contain wetland
characteristics, specifically vegetation and hydrology. Soil borings within
these areas (observed on 03-12-09) typically indicated hydric soil conditions
below 20 inches of the surface.
•
One non-functioning mitigation boundary overlaps with the existing
Wetland F/G boundary (Figures 3 and 8). Approximately 0.05 acres of this
mitigation location has been identified within the boundaries of Wetland
F/G and is considered functioning.
Based on recent discussions with the USACE (September 8, 2009) the non-
functioning wetland mitigation areas will require compensatory mitigation.
The USACE suggested that these areas be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1. As a
result, the non-functioning 1993 mitigation sites have been included in the
project's cumulative impact totals (Table 5).
-23-

w I
a- O
E N
m
z
O
Z
z z cn
0
z 0 U
N
m
W
m
p Q
Q p
U
Doo
� 0Li
p
Z
i
10
m cn
L-I
0
cn
w
_
a_ N
J
�l
x
U
O
w W
U L
U
U
-o
Q U
OLLJ
\
w
\�
DUpU
C)
LJ Q
C'1 p (n
i
Z p
:2 0
w
Q �
W
�J�(
pJUO
p ~ Cy
W
fir\ =WQ
H
Z
w
W
Q
m
(7
Z
V)
X
W
�- F--
0(-)
Z W
D
�O
Qm
W a
Of
Q =
J
Q �
Z
O m
U_ pW
p ~
cn U
O Q
D
pI\
WLL
-
O"; p (n U
QLLC��Q'I
O Q N
mW
D '
\ N
a
L aunoizi - 3NIIHOiVW
I Lr)
W
W
p Q
Q p
>
Doo
z
U
Q a--) <
i
10
m cn
z Q
O Z Do�w
J
cn
Z ~
O
N
2 v
p
N ON ��.
x
U
O
w W
own
C�
U
-o
Q U
OLLJ
JUU
w
�
Q
Qcr Z
0-
NU
C)
O
or�
D
U
H
of Z
Z `
:2 0
a- —
~
w
Zof
(/) Q
Z
Ld Z
o0
��
DZ
Q
)- ~
�- W Z
Y u n
CD U Q
Q
V
Of
� Q
Z
o
J
ZZ�3�==
O D
E
X
Q Of
u z
Z�
O
O
O
p U
W
LLI
cl�
ow
J
J
o
m
m
O U
— p
Q
a
Q
(n z
a
L LI
a
pI\
WLL
-
O"; p (n U
QLLC��Q'I
O Q N
mW
D '
\ N
a
L aunoizi - 3NIIHOiVW
I Lr)
W
$
p Q
Q p
>
cn J
z
U
Q a--) <
i
10
m cn
z Q
O Z Do�w
J
0- N
`\
Z ~
� O Q
N
2 v
p
N ON ��.
U
Z
w W
Q ~ p
C�
�
J
Q U
O Es �
m
w
U
J
m
O
or�
Z
W
cn
~O
z
o Dz
w
cn
w
zV)
F O
Q W H
W
W
W
O
W p
CD U Q
Q
Q
QLLJ
Q (n
Q Z
H Z
X
X
X
Q W
O
O
O
p U
W
cl�
�
J
J
� Cr)w
m
m
O U
— p
Q
Q
Q
(n z
pI\
WLL
-
O"; p (n U
QLLC��Q'I
O Q N
mW
D '
\ N
a
L aunoizi - 3NIIHOiVW
I Lr)
pm
U 11
$
p Q
Q p
, U
Z w O,
C1 p (n
P•q
LI)
U
Q a--) <
i
10
w J O Q
0w
LLI
� - O
O� W �O
0- N
`\
N
2 v
p
N ON ��.
d d
0- a- d \
10
pI\
WLL
-
O"; p (n U
QLLC��Q'I
O Q N
mW
D '
\ N
a
L aunoizi - 3NIIHOiVW
I Lr)
pm
U 11
$
a w0^
C1pC/-)v
a
ZOC)<
ma0OQ'
i
10
o 0 LLI a-
f

February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
• 2.6.5 2006 Fencing Project
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
In order to determine the amount of impacts resulting from the fencing project,
"Construction Plans for the Security Fencing Project at the Macon County Airport
Franklin, North Carolina February 2006" (NCDOA-NO-36237.14.1 +3623) were
reviewed (Appendix G). The purpose of this project was to place an eight foot tall
chain link fence around the airport perimeter in order secure the airport from
transient wildlife and unauthorized individuals. Construction of this project took
place during April of 2006. According to the Fencing Plans (Sheet 6 of 7), the fence
detail at ditch crossings illustrates a series of barbed wire extending the width of the
stream channel supported by aluminum alloy stakes placed within the streambed.
No details for the installation of culverts were identified on the fencing plan
drawings. In discussions with the airport designers, it was noted that culvert
installations at stream channel crossings would not be incorporated into an airport
fencing project because the site would still be accessible through the culverts.
However, in discussions with Airport personnel it was later determined that culverts
were installed at the time of the fencing project. A description of all stream
channels located throughout the property is located in Appendix A (jurisdictional
Request letter). Additionally, Table 3: Perimeter Fence Impact Table lists all
impacted stream channel locations resulting from the fencing project. Refer to
Figures 3, 7, and 8 to locate each impacted stream channel.
Table 3. Perimeter Fence Impact Table
•
•
Pipe ID Stream Location Culvert Size Length (ft)
Tye (inches)
Pipe #1 Before confluence of Corrugated 44" 10'
lotla Branch & lotla Metal Arch
Creek
Pipe #2 Before confluence of Corrugated 48" 21.5'
Tributary B &lotla Plastic Pipe
Creek
Pipe #3 Tributary between Corrugated 18" 20'
Wetland C/D & Plastic Pipe
Wetland J/M
boundaries
Pipe #4 Unnamed Tributary in Corrugated 30" 21'
Alder Bog Wetland Plastic Pipe
Pipe #5 Upstream of Tributary Corrugated 36" 20'
1 & north of the runway Plastic Pipe
Pipe #6 Tributary 2 Corrugated 34" 20'
Metal Pipe
Pipe #7 Tributary 1 Corrugated 34" 20'
Metal Pipe
Pipe #8 Before confluence of Corrugated 24" 10'
tributary in Wetland Metal Pipe
J/M & lotla Creek
-25-
? 0

n
U
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
Pipe ID Stream Location Culvert Size Length (ft)
Type (inches)
Pipe #9 Downstream from Corrugated 48" 21
confluence of Ditches 2 Plastic Pipe
&3
Pipe #10 Tributary in Wetland Corrugated 15" 20'
C/D Plastic Pipe
Total 183.5
Impacts 1 -1
The Airport Authority is currently proposing to remove all culverts associated with
2006 Fencing Project and restore the impacted stream channels in-kind through
bank stabilization and re-vegetation (Section 8.2). Culverts not associated with
fencing project include Pipes #11, #12, and #13.
Table 4. Cumulative* Permanent Impact Table
Impac ts
Stream Wetland
risdictional Waters & Wetlands (Linear Feet) (Acres)
lo
tla a Branch
749
Wetland 1 0.06
Wetland 2 0.05
Wetland 3 0.06
Alder Bog 1.38
Equipment Access Culverts 60
Wetland F/G 2.72
Wetland G 2009 Delineation 0.83
Wetland G 1991 delineation 0.43
Wetland GA 0.11
Wetland GB 0.08
1993 Wetland Miti ation Site
-
1
4- 1.29
b
K
2
2 809 7.01
'C.umulative=Previous + Proposed
3.0 Other Regulatory Agencies Comments
This section includes additional comments and concerns expressed by review agencies
regarding other potential impacts. These concerns were investigated and no previous or
proposed impacts have been identified with the following areas.
-26-
•
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
3.1 Wetland A
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
Wetland A was identified in 2007 along
the southeastern fence line within a °
maintained fescue dominant area. This "
system was identified as a palustrine
emergent wetland adjacent to lotla Creek's �I
(R PW). Dominant vegetation included
spike rush (Eleocharis, OBL) and
smartweed. Soils from 0 to 8 inches were ,
very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) clay View of Wetland A taken on 8-22-07.
loam with 20% of strong brown (7.5 YR
5/8) mottles. Soils below 8 inches were very dark gray (10 YR 3/1) clay loam with
30% of brownish yellow (10 YR 6/8) mottles. Soils were saturated within the upper
12 inches.
A small section of a 6 -inch corrugated
'u.m t_"
plastic pipe was observed from the edge of
this wetland system during the May 2007
inter -agency site visit and during the
August 2007 wetland investigation. The
USACE questioned the purpose of this pipe
and the possibility of it being placed in the
`- wetland as a result of the perimeter fence.
i To further investigate the purpose of the
identified pipe near Wetland A,
construction plans from various projects
View of Wetland A taken on 2-24-2009. that have occurred on the property since
1968 were reviewed. Construction plans for the Macon County Airport Parallel
Taxiway -Aircraft Ramp-Helipad (Sheet 1 of 20, Appendix E) shows a temporary
construction entrance in the area identified as Wetland A. The construction
entrance detail calls out a temporary 30 -foot long 15 -inch corrugated metal pipe to
be installed within this area. This is located in the approximate area of the
corrugated plastic pipe identified during the 2007 wetland delineation and USACE
site visit.
The 1991 wetland delineation drawing does not indicate that wetlands existed in
this area at that time (Appendix H). Additionally, in review of construction plans for
the Macon County Airport Parallel Taxiway -Aircraft Ramp-Helipad, this area may
have been selected as a temporary construction entrance in order to avoid
additional wetland impacts. As a result, Wetland A was likely created by the
development of the temporary construction entrance for the parallel taxiway
project.
During an onsite inspection on February 24, 2009, the pipe in this location
. appeared to be non-functioning. This pipe was noted as damaged and possibility
by a mower. As previously noted, this location is continually mowed due to the
-27-

February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• proximity of the runway. Standing water was observed in the area of Wetland A
with the pipe above the wetland elevation. An exit for the pipe was not found in
either the road-side ditch or near Tributary B. Additional pieces of the same type of
pipe were observed on the ground near Tributary B (Figure 7) and appeared to have
been removed or damaged from the mowing. Based on these findings, it is possible
that the observed pipe was a remnant from the temporary construction entrance
during the 1994 taxiway construction project and was never properly removed. No
impacts have been identified or are currently proposed within this area.
3.2 Western Floodplain
As previously mentioned, in order to address DWQ concerns regarding the
floodplain, a LSS performed an onsite investigation within the floodplain on April
16, 2009 to identify potential fill material. No evidence of fill was found in this
area. However, additional areas of hydric soils were identified and delineated
within the western floodplain during the 2009 investigations resulting in an
expansion of the 2007 Wetland C/D boundary. The 2007 Wetland C/D boundary
now incorporates the area identified as Wetland J/M. This wetland boundary
predominately follows topographic drainage patterns within the floodplain (Figure
7).
During the March 2009 wetlands investigation, soils from 0 to 9 inches were dark
brown (10YR 3/3) loam with 5 percent of medium dark yellowish brown (10 YR
3/4) mottles. Soils from 9 to 24 inches were black (10 YR 211) silt loam with 5
percent of firm medium dark brown (7.5 YR 3/4) mottles. Fescue and soft rush were
observed as dominant species. Standing water was observed in several low spots.
Wetlands are shown in this area on the 1993 permit documentation. The 1993
permit and construction drawings indicate that, prior to the 1994 construction of
the parallel taxiway, an unnamed tributary of lotla Creek was located within this
portion of the floodplain (Figure 7). The taxiway construction resulted in the
relocation of this stream channel to the area currently identified as Tributary B. This
impact was authorized under the 1993 Section 404 and 401 permit.
4.0 Names and Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners (Block 24)
Table 5. List of Adjoining Property Owners
•
Owner Parcel # Mailing address
1 Baptist Children's Home of NC Inc. 0121661 P.O. Box 338
Thomasville, North
Carolina 27360
2 Betty Tippett Penland 0123338 517 lotla Church Rd,
0149660 Franklin, NC 28734
0133661
3 Macon County 0141837 5 West Main Street,
0141836 Franklin, NC 28734
-28-
•
•
•
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application

a Owner Parcel # Mailing address
4 Macon County Board of Education 0116869 P.O. Box 1029 Franklin,
NC 28734
5 Liberty Wood Products Inc. 0132053 874 lotla Church Road
Franklin, NC 28734
6 Lena R. Riles 0147617 48 Clara Ramsey Road,
0104469 Franklin, NC 28734
0137306
7 Macon County Airport Authority 0147618 1241 Airport Road,
0145695 Franklin, NC 28734
0149661
8 Kate Williams (Mrs. J. Haughton) 0105925 6500 Bradywine Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
9 Thomas C. Ruffin 0103607 2781 Olive Hill Rd,
Franklin, NC 28734
10 Billie Barnard 0100638 155 Olive Hill Rd,
Franklin, NC 28734
11 Kathleen and Richard J McNeil 0102550 2106 Airport Rd,
Franklin, NC 28734
-29-
0 0 0

February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• 5.0 Information on Approvals or Denials by Other Agencies (Block 25)
The only approval for this project to date has been an Approved Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) from the FAA issued on January 15, 2009. Since that time, several agencies
have come forward with their concerns regarding the proposed project. The following
Section includes a description of environmental assessment studies prepared for the
Environmental Assessment (EA) document that were requested prior to the approval of the
EA in addition to comments and concerns expressed by review agencies following the
FONSI approval.
5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Studies
in a letter dated August 1, 2000, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
commented that the construction of the runway may result in the discharge of
sediment and or stormwater that could affect listed endangered and or threatened
species and requested a biological assessment in addition to an alternatives analysis
for the project area (Appendix K). Species of particular concern noted by the FWS
included: the spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha, federally threatened and NC
Threatened), the olive darter (Percina squamata, NC special concern), and the
spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum, federal species of concern;
http://ecos.fws.gov/species). These species have all been reported in Little
Tennessee River north of the study area. Additional species of concern noted by
• the FWS included Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana, federally and NC
endangered), little wing pearly mussel (Pegias fabula, federally and NC
endangered), and the Rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides, not listed).
As requested, a biological assessment was performed by L.L. Gaddy, Ph.D of Terra
Incognia and Dr. William McLarney on May 20, 2000. Their finding are presented
in a document entitled" Endangered Species, Wetlands, and Biotic Communities of
the Proposed Expansion Areas of The Macon County Airport, Franklin, North
Carolina" located in Appendix K. The study included inventories of endangered
species, wetlands, biotic communities, and fish collected in lotla Branch. The
results of this study indicated that no state or federally listed endangered or
threatened species were found with the 26.62 acre study area. Furthermore, no
habitat that could potentially harbor such species occurs within the study area This
study concluded that due to the small size and existing sedimentation of both lotla
Branch and lotla Creek, the above mentioned endangered and threatened species
could not exist is these aquatic environments (Gaddy / McLarney, 2000).
This report also indicates that spotfin chub, olive darter, and spotted darter occur in
large streams and rivers and have never been found in a stream as small as the lotla
Branch or lotla Creek. It is noted that although the spotfin chub was not found in
the project area, it does occur downstream from the site. The assessment states that
the Appalachian elktoe and little wing pearly mussel were not found in the project
area and potential habitat does not exist. The rosyside dace was found in lotla
Branch and is known to do poorly in polluted streams. The report states that this
• may be an indication that cleaner water species are able migrate up into lotla
Branch and lotla Creek. The biological assessment also states that the rosyside dace
-31 -
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• may be a subspecies to the smoky dace (Climostomus sp.), a North Carolina special
concern species.
Additionally, Mr. Gaddy indicated in a letter to the FWS on January 8, 2002, that
erosion and sedimentation of lotla Creek during construction could potentially
affect spotfin chub and rosyside dace populations in the lotla Creek/ Little
Tennessee River drainage (Appendix K).
FWS responded to the biological assessment in a January 31, 2002 letter (Appendix
K). This letter stated that FWS expects "... that construction related to the runway
extension may result in the discharge of sediment and/or stormwater that could
affect the listed species, their habitat, and/or designated critical habitat." FWS added
that "the proposed culvert extension and based drainage could certainly result in
the discharge of sediment and potential changes in stream function and the
sediment discharge could result in a modification of endangered species habitat and
could directly affect the spawning and filtering activities of mussels." Though
information provided by Mr. Gaddy addressed concerns regarding direct impacts to
federally endangered and threatened species, indirect impacts to listed aquatic
species continue to be a concern of FWS.
An additional letter dated March 20, 2002, from FWS stated that they concurred
with the conclusion that Alternative A of the Alternatives Analysis will have the
least impact on property included in Section 4(f) of the US Department of
Transportation Act (Refer to Appendix K for the Alternatives Analysis). FWS also
stated that this alternative, though it will have stream impacts, also appears to be
the least environmentally damaging of the action alternatives presented. This letter
was perceived by the applicant (Airport Authority) to be a concurrence document
from the FWS. However, after the FAA issued the FONSI, the FWS verbally
informed W.K. Dickson and stated that they that they do not concur with the
proposed project because of outstanding issues that were not addressed. In order to
address these concerns the FWS requested information on the erosion and
sedimentation control plan that will be put into place during the construction of the
project. Refer to Section 5.3 Stormwater Management Plan.
Additionally, FWS requested that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) be
contacted regarding this project. As a result, a Section 26a Shoreline Construction
Permit application to the Tennessee Valley Authority has also been submitted.
5.2 Secondary Impacts
During an interagency meeting on April 1, 2009, the FWS stated again that their
main concern is negative impacts to downstream water quality, specifically
stormwater that could affect the listed species downstream of the project area. The
FWS requested design information that supports how the proposed hydrology will
actually slow/detain the stormwater runoff rate compared to the current hydrology.
Refer to Section 5.3 Stormwater Management Plan.
• Additionally the FWS requested information on the use of de-icing chemicals during
airport operations. De-icing chemicals are not used the Macon County Airport.
Winter operations at the Macon County Airport are strictly tied to existing weather
-32-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
conditions. General aviation airports are not designed or built to use any de-icing
chemicals that are used at a commercial airport. During winter precipitation, the
airport is simply not in use until the weather improves. Additionally, the airport
does not use any salt or de-icing chemicals on its pavements.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) also requested to review
the stormwater management plan and culvert details during an additional
interagency meeting on May 6, 2009. Following this meeting, the WRC made
recommendations on culvert baffling for the connections to the state road culvert
(S.R. 1434), specifically if the design calls for dual concrete culvert sections. WRC
indicated that putting alternating baffle plates between the culvert sections in the
lower elevation base barrel would be possible without modifying or drilling the
culvert sections and can be done as the culvert sections are installed.
5.3 Stormwater Management Plan
As a result of the FWS and WRC concerns, the stormwater management plan for the
runway, taxiway, and RSA has been developed to ensure no negative downstream
impacts. Prior to the runway development, hydrology from lotla Branch and
Wetland 1 must continue to be conveyed from the north side of the project under
both the runway and taxiway and then connect to the existing culvert that passes
under Airport Road (SR 1434).
•
Multiple options were reviewed to convey flow through the airport. These options
included the placement of culverts under the runway and taxiways with open
concrete ditches in the infield areas and a variety of pipe combinations including
single and multiple pipe alternatives. Given the design changes that have occurred
during the course of the project (including raising the profile of the runway and
extended RSA to minimize archeological impacts with no excavation for
construction on the west side of lotla Branch; Section 5.4), the alternative using
open concrete channels with culverts became impractical. This is due to the raised
runway profile, which also raises the surrounding safety area, increasing the vertical
separation between the pavement and finished ground surfaces and the pipe flow
lines, thereby preventing any open channels.
As a result, it was determined that first two sections' of pipe would be conveyed
through one 72 inch RCP pipe followed by a third section of double 60 inch pipes
to match the existing conditions under Airport Road with a double 60 inch culvert
(Figure 4). All of the proposed pipes are designed to be installed at a flatter slope
than the existing roadway culvert in order to reduce water velocities in the pipe
system and keep the existing culvert outfall as the controlling part of the system.
Recently, the NCDOT has replaced the roadway culvert pipes (S.R. 1434) due to
problems resulting from a perched system and base flow moving through both
pipes.
•
According to design calculations, the increase in runoff resulting from added
impervious area is extremely small compared to the existing runoff flowing through
the project area on the airport. The 10-year design storm pre-construction
' A section of pipe refers to the length of the pipe between manholes or end sections.
-33-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• conditions for the site generates a peak runoff of 38.22 cubic feet per second (cfs)
and the post-construction conditions for the site will generate a peak runoff of 49.26
cfs. The existing flow through the dual 60 inch RCP culvert is 237.28 cfs with the
east side pipe passing 120.64 cfs at a velocity of 17.06 fps. The post-developed
condition would result in the existing east side pipe passing 126.16 cfs at a velocity
of 17.27 fps. The resulting change in velocity is 0.21 fps, which is an increase of
1.23 percent from the pre-developed condition.
The increased runoff of 11.04 cfs will be controlled by installing underground
detention areas in the infield between the runway and taxiway safety areas. The
pre-construction conditions stay the same while the post-construction is reduced to
38.07 cfs resulting in a net decrease in flow of 0.15 cfs during a 10-year storm event
through the use of underground detention. The use of an underground system was
required because above ground storage of water in the infield area between the
runway and taxiway is a safety hazard to aircraft and to the airport.
The water quality of the new impervious runoff will be addressed with periodical
sweeping of the new pavement surfaces and grass swales in the infield and on the
north side of the runway. Additionally the required grading of the runway and
taxiway safety areas and shoulders will also allow any runoff from the pavement to
be filtered through hundreds of feet prior to collection in the proposed pipe
network discharge from the site.
On August 3, 2009 WK Dickson & Co., Inc. met with FWS to discuss the
conceptual stormwater plan. In addition, conceptual plans have also been sent to
the WRC for their review. As a result of the proposed culvert design and
underground detention, the FWS verbally stated that they would give the project a
finding of no significant impact with these modifications to the plans. The FWS also
requested that a monitoring plan be developed to ensure no negative impacts
downstream.
5.4 Archaeological Studies and Findings
Various archaeological studies have been performed at the Macon County Airport
dating back to 1965. Throughout each of these studies, findings concluded that
Cherokee artifacts and burial sites exist within airport property. Prior to the current
investigation, the most recent archaeological study was performed by The Chicora
Foundation, Inc. (Chicora) during 2000. The Chicora study indicated that the field
west of lotla Branch (the proposed runway extension area) contains a wide variety
of data sets, including a large number of human burials, the presence of postholes
which likely reveal house patterns, and cultural remains including pottery, cut
mica, stone tools, and historic artifacts (Archaeological Testing of 31MA77
Proposed Macon County Airport Expansion, Appendix Q. The North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was
notified and concurred with these findings.
In response to these findings, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed
• between the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the FAA, the Macon County
Airport Authority, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation
-34-
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• Office (EBCI THPO) and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
(UKB) in order to seek ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts from
the proposed project. Upon the request of the EBCI THPO, the runway extension
was redesigned to minimize archaeological impacts to the maximum extent
possible.
The original design included the runway extension, associated runway safety area
and taxiway continuing on the existing runway gradient. This would have required
excavation into the adjacent hillside to reach the required runway elevation and
would have possibly resulted in disturbing features or artifacts. The redesign
adjusted the proposed runway gradient (or vertical alignment) which includes filling
rather than cutting the vertical alignment and allows the extension to be constructed
with approximately 115,000 cubic yards of fill thus minimizing the impact to the
existing soil and associated archaeological resources contained within the proposed
runway extension footprint.
The scope of work outlined in the MOA includes a data recovery plan that focused
on 25 percent of the proposed runway extension footprint. The goal of the data
recovery plan was to describe the people who were buried at this site, to
characterize and explain any skeletal traits, pathologies or anomalies of the people
and to provide information concerning the lifestyles and histories of the people
(Appendix M). The MOA issued on July 15, 2008 was signed by the FAA, SHPO,
the Airport Authority, and the NC DOT. The EBCI THPO, and UKB did not sign the
MOA.
• The survey work included in the data recovery plan began during February of 2009
without the signatures from the EBCI THPO, and UKB. Following this, the EBCI
THPO, UKB, and members of the public, expressed disapproval of the recovery
plan. Relevant stakeholders met again in 2009 to finalize a decision on the
archaeological recovery plan. As a result, the Airport Authority agreed to do 100
percent stripping and mapping of the area included in the footprint of the project.
The expanded archaeological investigation now includes stripping the entire
footprint of the proposed runway extension area of topsoil. Once this has been
completed all features identified during the stripping will be mapped, left in place,
and covered up with the removed topsoil or the runway extension fill depending on
the timing. This process will preserve features and or artifacts found in the footprint
and will eliminate potential disturbances from the runway extension project. Once
the project is completed, the features or artifacts identified will be encapsulated
underneath the runway extension. As a result of these additional measures, all
stakeholders have provided verbal agreement to the archaeological recovery plan.
Currently, there is no new or amended MOA. Copies of consultation meeting
minutes between all stakeholders are included in Appendix M.
6.0 Alternatives Analysis
In designing the runway extension, alternatives were reviewed prior to selecting the
• proposed project area. Refer to Appendix N "Alternatives Analysis" for detailed descriptions
and illustrations. The alternatives considered for this portion of the project included:
-35-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• • Alternative A: Extending Runway 7 by 600 feet to the west (the preferred
alternative);
• Alternative B: Extending the Runway 25 by 600 feet. to the east;
• Alternative C: Extending both runway ends by 300 feet;
• Alternative D: Improving Runway Safety Area (RSA) without lengthening runway
pavement and;
• Alternative E: No action.
This analysis determined that no alternative is without impacts. Many of the considered
alternatives raised concerns regarding significant wetland and stream impacts, mountainous
terrain, additional archaeological testing, property acquisition, and not meeting additional
departure and stopping distance requirements for aircraft.
The proposed project location (Alternative A) was selected based on the least amount of
adverse impacts while meeting the overall project goals. Although the proposed runway
extension location will have unavoidable impacts to lotla Branch, wetlands, and
archaeology; these impacts are the least extensive and will be appropriately mitigated.
Currently, this portion of the property is grass-dominated pastureland that will not require
extensive removal of woodland habitat. Additionally, the Macon County Airport Authority
owns this property, which will eliminate the need for additional property acquisition. The
intention of this alternative is to improve the safety at the airport and bring the runway and
runway safety areas up to current FAA standards for the aircraft currently operating at the
airport.
0 7.0 Prior Project History
The original runway at the Macon County Airport was 3,800 feet long and built in June of
1968. This resulted in culverts being installed in what is currently identified as the
upstream reaches of Tributary B and Tributary 1 (Refer to Appendix I: 1968 Airport Layout
Plan). An additional culvert was installed beneath the runway near the eastern Runway 25
end to drain a low point created by the runway embankment. This development was
performed prior to the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act, which is why no permits
for the original runway development were found.
There are no known COE ID #'s for the last 5 years at the Macon County Airport. A
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted in March of 2009 to the
Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Office in order to locate any
documentation relating to past development of the runway and taxiway at the Macon
County Airport. During that time, DWQ was able to retrieve copies of permits issued by
the USACE and NCDEHNR in 1993 for the Parallel Taxiway-Aircraft Ramp-Helipad project
(Appendix D). The same permit documentation was also located by the Department of the
Army FIOA Willington office in March 2009. This permit information included a
Nationwide 26 Permit authorized by the USACE on August 31, 1993 (Action ID No.
199303935) and a 401 Water Quality Certification authorized by the NCDEHNR on July
26, 1993 (DEM Project #93501) for the placement of fill material in 1.88 acres of wetlands
or waters in conjunction with the development of a new parallel taxiway, aircraft parking
ramp expansion, and a new helicopter parking pad in accordance with FAA design
• requirements. Additionally, mitigation for all unavoidable losses was to be conducted
onsite in accordance with the plan entitled "Macon County Airport, Phase II Construction
-36-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• Proposed Mitigation Plan for Unavoidable Impacts". The Asheville regulatory office was to
be informed when the mitigation work began and three annual monitoring reports were to
be submitted. The DEHNR 401 water quality certification also states that the mitigation
was to include three annual monitoring reports and as-built mitigation plans. These as-built
plans and monitoring reports have not been located.
Field observations indicate that the mitigation plan outlined in the 1993 permit application
was likely followed and completed as specified. No special protection requirements such
as a deed restriction or conservation easements were specified in either permit documents.
In order to verify this, the Macon County Tax Office has performed several extensive
reviews of all property deeds recorded since 1993. A property transaction between Macon
County and the Macon County Airport Authority occurred in 2002. This transaction
included Macon County transferring all of the airport property to the Airport Authority.
According to this document, there is neither record of a deed restriction or conservation
easement on wetland mitigation areas nor any mention of wetland mitigation on the
property (Appendix J). As requested by the USACE and the DWQ, the 1993 mitigation sites
have been identified on the permit drawings (Figures 7 and 8). As previously mentioned ,
the Airport Authority is proposing to mitigate for the non-functioning 1993 wetland
mitigation sites at a 1:1 ratio per recommendation of the USACE.
8.0 Proposed Mitigation
8.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
• The designers of this project performed an alternatives analysis (Appendix N) in
order to determine ways to avoid and minimize potential impacts to waters and
wetlands, and archeological artifacts. Although, no alternative is without
consequence, the location of the proposed runway extension is an area with the
least amount of unavoidable impacts while meeting the project goals.
During project discussions with EBCI THPO and UKB, it was requested that the
archaeological impacts be minimized. As a result, the proposed grades of the
runway extension were adjusted and a complete redesign of the project was
performed. The redesign of the runway extension created a new runway profile for
the Runway 7 end that required the removal of approximately 500 feet of the
existing runway which will be rebuilt to meet the vertical curve requirements for
the project. The new profile was designed to be an entire fill project, with no cuts
into the existing ground in order to avoid impacts to archaeological features that
may possibly be located on the site. Additionally, the runway safety area (RSA) that
extends past the end of the paved runway will also be filled in order to tie into
exiting ground.
A stormwater plan was developed that will eliminate the potential of sedimentation
that could affect listed species downstream during and after construction. During
construction, the contractor will install erosion control measures including, but not
limited to silt fence, rock check dams, temporary diversion ditches, inlet protection,
temporary sediment traps, temporary skimmer sediment basins, and a temporary
. construction entrance. These measures will be monitored and maintained during
construction to minimize any sedimentation from exiting the construction site and
shall remain in place until the site has been stabilized. The culvert installations and
-37-
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
46 underground detention have been designed to slow the stormwater runoff rate
coming off the airport property.
Post construction measures include periodic sweeping of the new airport pavement
to reduce suspended solids prior to reaching the grass shoulders. Grass swales will
be installed in grading areas to facilitate sediment attenuation and pollutant removal
prior to any stormwater discharge off airport property.
8.2 Restoration of Streams Impacted by Perimeter Fence
The Airport Authority is proposing to remove all culverts resulting from the 2006
perimeter fence installation and to restore the stream channels in-kind to their pre-
construction condition. The goal of the stream restoration is to convert the altered
stream channels and the adjacent riparian zones to a stable condition in order
improve water quality functions. The USACE has recommended utilizing the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, prepared by the USACE Wilmington District,
DWQ, NRSC, U.S. EPA, Region IV, and NCWRC as guidance in developing a
restoration plan. The mitigation category selected for the restoration of the impacted
stream channels is Enhancement Level II. This includes stabilization of stream banks
through sloping to restore the appropriate dimensions and re-vegetation of riparian
zones with herbaceous vegetation. As a result, a total of 183.5 linear feet of
previously impacted steam channel will be enhanced through these restoration
efforts.
• The reference reach for the restoration
plan is the downstream reach of
Tributary B located south of the
runway. Tributary B was relocated in
1994 as a result of the taxiway project.
During the 2007 wetlands investigation,
Tributary B was identified as a second
order, perennial stream that flows
directly into lotla Creek. This channel is
approximately 10 feet wide from top of
bank with a channel slope between 2
percent and 4 percent. The bank height
averaged approximately 3 feet. View of Tributary 8 taken on 4-16-07.
Tributary B is stable in dimension and
planform. The riparian zone is dominated by herbaceous vegetation including spike
rush, New York Ironweed, jewel weed (Impatiens capensis, FACW), three way
sedge, and smartweed. Tributary B is relatively straight with few meanders.
Redoximorphic features were observed throughout soils within the stream channel
and within the riparian zone along the stream banks. The presence of amphibians
was noted during the onsite investigation and evidence of macro invertebrates was
observed along the banks including crayfish "chimneys".
The restoration plan shall include removal of the culverts and any cover material
is placed during the fencing project. Adjustment to the fence shall be made by
matching the fence to the channel as specified in the ditch crossing detail located in
the Construction Plans for the Security Fencing Project (Appendix G). The channels
-38-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• original shape shall be re-graded returning the stream bank to its previous
dimensions and will match the existing slope upstream or downstream. Once this
has been completed a riparian zone will be disked and prepared for sowing of
riparian seed or native grass mixture. The seed mixture will include Mellow Marsh
Riparian Buffer Mix or equivalent. Refer to Figure 10 for a list of species included
in the permanent seed mixture. Coir matting (or equivalent) will be placed on the
stream banks following seeding to aid in germination and stabilization.
The restored riparian zones will reduce water velocity and filter pollutants including
sediment. The vegetation will only include herbaceous species since the airport is
required to regularly maintain low growing vegetation throughout the property. A
temporary cover of oat, brown top millet, and or switchgrass will also be used to
stabilize the banks until permanent vegetation can become established.
r]
•
-39-
KEY IN MATTING PER
MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS
COIR FIBER MATTING
(400g/m ')
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
NOT TO SCALE
.
R .e
Species
Common Name
Percent
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15
Agrostis stolonifera
Creeping bentgrass
10
Rudbeckia hirta NC ecotype
Black-eyed susan
10
Coreopsis lanceolata
Coreopsis
10
Panicum clandestinum
Deer tongue
10
Andropogon gerardii
Big bluestem
5
Juncuseffusus
Soft rush
5
Echinochloa muricata
Awned barnyard grass
5
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little bluestem
5
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian grass
5
Tripsacum dactyloides
Gamma
5
100
STREAM BANK DETAIL AND SEED MIXTURE
MACON COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RUNWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
FRANKLIN, NORM CAROLINA
iam`mu
m � _
W� CKSONI
b tiwaruoln.. mrYM L onw ..rr.
wa abno ■.,my
im � xn r-on4
FIGURE
10
a�
"

•
February 2009
(Revised October 2009)
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
Best management practices will be used during the grading and seeding of the
stream banks in order to avoid and or minimize downstream sedimentation. The
contractor shall be required to perform all work with equipment from the top of
banks outside of the channels to reduce disturbance and possible sedimentation
during the channel restoration process. The contractor shall work on the restoration
of the channel during the optimal time for plant and seed growth during the runway
extension project to increase the rate of germination. Noxious weeds or invasive
species wi I I be managed as needed.
The restoration of the impacted stream channels will occur concurrently with the
construction of the runway expansion. As-built channel surveys will be submitted
to the USACE and DWQ following completion of the work. The as-built surveys
will include the dimensions of the restored channels.
8.2.1 Monitoring
•
At recommended by the USACE, the restored areas of the stream channels
will be monitored for one (1) year and a monitoring report will be submitted
to both the DWQ and USACE following the one year of monitoring period.
Any problems encountered during the monitoring period will be discussed
in the final monitoring report along with recommended remedial actions.
According to the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, the level of
monitoring for this type of enhancement is considered Level 2 and requires
documentation of reference photos and a qualitative assessment of plant
survival. Photos will be taken at central locations and show both banks from
both upstream and downstream views. Photos taken in the winter months
will show physical stability. Photos taken in the summer months will
document vegetation success. Quarterly (every 3 months or 5 times
throughout the year) evaluations of percent cover of perennial herbaceous
species will be performed to ensure establishment of the herbaceous
community. A plan sheet indicating photo locations will be included with
the monitoring report.
The success criteria will include at least 75% vegetative cover, no
substantial degradation or bank erosion, limited invasion of exotic species,
and minimal evidence of down-cutting or deposition.
Additionally, the Airport Authority will work with FWS to monitor stream
velocity near the culvert outlet of the runway expansion area in order to
ensure that the stormwater controls are working as planned.
8.3 Preservation Components
n
U
In compliance with Section 404 mitigation requirements, onsite mitigation options
were first considered; however, the FAA and the USACE currently does not support
onsite mitigation at the Macon County Airport. On-site preservation, restoration
-41-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
is and or creation of wildlife habitat is not encouraged nor accepted as a possible
mitigation option by the FAA due to potential collision with avian species.
8.4 NCEEP In-Lieu of Fee (ILF) Mitigation
The Macon County Airport Authority has requested to pay into the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) In-Lieu of Fee (ILF) program for
cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and past maintenance
activities. The Airport Authority is proposing 2:1 and 1:1 mitigation ratios upon
recommendations from the USACE (Table 6: Proposed Mitigation). According to
the NCEEP letter (Appendix O), NCEEP is willing to accept payment for impacts
associated with the Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project and
past impacts. Available credits through NCEEP for this project include 3,704 linear
feet of stream and 14 acres of riparian wetlands located in the Little Tennessee River
Basin (CU# 06010202).
Table 6. Proposed Mitigation
•
Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
Mitigation Mitigation Stream Wetland Stream-, Wetland
Ratios Impact Impact Mitigation Mitigation
Aquatic Resource (Linear Ft.) (Acres) Credits Credits
lotla Branch (Filled ILF 2:1 610 1220
& Graded only)
lotla Branch (Filled, ILF 1:1 139 139
Graded, &
Relocated)
Wetland 1 ILF 2:1 0.06 0.12
Wetland 2 ILF 2:1 0.05 0.10
Wetland 3 ILF 2:1 0.06 0.12
Alder Bog ILF 1:1 1.38 1.38
Equipment Access ILF 1:1 60 60
Culverts
Wetland F/G ILF 1:1 2.72 2.72
Wetland G ILF 1:1 0.83 0.83
1991 Delineation ILF 0.43 0.43
(Area of Wetland G)
Wetland GA ILF 0.11 0.11
Wetland GB ILF 0.08 0.08
1993 Wetland ILF 1:1 1.29 1.29
Mitigation Sites
1r'`
809
7.01
1,419
7.18
9.0 Conclusion
The Macon County Airport Authority is proposing to extend the existing Runway 7 to bring
the Macon County Airport in compliance with the North Carolina Division of Aviation and
FAA safety standards. Impacts resulting from the runway extension include 749 linear feet
to lotla Branch and 0.17 acre to jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation for the proposed runway
-42-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
(Revised October 2009) Runway Extension Project
404, 401 and Section 26a Application
• extension will be provided through payment into the NCEEP ILF mitigation fund.
Mitigation for the majority of these impacts is proposed at a ratio of 2:1 by
recommendation of the USACE.
During this permit application process, research revealed various historic projects remain
accountable for impacts not properly permitted. These projects include the filling of 1.38
acres of an alder bog wetland (Wetland AB) during the 1991 runway extension, the
installation of 60 feet of un-permitted culverts for mowing equipment access, and un-
permitted ditch maintenance of two ditches located in the eastern floodplain after the
property changed land use from agriculture to an airport facility in 1968. The USACE is
using the 1991 wetland delineation boundaries to determine impacts from ditching. As a
result, 0.43 acres has been included in the cumulative impacts for un-permitted ditching.
Mitigation for the past impacts will be provided through payment into the NCEEP ILF
mitigation fund. Mitigation for previous impacts is proposed at a ratio of 1:1 per
recommendation of the USACE.
The maintenance of previous agricultural ditches has been performed throughout the
history of the airport to maintain the runway in compliance with FAA safety standards.
Standing water surrounding the runway has created habitat for waterfowl species putting
aircraft at risk for bird air strikes in the past. Instead of continuing to ineffectively maintain
the ditches, the Airport Authority is currently proposing the filling and grading of 4.17 acres
of wetlands located within the 500 ft. radius of the Object-Free Zone and to reduce airport
attractants within 5,000 feet of air operational areas which includes wetlands located in the
eastern floodplain (Wetlands F/G, G, GA, and GB). Mitigation for the filling and grading of
wetlands located within the airport property will be provided through payment into the
NCEEP ILF mitigation fund. Due to the fair quality of these wetlands, mitigation is
proposed at a ratio of 1:1 per recommendation of the USACE.
Finally, in 1993 the Macon County Airport was issued Section 404 and Section 401 permits
for the construction of the parallel taxiway. The permit requirements included the creation
of several onsite mitigation locations for compensation of unavoidable impacts. Currently,
only one onsite mitigation location is functioning. As a result, the USACE is requiring
compensation for the remaining 1.29 acres of non-functioning mitigation areas. Mitigation
for the non-functioning wetland mitigation sites will be provided through payment into the
NCEEP ILF mitigation fund and is proposed at a ratio of 1:1 per recommendation of the
USACE.
A total 809 linear feet of stream and 7.01 acres of wetlands have been included in the
cumulative impacts of this permit application. Stream restoration of those areas containing
un-permitted culverts installed during the 2006 perimeter fence upgrade project will be
performed to improve water quality conditions and to more effectively secure the airport
property. Monitoring of the restored stream channels and stream velocity into lotla Creek
will be performed to ensure stream bank stabilization and no adverse impacts to
downstream species. Once permitting, construction, and monitoring have been completed
for this project, the Macon County Airport will be in compliance with FAA and NCDOT
Division of Aviation safety standards, CWA regulations and Section 26a of the Tennessee
Valley Act.
•
-43-

0
APPENDIX A
Revised jurisdictional Wetland Request
And Approved jurisdictional Forms
40
0
Fh.WK
WDICKSON
. community Infrastructure consultants
October 1, 2009
Ms. Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
Asheville, Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Re: Revised Jurisdictional Determination for the Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project at the Macon County Airport
Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina
Action ID # SAW 2009-00321
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
• On behalf of the Macon County Airport Authority (Owner), WK Dickson & Co., Inc. (Agent) is
requesting a jurisdictional determination for the above referenced property because of the proposed
runway extension project. Various wetland investigations have been performed throughout the last 2
years at the Macon County Airport. It was found that a number of previous impacts were not properly
permitted. These investigations were performed on April 16, 2007, August 22, 2007, March 12, 2009,
April 15 & 16, 2009 and September 2, 2009. The entire airport property located within the limits of
the perimeter fence has been evaluated for waters and wetlands of the U.S. The results from these
investigations are presented herein.
Project Information
The Macon County Airport is located on Airport Road (NC 1434) northwest of NC Highway 28 in
Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina. During each investigation, wetland flags were surveyed by
professional land surveyors. Flag numbers and coordinate locations are identified on the attached
Wetland Delineation Drawings. Additionally, wetland and upland data sheets and Approved J.D. forms
have been completed and are included with this letter.
Methods
The subject property inspection for wetland boundaries consisted of using a combination of in-house
research and field investigations. In-house research included a review of information sources such as
the U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle for Franklin, North Carolina, aerial
photography, National Wetland Inventory Mapping (NWI) and local soil survey. Aerial photographs
001 Pinnd(le Point Drive.,
cite 110
Olurnbia, S('29221
*I. 80:3.786.4261
Fax [phone]
?tiw??.wl.c3i{:?kson.corn
an4p<zrl:ai'ion • Miter Resources • Urban Developmenl + Geoniatics
•
reviewed included 1953 and 1980 NRCS aerial photographs and Google Earth aerial photos from
1994 to 2005. Climate information reviewed included precipitation data from the State Climate Office
of North Carolina (CRONOS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Water and Climate
Center (WETS) Table Data, and archived data from the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory
Council (NCDMAC).
Subsequent to the in-house review, wetlands and surface waters were delineated in the field utilizing
the Routine On-Site Determination Method as defined in the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. Each field assessment performed onsite conform to both federal and state
regulations. This technique uses a three parameter approach, which requires positive evidence of:
¦ Hydrophytic vegetation
¦ Hydric soils
¦ Wetland hydrology
•
•
Areas exhibiting the above three wetland characteristics, as well as surface waters, were marked in the
field with pink surveyor flagging.
In-House Research
The Macon County Airport property is located in the Little Tennessee River Watershed (HUC #
06010202). The USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map for Franklin, NC indicates that three
tributaries of lotla Creek are located within the investigation areas. The western most tributary is
identified as lotla Branch. Refer attached USGS mapping. The remaining unnamed tributaries have
been identified and delineated as Tributary B and Tributary 1.
The Macon County Airport is located within the lotla Valley of the Smoky Mountains and is currently
utilized as a general aviation airport. Seven structures currently exist within the investigation area
including; the main terminal, an office, a maintenance hangar, and 4 T-hangar buildings. The
surrounding land uses are predominately agriculture and residential.
Soils
The NRCS Soil Survey for Macon County maps five soils series within the airport property; Dillsboro
loam, Udorthents loamy, Braddock clay loam, Toxaway loam, and Hemphill loam. Refer to attached
soils mapping.
Dillsboro loam (DsB) 2 to 8 percent slopes, is located primarily north of the runway and is rarely
flooded. These soils are described by the NRCS as well drained, moderately permeable soils on high
stream terraces.
1001 Pinnacle Point
?}Drive, Suite 110
Columbia, SC 29223
Tel. [phone]'1
www.wWickson.com
Page 2 of 17
North Carolina • South Carolitld . Georgia . Florida
•
Udorthents (Ud) loamy soil is mapped primarily along entire length of the runway and includes the
area of the alder bog wetland (Wetland AB) identified in 1991. According to the soil survey, these soils
are areas of cut and fill and are somewhat excessively drained to moderately well-drained. Slope is
dominantly 2 to 6 inches, although it ranges from 0 to 10 percent. Permeability is generally slow.
Glacial pebbles and fragments of shale and sandstone are common on the soil surface. A seasonal high
water table is present in some areas.
A very small portion of the airport property is mapped as Braddock clay loam (BkB2) 2 to 8 percent
slopes, eroded. These soils are located northwest of the runway. According to the NRCS the Braddock
series consists of very deep, well drained, and moderately permeable soils formed in colluvium and
alluvium derived dominantly from a mixture of crystalline rocks. They are on footslopes of ridges,
colluvial fans, and adjacent high terraces.
Toxaway loam JoA), 0 to 2 percent slopes, is frequently flooded. These soils are described by the
NRCS as poorly and very poorly drained soils that formed in loamy alluvial deposits near level flood
plains of mountain valleys. Toxaway loam is listed on the North Carolina hydric soils list. Toxaway
soils are located throughout the floodplain located south of the airport runway and along lotla Branch.
Wetlands and waters identified on the airport property are predominately located within areas mapped
as Toxaway loam (with the exception of Wetland AB).
Hemphill loam 0 to 3 percent slope, rarely flooded is a very poorly drained soil found on low stream
terraces. These soils form in alluvium. Hemphill is mapped surrounding the alder bog wetland
(Wetland AB) located north of the runway. This soil map unit is on the North Carolina hydric soils list.
WETS Table Data and Daily Precipitation
WETS Table data was reviewed from the Franklin NC3228 WETS Station, a NWS Cooperative
Observer weather station. The WETS data represents data collected from 1971 to 2000. The WETS
Table indicates that total average rainfall for Franklin is typically 54.51 inches. A NC DOT/FAA
Automated Weather Observing System weather station (K1A5) located at the Macon County Airport,
was used as on-site data for this project. According to data retrieved from the Macon County Airport
Station, the annual precipitation at the airport in 2007 was 17.56 inches and 18.95 inches in 2008.
The WETS Table also indicates that the growing season for Franklin, North Carolina begins on April
17th and continues through the October 19th and is 185 days at a threshold of 28 ° F or higher.
According to the 1987 Manual, an area contains wetland hydrology if it is inundated or saturated to
the surface continuously for at least 5 percent of the growing season. Therefore, in order for an area at
the Macon County Airport to meet wetland hydrology criteria, it would need to be inundated or
saturated at a minimum of 9.25 continuous days during the growing season.
Drought Conditions
•
Page 3 of 17
•

•
Archived records from the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council (NCDMAC)
documented from January 2000 to April of 2009 were reviewed in order to determine if a change in
climatic conditions affected hydrology on the property. NCDMAC classifies drought levels from:
• D4- Exceptional Drought
• D3- Extreme Drought;
• D2- Serve Drought;
• D1- Moderate Drought; and
• DO -Abnormally Dry.
The graph below represents the changes in Macon County drought levels from abnormally dry (0) to
exceptional drought (4) during the past 9 years. These records were obtained from
www.ncdrought.org/archive.
Macon County Drought Levels 2000-2009
II +
1
?r
i
Jan-00 _. J.m-04 ];i n-fig ue
® DM Level
Drought conditions did not occur between January 2003 and March 2006 and therefore did not
receive a drought classification. Macon County experienced the highest levels of drought between
April of 2007 and December of 2008 with extreme drought (level 3) and exceptional drought (level 4)
classifications. Specifically, Macon County was given a level 4 classification from August 2007 to
December 2008. Macon County was downgraded several times to a level 3 within this timeframe, but
the majority of months remained at a level 4 classification. At the time of the April 2009 onsite
investigations, drought classifications had been downgraded to Moderate Drought (level 1). Changes
in climatic conditions likely caused drawdown of groundwater levels below typical conditions.
Consequently, wetlands delineated during 2009 likely reflect the improved drought classifications
relative to 2007.
Background
The last jurisdictional determination (J.D.) authorized for waters of the U.S. at the Macon County
Airport was issued on July 10, 1991. During 1993, the Macon County Airport submitted an application
Page 4 of 17
•
for a Section 404 permit and a 401 water quality certification for the construction of a parallel taxiway
which resulted in losses to 1.88 acres of wetlands. At that time, a supplementary wetland delineation
was performed on the south side of the airstrip; however, this J.D. was never signed by the USACE and
has been noted by the USACE as invalid.
In March of 2009 the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requested that the floodplain
be reviewed for potential fill material because the Airport Authority's 1993 Nationwide 26 permit and
associated 401 water quality certification drawings (Appendix D of 2009 IP application) depict large
areas of wetlands that were not identified in 2007. A soils investigation was performed by a Licensed
Soils Scientist (LSS) on April 16, 2009 to determine if any unauthorized fill of jurisdictional wetlands
occurred in the past. The goal of this investigation was to evaluate, characterize, and document the
soil and landscape of the eastern floodplain, the western floodplain, and Wetland AB (formerly the
alder bog wetland). Additional wetlands were identified and delineated during the LSS investigation.
Following the April 2009 LSS investigation, the USACE requested that " Wetland G" be further
evaluated due to the non-hydric soil characteristics described in the May 2009 Soil Scientist
Investigation. On September 2, 2009, an additional soils investigation of Wetland G was performed in
the Middle Quadrant of the Eastern Floodplain. The new wetland boundary for Wetland G is based on
hydric soils because hydrology and vegetation can not be positively identified due to past
disturbances. Hydric soils determinations were made by utilizing the USDA "Field Indicators of the
United States Version 6.0 (2006)". A copy of the LSS report with the supplemental investigation is
located in Appendix C of the 2009 Individual Permit Application.
Wetland Findings from April 2007 Delineation
The April 2007 wetland investigation area only included areas located within the proposed Runway 7
extension (west of the existing runway). lotla Branch and Wetland 1 were both identified and
delineated during the initial wetland investigation performed on April 16, 2007. The USACE field
verified these aquatic resources as jurisdictional waters and wetlands of the U.S. on May 30, 2007.
lotla Branch

•
lotla Branch is the western most tributary located within
the airport property. During onsite investigations, the
surrounding landscape of lotla Branch included rolling
terrain of grass-covered fields. lotla Branch was
identified as a relatively permanent waterway (RPW)
and second order stream. Its headwaters are northwest
of the airport property. This stream maintains
continuous bed and banks throughout the length of the
channel and was observed as relatively straight with
various meandering bends throughout the length of the
Page 5 of 17
View of loda Branch taken on 4-16-07.
•
reach. Bank width averaged approximately 25 feet and bank height was approximately 7 feet
throughout most of the stream channel.
The substrate of the streambed consisted of mostly silt and fine sand within the upstream portions.
Large particles were also observed within the downstream sections of the reach indicating
sedimentation and strong flows. Soil auger borings indicated evidence of redoximorphic features. Soils
borings taken along the stream banks were typically dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4) silt loam from 0
to 12 inches. From 12 to 18 inches soils were sandy loam with a dark gray (2.5 Y 4/1) matrix and 30
percent of yellowish brown (10 YR 5/6) large and distinct mottles.
Wildlife habitat consisted of various leaf packs within bends of the reach and hydrophytic vegetation
within the stream channel including soft rush Uuncus effusus FACW+), and bearded sedge (Carex
comosa, OBL). Evidence of macro invertebrates was also observed along the banks of the lotla Creek
including crayfish "chimneys". Amphibians were also heard during the review of the stream channel.
During both onsite visits in April and in August of 2007, lotla Branch maintained continuous flow.
Water flows south into lotla Creek (RPW), and eventually into Little Tennessee River; a Traditional
Navigable Waterway (TNW). Riparian habitat observed included a dominant shrub layer of tag alder
(Alnus serrulata, FACW+). Additional species observed within the riparian corridor included swamp
dogwood (Corpus stricta, FACW-) and black willow (Salix nigra, OBL). At the time of the investigation,
riparian vegetation along lotla Branch had been cut down and is continually maintained for runway
safety purposes. Based on the onsite observations, lotla Branch was identified as a perennial stream
channel.
Wetland 1
Wetland 1 is a linear palustrine emergent wetland that abuts lotla Branch to the northeast. This
wetland is also located within the proposed runway extension area. Due to the shape, it is likely that
Wetland 1 was formerly a man-made agricultural ditch that eventually reverted into a wetland
community. At the time of the investigation, most vegetation along the wetland boundaries had been
mowed. During the onsite investigation, it appeared that black willow and swamp rose (Rosa palustris,
OBL) once dominated. Additional vegetation observed included soft rush, spike rush (Eleocharis
obtusa, OBL) and sedges (Carex, spp. FACW). Soils from 0 to 12 inches were loam with a dark grayish
brown 00 YR 4/2) matrix with many common yellowish red (5YR 5/8) mottles. The wetland data
point was collected at flag# 52.
The upland soils from 0 toll 2 inches were loam and contained a dark olive brown (2.5 Y 3/3) matrix
with 20 percent of red (2.5 YR 5/6) mottles. No hydrologic indicators were observed. Dominant
species included red fescue (Festuca rubra, FACU+), white clover (Trifolium repens, FACU) and
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota, NO. The upland data was collected near flag #52.
n
t?
Page 6 of 17
•
Wetland Findings from August 2007 Delineation
During the May 2007 USACE field visit, it was requested that additional areas surrounding the terminal
building be delineated due to unauthorized earthwork observed in wetlands outside of the runway
extension area. The following is a description of these findings.
Wetland A
Wetland A was identified in 2007 along the southeastern fence line within a maintained fescue
dominant area. This system was identified as a palustrine emergent wetland adjacent to lotla Creek
(RPW). Dominant vegetation included spike rush (Eleocharis,
OBL) and smartweed. Soils from 0 to 8 inches were very dark
grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) clay loam with 20% of strong
brown (7.5 YR 5/8) mottles. Soils below 8 inches were very
dark gray (10 YR 3/1) clay loam with 30% of brownish yellow
00 YR 6/8) mottles. Soils were saturated within the upper 12
inches.

A small section of a 6-inch corrugated plastic pipe was
observed from the edge of this wetland system during the May
2007 inter-agency site visit and during the August 2007
View of wetland A taken on 8-22-07. Wetland investigation. The USACE questioned the purpose of
this pipe and the possibility of it being placed in the wetland
as a result of the perimeter fence. To further investigate the purpose of the identified pipe near
Wetland A, construction plans from various projects that have occurred on the property since 1968
were reviewed. Construction plans for the Macon County Airport Parallel Taxiway-Aircraft Ramp-
Helipad (2009 Section 404 Individual Permit Application, Appendix E) depicts a temporary
construction entrance in the area identified as Wetland A. The construction entrance detail calls out a
temporary 30 foot long 15-inch corrugated metal pipe to be installed within this area. This is located in
the approximate area of the corrugated plastic pipe identified during the 2007 wetland delineation and
USACE site visit.
The 1991 wetland delineation drawing does not indicate that wetlands existed in this area at that time
(Appendix H, 2009 IP Application). Additionally, in review of construction plans for the Macon
County Airport Parallel Taxiway-Aircraft Ramp-Helipad, this area may have been selected as a
temporary construction entrance in order to avoid wetland impacts. As a result, Wetland A was likely
created following the development of the temporary construction entrance for the taxiway project.
Additionally, during an onsite inspection on February 24, 2009, the pipe in this location appeared to
be non-functioning. This pipe was noted as damaged and possibility by mowing. As previously noted,
this location is continually mowed due to the proximity of the runway. Standing water was observed
in the area of Wetland A with the pipe above the wetland elevation. An exit for the pipe was not found
•
Page 7 of 17
•
•

in either the road-side ditch or near Tributary B. Additional pieces of the same type of pipe were
observed on the ground near Tributary B and appeared to have been removed or damaged from the
continual mowing. Based on these findings, it is possible that the observed pipe was a remnant from
the temporary construction entrance during the 1994 taxiway construction project and was never
properly removed.
Tributary B
Tributary B was identified as a second order stream and
RPW that flows directly into lotla Creek (RPW). The
upstream reaches of this stream have been piped
40
underneath the existing runway. Additionally, upstream of
r _ . the runway, Tributary B flows through wetland AB (the
former alder bog wetland identified in 1991). During the
2007 investigation Tributary B was only delineated on the
, ,. south side of the runway between two culvert inlets. The
bank width averaged approximately 10 feet and bank
44
47
height averaged approximately 3 feet. This channel was
observed as relatively straight. Flowing water was
observed at the time of the investigation and no leaf litter
of JtlimCdly B t,I?e„ ON 4-i0-o,. was present within the stream channel. Redoximorphic
features were observed throughout soils within the stream
channel and within the emergent wetlands along the stream banks. Soils were a dark grayish brown
(10 YR 4/2) sandy loam with 20% of red (2.5 YR 5/6) mottles from 0 to 8 inches. The presence of
amphibians was noted during the onsite investigation and evidence of macro invertebrates was
observed along the banks including crayfish "chimneys". The riparian habitat of the stream banks
included dominant vegetation of spike rush, New York Ironweed (Vernonia noveboarcensis, FAC+),
jewel weed (Impatiens capensis, FACW), three way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum, OBL), and
smartweed. Based on the onsite observations, Tributary B was identified as a perennial stream
channel. Data for the wetlands surrounding Tributary B was collected at flag #6.
The upland soils from 0 to12 inches were loam and contained a dark olive brown (2.5 Y 3/3) matrix.
No hydrologic indicators were observed. Dominant species included red fescue, white clover, and
Queen Anne's Lace. Upland data was collected near Flag # 6.
Wetland C/D
Wetland C/D is a linear palustrine emergent system
located within the western portion of the floodplain.
This wetland is situated at the base of the parking lot
berm. Wetland C/D was observed as a jurisdictional
wetland that indirectly flows into lotla Creek via
OL
E
t
%
f??'

discharge pipe to a roadside ditch along Airport Road which directly flows into lotla Creek. Aerial
mapping shows roadway ditches connecting into lotla Creek south of the airport. Dominant vegetation
included spike rush, New York ironweed, jewelweed, three way sedge, duck potato (Sagittaria
latifolia, OBL), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis, FACW+), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus, OBL), blue
vervain (Verbena hastata, FAC) and smartweed. Soils from 0 to 6 inches were olive (5 Y 4/4) silty clay
loam with no mottles. Soils from 6 to 12 inches were dark gray (5Y 4/1) clay loam with 40 percent of
yellowish red (5YR 5/8) mottles. Soils were saturated within the upper 12 inches. Data for the
Wetland C/D was collected at flag # C-6.
The upland soils from 0 to10 inches were clay loam and contained a dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4)
matrix. Soils from 10 to 20 inches were dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/6) loamy sand. Soils below 20
inches contained olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) loamy sand with 20 percent of reddish brown (5 YR 3/4)
mottles. No hydrologic indicators were observed. Dominant species included red fescue, white clover,
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana, FACU+) and blackberry (Rubus argutus, FACU). Upland data was
collected near flag # C-6.
Tributary 1
• Tributary 1 is an unnamed tributary of lotla Creek located east of the runway and is identifiable on
USGS, NRCS soils, and aerial mapping. This tributary is a first order stream and RPW that flows
directly into the lotla Creek. At the time of the investigation, water was observed flowing south toward
lotla Creek. Headwaters of Tributary 1 are located north of the airport property. The existing runway
and taxiway bisect the stream channel. Continuous banks were observed throughout the length of the
stream channel and averaged a width of approximately 12 feet with bank height averaging
approximately 6 feet. Tributary 1 was predominately straight throughout the length of the reach and
relatively incised with little vegetation stabilizing the banks. The stream banks were highly eroded due
to the lack of vegetation. Scoured areas along the stream bank were noted throughout the length of the
stream channel. The substrate consisted of larger coarser material including larger pieces of gravel.
Upland soils were noted along the stream banks. Based on the onsite observations, Tributary 1 was
identified as a perennial stream channel.
Wetland F/G
Wetland F/G is located in the eastern portion of the
floodplain. Wetland F/G was identified as a palustrine
emergent and scrub shrub system. This wetland is
adjacent to lotla Creek (RPW). NWI mapping shows this
wetland as palustrine scrub-shrub, broad-leaved
deciduous temporality flooded and partially drained or
ditched system (PSS1Ad). Dominant vegetation
observed during the 2007 wetland delineation included
soft rush, New York ironweed, jewel weed, three-way
•
Page 9 of 17
View of Wetland FIG taken on 8-22-2007.
•
sedge, cardinal flower, wool grass, blue vervain, dotted smartweed, swamp rose mallow (Hibiscus
moscheutos, OBL), blackberry, cattail (Typha latiflolia, OBL), and peppermint shrub (Mentha piperita,
FACW). Soils were black (5 Y 2.5 / 1) clay loam within the upper eight inches. Soil saturation was
observed within the upper six inches of the profile.
A network of eight (8) ditches perpendicular to runway were identified in the northernmost portion of
Wetland F/G. NRCS aerial photos from 1953 show one (1) perpendicular ditch located in this area at
that time. Google Earth aerial photos (www.earth. googIe.corn) from April 1, 1998 and July 27, 2005
show that additional ditching has occurred in Wetland F/G throughout this period (Appendix F of 2009
IP Application). These ditches were likely created in an effort to remove standing water from this area
and eliminate waterfowl habitat near the runway. Data for the Wetland F/G was collected at flag #F-
36.
The upland soils from 0 to 12 inches were silty loam and contained a very dark brown (7.5 YR 2.5/3)
matrix. Soils from 12 to 18 inches were silty clay loam with a black (5 Y 2.5/2) matrix and 20 percent
of fine medium reddish yellow (5 YR 6/8) mottles. No hydrologic indicators were observed. Dominant
species included fescue, Queen-Anne's Lace, winged sumac (Rhus copallina, NI,) and blackberry.
Upland data was collected near flag # 36.
• Wetland Finding from 2009
In March of 2009, DWQ met with WK Dickson & Co, Inc. to review an area north of the runway
identified in 1991 as an alder bog wetland. The onsite inspection revealed that the former bog had
been filled. As a result, DWQ requested that the alder bog wetland located north of the runway be
included as an impact in the 2009 individual permit application. DWQ also indicated that the Airport
Authority's 1993 Nationwide 26 Permit and associated 401 Water Quality Certification drawings
(Appendix D of the 2009 IP Application) depict large areas of wetlands that were not identified in
2007. To address this inconsistency they requested that the floodplain south of the runway be
reviewed for potential fill material. As a result, soils throughout the floodplain were evaluated by a
Licensed Soils Scientist during March and in April of 2009. No evidence of fill was found within the
floodplain; however, additional wetlands were delineated at that time.
Floodplain Wetlands
2007 FEMA mapping indicates that the airport property south of the existing runway entirely occupies
Flood Hazard Zone AE (formerly 100 Year Floodplain). According to NRCS aerial photos from 1953,
the areas identified as floodplain were formerly utilized for agriculture prior to the airport
development. Currently the airport entrance road bisects the floodplain into the eastern and western
sections. Wetlands G, GA, GB and J/M were identified and delineated within the floodplain during the
2009 investigations.
Wetland G (atypical)
•
Page 10 of 17
•

Wetland G abuts Wetland F/G to the south and is
located in the eastern portion of the floodplain.
Wetland G was initially delineated on April 16, 2009
during the LSS investigation. The boundaries of
Wetland G are surrounded by two (2) jurisdictional
ditches identified as Ditch 2 and Ditch 3. It was
determined by the USACE during the May 6, 2009
onsite field view, that this wetland would be
considered "atypical" due to the lack of hydrology
potentially resulting from the surrounding ditches.
During the April 2009 investigation, water was
observed ponding in low spots with soft rush and
fescue as the dominant herbaceous layer. Wetland
hydrology could not be determined at that time since
the growing season had not officially started.
During the April 16, 2009 LSS investigation, five (5) soil profiles were reviewed within this area. Only
• one profile, DP-5 contained hydric indicators within Wetland G (Refer to Wetland Delineation
Drawings). Soils observed in Data Point (DP) 5 were dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam with 4
percent of fine dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/6) mottles from 0 to 7 inches.
The upland data was collected near flag G-4. Soils observed in the upland soil boring were brown
(10YR 4/3) silt loam from 0 to 8 inches. Soils from 8 to16 inches were brown (10YR 5/3) loam with 3
percent of coarse strong brown (7.5 YR 4/6) mottles. Soils from 16 to 22 inches were very dark gray
(10 YR 3/1) loam with 5 percent of coarse (10YR 5/8) mottles. No hydrology was identified in this
portion of the floodplain. Dominant vegetation included fescue, mustard (Brassica NI), and broom
sedge (Andropogon virginicus FAC-).
Based on this information, the USACE requested an additional investigation of this area to further
delineate the limits of hydric soil indicators. On September 2, 2009, a supplemental soils investigation
was performed by the LSS (Appendix C of the 2009 IP Application). The soil investigation focused on
the development of a finer delineation of the hydric soil boundary. A hydric soils boundary was
determined and flagged on the ground and surveyed. A total of 15 boring profiles were evaluated in
Wetland G (refer to Wetland Delineation Drawings). The new boundary parallels the ditches in an
approximate east-west orientation, with the wetter soils to the north, toward the runway, and dryer
soils to the south near lotla Creek. Vegetation within the new boundary primarily consisted of
barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli, FACW-), Straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus stigosus, FACW),
broomsedge, golden rod (Solidago canadensis, FACU), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis, FACW).
Wetland GA
r1
U
Page 1 1 of 17
View of Wetland G taken on 3-12-09.
C.
Wetland GA is located in a topographical depression
south of Wetland G in the eastern floodplain. Soils
observed were a brown (1 OYR 4/3) loam from 0 to 8
inches. Soils from 8 to 15 inches were clay loam and
contained a grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) matrix with 2
percent of coarse red (2.5 YR 4/8) mottles. Soils below
15 inches were clay loam and contained a very dark gray
(2.5Y 3/1) matrix with 2 percent of fine red (2.5YR 4/8)
mottles. Fescue and soft rush were the dominant species.
Soils were saturated within the upper 12 inches of the
profile. Wetland hydrology could not be determined at
that time since the growing season had not officially
started. Wetland GA has likely resulted from the
View of Wetland GA taken on 3-12-2009. continual compaction of soils from mechanized
maintenance practices which reduces surface infiltration,
and enhances ponding within shallow depressions. The wetland data point was collected at flag #7.
The upland soils from 0 to 15 inches were silt loam and contained a brown (10 YR 3/4) matrix with 5
• percent of fine dark brown (7.5 YR 3/4) mottles. Soils from 15 to 20 inches were silt loam with a dark
gray (10 YR 4/1) matrix and 8 percent of fine medium strong brown (7.5 YR 4/6) mottles. Soils from 20
to 27 inches were silt with a dark gray (10 YR 4/1) matrix and 8 percent of fine medium dark brown
(7.5 YR 3/4) mottles. No hydrologic indicators were observed. Dominant species included fescue.
Upland data was collected at DP- 7.
Wetland GB
Wetland GB is located west of Wetland GA in the
eastern floodplain. Soils were brown (1 OYR 4/3)
loam from 0 to 8 inches. Soils from 8 to 12
inches were dark gray (1OYR 4/1) clay loam with 7
percent of fine strong brown (7.5 YR 5/8) mottles.
Fescue and soft rush were the dominant species.
Wetland GB has also likely resulted from
continual compacts of soils resulting from
mechanized maintenance practices. Standing
water was observed throughout the wetland
during the April 2009 investigation. Wetland
hydrology could not be determined at that time
since the growing season had not officially started.
The wetland data point was collected at Flag # 6.
The upland soils were sandy clay loam and
•
Page 12 of 17
View of Wetland G/8 taken on 4-15-2009.
•
contained a dark brown (10 YR 3/3) matrix with 5 percent of fine dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4)
mottles from 0 to 7 inches. Soils from 7 to 15 inches were sandy clay loam with a dark gray (10 YR
4/1) matrix and 8 percent of fine dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4) mottles. Soils from 15 to 31 inches
were silt clay with a black (10 YR 211) matrix and 8 percent of fine medium brown (10 YR 3/4) mottles.
No hydrologic indicators were observed. Fescue was the dominant species. The upland data point was
collected at DP #9.
Wetland J/M
Prior to the 1994 taxiway construction, an unnamed tributary of lotla Creek was located within the
western portion of the floodplain area. This impact was authorized under the Section 404 and 401
permits issued in 1993. During the 2007 wetland investigation, Wetland C/D was delineated within
the western floodplain. During the 2009 investigation, the wetland C/D boundary was expanded to
include the area identified with Wetland J/M.
Soils located with Wetland J/M were loam with a dark brown (10 YR 3/3) matrix from 0 to 9 inches.
Soils below 9 inches were silt loam with a black (10YR 211) matrix and 5 percent of fine medium dark
brown (7.5 YR 3/4) mottles. This wetland boundary predominately follows topographic drainage
patterns within the floodplain. Dominant species observed included soft rush and fescue. Areas of
• standing water were also observed throughout low spots; however, wetland hydrology could not be
determined at that time since the growing season had not officially started. The wetland data point for
Wetland J/M was collected at DP -2.
Upland soils from 0 to 11 inches were dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) loam with 7 percent of coarse
very dark gray (5 Y 3/1) mottles and 3 percent of fine strong brown (7.5 YR 5/8) mottles. Soils from 11
to15 inches were very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) silt loam with 2 percent of coarse strong brown
(7.5 YR 5/8) mottles. Fescue was the dominant species. No hydrologic indicators were observed. The
upland data point was collected between flags J-19 and J-20.
Wetland AB
The "alder bog" was originally identified and
delineated during the 1991 Wetland Delineation.
The 1991 Wetland Delineation states that the alder
bog was once dominated by alders (Alnus
serrulata), red maple, buttonbush, swamp rose,
sedges and soft rush. The 1991 report also states
that this community was probability created when a
small tributary of lotla Creek was partially
impounded during the construction of the airport.
Refer to Appendix H of the 2009 Section 404
•
View of Wetland AB taken on 4-15-2PgRe 13 of 17
•
Individual Permit Application for a Copy of the 1991 jurisdiction Delineation.
During the April 15, 2009 wetland investigation, this wetland was identified as Wetland AB. Soils
from 0 to 3 inches were observed as yellowish red (5 YR 4/6) silt loam with large pieces of gravel.
Soils from 3 to 8 inches were very dark grayish brown (2.5 Y 3/2) silt loam with 3 percent of coarse
light red (2.5 YR 6/8) mottles. Water was observed at 3 inches below surface. Dominant species
included soft rush. Data for Wetland AB is located at the data point AB WET 1.
Soils observed from the adjacent upland area were olive brown (2.5 Y 4/4) loam from 0 to12 inches.
Soils from 12 to 22 inches were light yellowish brown (2.5 Y 6/4) silt loam with 20 percent of distinct
yellowish brown (10 YR 5/6) mottles. The water table was observed at 22 inches. Below 22 inches,
soils were olive (5Y 5/4) silty clay loam with many yellowish brown (10 YR 5/8) mottles. Fescue was
the dominant species. Upland data was taken at data point AB Upland.
The LSS investigation reviewed this area to confirm the presence of fill material. The LSS report states
that approximately 6 to 16 inches of fill was identified across most of the former bog and describes that
the fill material appears to be local upland soil, most likely from the adjacent hill slope. Background
research determined this likely occurred during the most recent runway extension construction in
1991 (2009 IP Application, Appendix Q. Approximately 1.38 acres has been identified as previously
• filled and 0.16 has been identified as non-fill during the wetland and soils investigations.
Wetland 2
Wetland 2 was delineated during April 2009
maintenance equipment.
•
and is located east of Wetland 1. This area
W was not delineated in any of the previous
delineations (1991 and 2007). Wetland 2 is
in a topographic depression of a mowed area
just north of the end of runway 7. Soils were
? x silt loam with a very dark grayish brown (10
YR 3/2) matrix and 1 percent of coarse
brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) mottles from 0 to
10 inches. Soils from 10 to 12 inches were
dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3) clay loam with 3
,v percent of coarse light olive brown (2.5 Y
5/6) mottles. Water observed within the
s ;_.
" -,- boring hole was at 11 inches below the
surface. Vegetation observed included fescue,
mustard, and soft rush. It is likely that Wetland
2 was created through continual soil
compaction from use of mechanized
The wetland data point was taken near Flag # 6.
Page 14 of 17
View of Wetland 2 taken on 4-15-09
•
The adjacent upland soils from 0 to 10 inches were brown (IOYR 4/3) silt loam with 5 percent of fine
very dark grayish brown (2.5 Y 3/2) mottles. Soils from 10 to 14 were olive brown (2.5 Y4/3) silt loam
with 3 percent of coarse dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3) mottles and 2 percent of medium yellowish
brown 0OYR 5/8) mottles. Water was observed at 14 inches below surface. Dominant vegetation
included fescue. The upland data point was taken near flag #6.
Wetland 3
Wetland 3 is located within a topographic
depression west of lotla Branch. This area was
not delineated in any of the previous
delineations (1991 and 2007). Soils from 0 to 9
inches were a dark brown (10 YR 3/3) loam.
Soils from 9 to 10 inches were dark brown silt
loam (10 YR 3/3) with 5 percent of brownish
yellow (10 YR 6/8) coarse mottles. Soils from 10
to13 inches soils were dark reddish brown (5 YR
• 2.5 12) clay loam with 5 percent coarse yellowish
red (5 YR 4/6) mottles. Standing water was
observed in the auger boring hole at time of
investigation. Existing vegetation included soft
rush and wool-grass. It is likely that Wetland 3
was also created because of continual
compaction of soils through mechanized
maintenance of the airport property. The data
point was collected at flag #1.
View of Wetland 3 taken on 4-15-09.
Upland soils from 0 to 8 inches were saturated dark brown (10 YR 3/3) silt loam. Soils from 8 to 13
inches were dark yellowish brown (1OYR 3/4) silty clay loam with 2 percent fine brown (7.5YR 4/4)
mottles and no saturation. Soils from 13 to 16 inches were very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) clay
loam with 5 to 7 percent of coarse fine brownish yellow (1 OYR 6/8) mottles. Dominant vegetation
included fescue and broomsedge. The upland data point was taken near flag #3.

Tributary 2
Tributary 2 is located east of Tributary 1 and south of the
eastern Runway 25 end. This channel was constructed as
a result of the parallel taxiway in 1994 in order to collect
runoff generated from the runway and taxiway. Tributary
2 is not identified on USGS, NWI, or soils mapping.
is
Page 15 of 17
View of Tributary 2 taken on 4-15-09.
•
Tributary 2 directly flows into lotla Creek southeast of the airport property. Eroding banks were
observed throughout the length of the stream channel and averaged a height of 6 feet. The width of the
stream channel is approximately 10 feet. The streambed contained a vegetated bottom of sedges and
soft rush. Water was observed in the stream channel at the time of the investigation. Based on the
onsite observations, Tributary 2 was identified as a jurisdictional stream channel as it directly flows
into lotla Creek.
The following tables (Tables 1 & 2) represent the jurisdictional areas identified and included in this JD
request.
Table 1.
jurisdictional Wetlands at the Macon County Airport
17-?
Table 2.
Waters of the U.S at the Macon County Airport
•
tl
d
f th
, W U
S W
l
d
e
an
s o
e
.
.
?
Wetland 1 et
an
Type
Linear palustrine Acreage
0.11
emergent
Wetland 2 Palustrine emergent 0.05
topographic depression
Wetland 3 Palustrine emergent 0.06
topographic depression
Wetland A Palustrine emergent 0.05
Wetland C/D Palustrine emergent 0.08
Floodplain Wetlands
Wetland j/M Palustrine emergent 0.66
Floodplain Wetlands
Wetland F/G Palustrine emergent 2.72
Floodplain Wetlands
Wetland G Palustrine emergent 0.83
Floodplain Wetlands
Wetland GA Palustrine emergent 0.11
Floodplain Wetlands
Wetland GB Palustrine emergent 0.08
Floodplain Wetlands
Wetland AB Palustrine emergent 1.54
alder bog wetland

Total _

6.29 acres
Page 16 of 17
•
Conclusion
?ors of the U.S. Length of Stream Width of Stream
Channel Channel
lotla Branch 835 - 25
Tributary B 310 10
Tributary 1 485 -r 12
Tributary 2 37 --- 10
Total 1,667 linear feet
Again, on behalf of the Macon County Airport Authority (Contact: Milles Gregory, Chairman, 325
West Gate Plaza, Franklin, NC 28734 Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]), WK Dickson & Co.,
Inc. is requesting a jurisdictional determination of the above referenced delineation. Please contact me
if you have any questions, or require any additional information Qulie Ball 864-387-0504,
jbal [e-mail]).
0 Sincerely,
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Julie V. Ball
Attachment
•
Page 17 of 17
•
•
0

-2072
ojo
0Z VZ ace
m
c
o^
m °-
U 10
? w
O o
Z co
C ?
U 7
ca O
gU
c
O_ U
O v
U
0L 9Z ,E8

pkn
s

i0
V ?
? fN
(7 ?
m Cl)
0,6
O
.9Z loz Xe N
O4)
N ?
? f0
d
a?
Z
rU
N O
J
O O_
V) O
O
?U
3: 7u-
W C:
oOLL
° q
Z
m
m
y

O
O
O
C
-
K
N (D N
d
N
y
Q
O

I
N
C
C
a
O
Cl) o
O
O
O
O
N)
-: ?2
?
8 N
o o y C0
N ++
c
I
` y
? C I

Z-< I
ZU
„e? sa ose
I
I

¦
I U ? 1;2
u': t Q [O M
¦ O
¦ N (f) o
O ir)(O
p D
¦ ? OJ Z W
¦
CD
I tU
Z
tO
C)
¦' V
¦. ?0
U

¦

r 0
Z
t
JI
y
•
¦ N ^C

r
CID
w¦
a

IL
?. I
¦
¦
W ¦ C ?n
H >y
< ¦ Tr

X a
I U a F
O
Dc ¦ U
IL is
a w
_
ro ? Q ¦ /a /

2 0 ¦
Z I to
?
¦
d
p C

,¢ Q
la rom f
o 2 0 4
I
I MATCHLINE SHE

O U)

C?' 00 O ati

111/1,
4
t d
t i
I ``y
t
t c
t
I
I
t
t {
t ?, ?? d1
J
t
I W #
cc
t N ? `!
t0
t Z
to
i U
io co
Z
v
t
t
t
t
F
f

I +# ?r
O vry I• /
a Q ?

t C:)
t oCS . /
, °
'
1
?f Q (n
I-
zw l
r* t cn ?

44
NIX
I a
?
r r-.co

¦ cc
z
1

Y

f
?
r

¦
I
?
.
r
(CO 7 $ I
I S ,lip
} al
¦ ? ', it m

y
'
$
¦ r a s
n
g
n ?
?
? co

? M l

t

I
c
¦ ro a

a
I

O ro
¦

'•ft
w . /

¦ 00
? It

'? ¦ .,. \ It I

; l It I
e
1
j
?
?, ? 1 ? Itt

t <<r; t tt t ? ?r

r f

¦ s f
L)
' J-
o Z.
m'
"o N
? /LAP
I
/
r
'
N
N
g
tt C
°> m ?'ro
f t
t E Z w m ao OMo
N

N
?a a
o rd
New as O

t? 7 TV7 N TN Q
3 Eli(?
a in

VZ` y
a?
A
7 (0 B 7
o
,
t? 3?vo
u
V)

. L
3 4)
o
amm?a-c N
m
E 2 1° Sm
E?°7E 3m?
td N> --a O m
S

y
Q N F CAN C '0 y
'+.YU c7?
q

. ,C ? ? m M c
a O ..• m

N N V
O U
.J U
N
'

d .
C - a .
U 7 O m
O
m
a Q -
N m m O o o
mmr-?mUaM(?
ocrom>?cc'oU

t m? .tJ ? 7 Y m C t
?c?mr
E
m m

n
m ° O
(
E0, i
!, I Q?
(n C N o LL N> Z
cd o-o am c
?
'
0c9 -o=r
om
N (? u cow d
¢ ><
N

o
aide x162
7 w nm
mo
n
(
?7
d(n

t? tear t
f tl ? ? t

I t® / t I
f ?
Q
c O
c
c Q U C O v
0 CD 2 -!2
U N C
om o o0 aE o
a Qn.cc>-.2mm
°
Oa E o 30
w m -
o (Na m °_ ??
m
0 -0
U O
>`
d ZO
7 N c
r?NMY
U w
V
a( C m :F - m wt N .C
U m 0 0,0--5
01
M N C m
m N C

V
I
E w
a?3cmoE> J
w rnmm 8 (D TZ 103
.c Q o m > 7
c
M O
L N N (7r1 'O
m C
ULN 3Y N
o
-
C
C7
(
D
Z U D
p
Q C (6 .N. Q? N? N
r
C N
V
w
.
N '0 N
O m `L' U
0
c LL m N m
` J
>.
u°, ° M am m !? t a
U
LL a)
N 3 c
U O°
0(nZUC mm C0
° C
N
o
?wwu mE-0- - M
Z
MO CO
O N
0
O c 'y
O. U N '- .- CA R
acim?ma?E0N(nU
ME C ow a? a>U
oU' ov y!PFZ
N

as ? < " •
„ ? <,

° E
v ?
? m m
2
i 1
A d
i S N v
`o
.52
o
C Z d 0
? N ? 5 2
J
O 0 a
N
J O
M :_
u z
C C
w ?8.?
O (D
N U m O
C
g m
(D o O
h m
N
p E M
(q

r

U

O ZC) 2-
C) .

0
M m
~ 0 g
?
c
7
O O

N U
c a)
N

R
d
M C
c m E

N C 7 f
o
(n
C Nn m N
U 0 a
(p V
N
N E a
E O y II

L
L U
c
c O
U p W OD
a) )
a
6
o p
j
L E
N a
a c -;z
3 m
or
c
c c y c
O
t.01 C
N O
O O O
NN 7 (n m O Z
m z -
Z
CL U M
a) m U O u0i
w m r w N m y II U
O E

M Z5
U Z
N N

> N
U Z c
C _ O
O L
H L C
F
~ - v N
c Q O O (f
7
(n
-
N N
M
V O-0
d` ? ? ? t ?6W
4 t? ?
? e8 ?bN OibO DH

N
?v U O
c
stn N
7
m
O N N z w O a m N 2
Qm>oui
-moo
a
" NL N.? w N

N
O(n JO
C
m a Q N
NO N
N
w
O Li
C C? fp C M

` U
a
? m O
am O O O

m
.a
a N E [L> .
Q_ M
>
N
N
t
2.10--
°'

C
O
r- C
X
Q N O C:
CL Cw
., N U

U
o :0 7

A
LO
(V N 7 a aC 7 a
L N (a c 0 m
- C O
d m
a N 7` jT
L N M
, >
J c >. m V
o
3 E c c U o rn d
c N 0
G 3
7
J ? 2n (o7z Nr _N 3 u
y M
o

a w
C w
N m
Y > y
O
U v
c x u
m
c

U 7 N y C
o???mo `
aT C
?
m 1 t
m;8 O
O
Z
O) U i"i N ?-, U
.O 7 a
c t o
o p c O m
p m M O N m
w m N
E N 8
O m 0 .C 0 M m

U C N

M > O
c
N > m

N
C C
O C J
_ T y Y a
>0 *k j

OC) (A 7

N N
7 7
41 Vl
Q Cn N
O j N NJ C
am L
°t O._
y.-. 'O ?
L 7t
..+ ?..+
Z O MMIL No Dm'aom cm
0 a N 3 N Z c ?? c H m w F O H
N Vr O m ... -6 < N M O

m
~ m
00c z
L
U
)
U ? m M n N LL
d ?
Rw

tj °?mo?c??W

(t ' v m EU y'6
ao e
= cw8'mt_n
q ?vo Em
m o
ca
, 1
1 ts
T
.
12
& oN??°O dN
8 Hy
? L A °c N d p
?D ?d
? 5

?
E
-
`c ; T° x o
and n?o II2
?
""D
?? O tt

o E .n
°}?
O
P D5
°
YrC lpp(rS?HY00 O
x€¢€
9
°ot` .
Q M o
U 8i 9
1
J ?
m
?$¢°u5 a,2aH m
D U ¢
f
-I F
;

s
m

4q?a
?
R
t

O
O
Zi

}

d
'
d „. O
Cl)
LU
0
Ids
a
4 Q
O
N 0
n O
L WW
r O
LL
0
Z
A
JG 1`1
a ?
fGOG X0-6
G
N?
L.L 7
Z 0
Q0Q
w
}ZZ
z w i
0w0
U I.I.J Q
Z<<
2 Q
.. O j
tz 2of 3:
I..L
Q
}0 M
06
z C)
::) 0? Z
o 00 -
a- Z
Z
o Q Y
W _ Z
W Q
w N
a 2 LL
a?C,rn mMM 7
> O "r C C Cl)
CAND
0 ( O 2 2 0 0
N M M O LL
?C) - UUUo
00 c Z r z
UL°' zVN
)
Q1
m J
a c U
O z
U m
U
O O
N J
? U
O
ZO
y
O r
v c
r
!m
?U _
\- C
D-
C
?? O
?m
a
"??s5ss
nnn
rc
a
Clef z i
et
\
w?sa
W o
a
mm?mmt
E
& '' \ ` -
n
F?m
LIE-- J1
rvmQQ:U?UCa7U? n E
o a v a o
" c tiff
¦
? ? M o
L U
O

I ffi8 U
3w .n
it
0
?38oG?e??mR
Din R
92ee.,------
o-$-w4w-a^Q$
?g-
A-FIR
g_„m°?enmPga?????! n1979
0
0 0 0 4? , ?
.

? PE R i
°
l?
=
a
?
a
,S G Ce e .
^? m 6 e e m m m m e 6 6 m m 6 m 6 m
wo
?n ^° Se ? ? ? ? 5 $ $ ? $ ? $ e e 6 4 $ $ 6 $
w?
z ? a
m
m^
?
0
?0
?
°??'
°
R
R
0
R
R
o
1
0

?
F
? ?
? I ? ? ? ? m " R l e? ? H E M
qq A A p A p 1 C
? ? V 4 V W
m. e ? o ?? p g 0 ? 0 ? 0

F
?
m
a - -
g
0
?0 l
?- I l H I M
`
?i? ?
3 ?
8 %
8 gggg
$ sgsg
8 ^
? °`
? gg?
$ ?
? ^
S A
8 ^
8 ggS
S ^
? Sg3t °'
8? gRg
8 g?ggmg
88 C
? ? B ??
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

j
m
u
u
l
gggg
gg
gg -
d
d
?m
??
„
d
rys

£g Obey O?yO DN

N
m

N
m

cD
r

N Lo
V-
?

J J
?
U d

E
Z
C
0 m

o
0 a

w )
€
J Q
T
d

c L

d 0

te
m a)
t°a
J \.
a ? .
w
? o e m
O f t
IA
a
A
.." ./
d
c
c
m
co,
?a
?c
m
t
0
O
7
o4,
.y
d

a?
O LL
-TO
0
0
N
0
N
w
0
0
N
n
U
C
r
co
O
a
a
/
.
V
NZ
1.6
O
LL
O
Z

°1 E
v ?
n m ?
in a u'? u'?
i ,
i
v
w o
v € U U
m Y
C
_= o
m
O O j
c O m m
m z? z
J
•0a
Z
0
Z
'0 Q
Q VJ W
>- Z Z
W
o x
U}?
Z
Oda
H G L.1. W
H
O
a
M
x¢.0000
D Of z
o?a-Z
o Z Q Y
W Z
a Q
a ? LL
(L)(*- O) m m my
1 O LO q .E ar-
(O 1?T O O O M
r.- O O
i
N `m m
04
6U? UUOo
W Z It Z
U _Y) Z 0 N
m J
d ? c U
O o Z
U
0 0
N J
0
Zo
0C
O
U
m
Yo
NeU
?E
E
?? U
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:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project : Iotla Branch,
Wetlandl,Wetland 2 and Wetland 3.
State:NC County/parish/borough: Macon City: Franklin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2225952 Long. -83.4190441°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Iotla Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Little Tennessee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 006010202
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):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "Wft "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 "waters of the US." 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):'
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TN Ws
Relatively permanent waters2 (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: Iotla Branch 835 linear feet: 25 width (ft) and/or 0.37 acres.
Wetlands: Wetlandl= 0.11acres; Wetland 2=0.05 acres; and Wetland 3=0.06 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
• Explain:
' 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).
' 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
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 waterbody° 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.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area: 1,154:
Average annual rainfall: 54.51 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 6rver iles from TNW.
Project waters are iles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters areaerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
•
Identify flow route to TN W5: Iotla Branch (RPW) to Iotla Creek (RPW) to Little Tennessee River (TNW).
Tributary stream order, if known: second order stream.
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' 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: 25 feet
Average depth: 7 feet
Average side slopes: UIC
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover: FACW/OBL herbaceous instream 15%
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: stable banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Presence of riffle pool sequences throughout due to observed flow,
woody debris, and deeper pool areas.
Tributary geometry: w"
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year
Describe flow regime: Perennial.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:` 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 ® the presence of litter and debris
? changes in the character of soil ® destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving ? the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ? sediment sorting
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ? scour
® sediment deposition ? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ? abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water color is typically clear except during rainfall events due to runoff from upstream sediment.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Sediment from surrounding land use (agriculture and residential) and possibly from
runway.
• "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.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Tag alder, 40 ft.
? 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: presence of amphibians and macroinvertebrates.
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:Wetland 2= 0.05 Wetland 3= 0.06 acres
Wetland type. Explain:Palustrine herbaceous .
Wetland quality. Explain: Both Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 are located within depressions along the floodplain that are
continually mowed. These wetlands were like created as a result of continual compaction of soils through mechanized maintenance of
the airport property which has reduced surface infiltration and enhanced ponding within shallow depressions. Wetlands consider high
quality due to adjacency to Iotla Branch.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: "Rw
`• . Explain:
Surface flow is: 0k t'- .
?
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:. 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: separated by uplands.
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100-year 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: clear water color.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Runoff from runway.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Tag alder, 40ft.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: low herbaceous vegetation 80 % cover.
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:
Approximately (.1 I ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
0
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
• Wetland 2 No 0.05 acres Wetland 3 No 0.06 acres
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetlands 2 and 3 function to provide
flood attenuation and minimal aquatic habitat.
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
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: Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 are adjacent wetlands to Iotla Branch and Wetland 1.
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:
8 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: Iotla Branch contains continous bed and banks with flows oberseved in April and August of same year.
Redoximorphic features in soils, instream FACW+ and OBL species, presence of macro in vertebrates and amphibians, and silt
and fine sand substrate. Identified on USGS and NRCS Soils Mapping.
{ 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):
Tributary waters: 835 linear feet 25 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss 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: Iotla Branch is perennial (see Section III. D.2). Wetland 1 physically abutts Iota Branch .
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: acres.
•
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: Wetland 2= 0.05 acres; Wetland 3= 0.06acres.
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.
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):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
"' 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.
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.
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
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (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.
Provide 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:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING 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):
fffl Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:Macon County Airport Runway Extension Wetland
Delineation.
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:Franklin, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, scale: 1 "=1600 ft.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/ accessed [01/20/09].
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Google Earth US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory Maps (accessed 10-
2008).
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:2007 FEMA Maps,
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NRCS 1953 and 1980; Google Earth 1994- 2005.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Photos taken on 4-16-07, 8-22-07, 4-15-09 in JD Request letter (attached).
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:File No. CESAW-C091-J-057; July 16, 1991.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
•
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Refer to 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Individual
Permit Application for copies of the above noted supporting data documentation.
•
0
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:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project :Tributary B
Wetland AB, Wetland A, and Wetland C/D and Wetland J/M.
State:NC County/parish/borough: Macon City: Franklin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2225952 ° 01, Long. -83.4190441 ° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: lotla Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Little Tennessee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 006010202
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):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "I "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 "waters of the U.S. within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (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: Tributary B = 310 linear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or 0.11 acres.
Wetlands: Wetland AB= 1.54, Wetland A = 0.5, Wetland C/D =0.08, Wetland J/M =.66 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
is Explain:
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 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).
' 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
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 waterbody° 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: acres
Drainage area: 448 'Pick List
Average annual rainfall: i-4.> 1 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 6rve iles fr om TNW.
Project waters are iles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TN Ws: Tributary B (RPW) and abutting wetlands flow into lotla Creek (RPW) which flows in
Little Tennessee River.
•
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' 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.
Tributary stream order, if known: Second Order Stream
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Stream was relocated in 1994.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 10 feet
Average depth: 3 feet
Average side slopes: a,
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ® Muck
? Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover: Herbaceous 60%
? Other. Explain:
stream.
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Presence of moderate run/riffles due to flowing water in low gradient
Tributary geometry.
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:.n
Describe flow regime: Perennial .
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: ft _ Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: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 ? the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil ? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving ? the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ? sediment sorting
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ? scour
? sediment deposition ® multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ? abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OH WM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: 13
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine 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: Clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: sediment from upstream agriculture and residential .
• "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.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Herbaceous, 12 ft.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Emergent Wetland surrounding stream channel.
• ? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: presence of amphibians and macroinvertebrates.
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:Wetland A is 0.05 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Palustrine emergent.
Wetland quality. Explain:Wetland A is a low quality wetland based on size and diversity. Wetland was likely created
following the construction of the taxiway project in 1994. .
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General l lo?y_. Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: Iotla Creek.
Surface flow is: Wit'
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: " _ 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: Wetland A are separated from lotla Creek (RPW) by SR 1434 (Airport Rd).
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (stri h) miles from TNW.
sr a
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100-year 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: Water color was clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Potential polluntants include stormwater runoff from adjacent S.R. 1434 and Runway.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Emergent wetland, 12 ft.
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Herbaceous, 80%.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:presence of amphibians and macroinvertebrates.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: III
Approximately ( 0.05 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
0
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
• Wetland A NO 0.05
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Overal Wetland A functions to attenuate
stormwater runoff and filter pollutants prior to entering Iotla Creek. Wetland A provides minimal habitat due to size.
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
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:
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: .
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:
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 IILD: There is a significant nexus between lotla Creek, Tributary B, Wetland A, Wetland C/D and Wetland J/M . Each
aquatic resource either directly or indirectly flows into the Iotla Creek, which flows directly into Little Tennessee River .
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
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: Tributary B maintained continous bed and banks with continous flow throughout the year.
Redoximorhic features in the soils were observed within and along the stream channel. Evidence of macro invertebrates and
amphibians were identified and wetland species covered the stream banks.
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):
Tributary waters: 310 linear feet 10 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss 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:
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: Wetland A/B directly abuts upstream portion of Tributary B. Wetland C/D and Wetland
J/M directly abut lotla Creek.
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:.074 acres.
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 forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: Wetland A =0.05 acres.
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.
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-STATE1 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.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
"' 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 CRA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
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 ofjurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (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.
Provide 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:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING 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:Macon County Airport Runway Extension Wetland
Delineation.
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:Franklin, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, scale: V=1600 ft.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/ accessed [01-20-
2009].
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Google Earth US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory Maps (accessed 10-
2008).
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIR.M maps:2007 FEMA Maps.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NRCS 1953 and 1980. Google Earth 1994-2005.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Photos taken on 4-16-07, 8-22-07, and 4-15-09 ocumented in JD Request letter (attached).
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:File No. CESAW-C091-J-057; July 16, 1991.
Applicable/supporting case law:
• Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Refer to 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Individual
Permit Application for copies of the above noted supporting data documentation.
•
0
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
0 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:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project :Tributary 1,
Tribturary 2, Wetlands F/G, Wetland G, Wetland GA and Wetland GB.
State:NC County/parish/borough: Macon City: Franklin
Center coordinates of site (1at11ong in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2225952 Long. -83.4190441° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Iotla Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Little Tennessee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 006010202
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):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "'W40 "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 a "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):'
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
acres.
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: Tributary 1 = 250 linear feet: 12 width (ft) and/or 0.07acres,Tributary 2= 37 linear ft. 10 ft. width or 0.03
Wetlands: Wetland F/G =2.72acres, Wetland G= 0.83 acres, Wetland GA= 0.11 acres, Wetland GB= 0.08 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on
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:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 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).
' 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.I. 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
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 waterbodya 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:
Drainage area: 196
Average annual rainfall: 54.51 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 6ri iles from TNW.
Project waters are iles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
E
Identify flow route to TNWs: Tributary I flows directly into the lotla Creek (RPW) which flows directly into Little
Tennessee River (TNW).
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s 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.
Tributary stream order, if known: first order stream .
• (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Tributary 2 created in 1994 during Taxiway construction.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 10 feet
Average depth: 6 feet
Average side slopes w"A 4".
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: Highly eroding banks.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: nun riffle complex present.
Tributary geometry: t
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: .
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime: Perennial .
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: `r Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:. 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 ? the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil ? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving ? the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ? sediment sorting
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ® scour
® sediment deposition ? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ? abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OH WM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: 13
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine 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: clear water.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Runnoff from Runway .
• "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.
(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:Wetland F/G is 2.72, Wetland G= 0.83 acres, Wetland GA= 0.1 lacres, Wetland GB= 0.08 acres
Wetland type. Explain:Wetland F/G is palustrine emergent/ shrub wetland. Wetland G, GA and GB are Palustrine
emergent .
Wetland quality. Explain: All wetlands are considered fair quality due to past disturbances.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: R Explain: Seepage observed from wetland F/G and Wetland G into culvert that directly flows
into Iotla Creek, No flow from wetlands GA and GB .
Surface flow is:
Characteristics: Channelized.
Subsurface flow: 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: Wetlands located within floodplain of lotla Creek.
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands area river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ?? `aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100-year 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: clear water.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Runoff from adjacent Runway.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Wetland F/G has herbaceous and shrub community with 90% wetland species.
Wetlands G, GA and GB have little herbaceous diversity and are continually mowed.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Bird habitat.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 4.17 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
0
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
• Wetland F/G No 2.72 acres
Wetland GA No 0.11 acre
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland G No 0.83 acres,
and Wetland GB 0.08 no acre
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Overal Wetlands F/G, G, GA and GB
function to attenuate stormwater runoff and filter pollutants prior to entering lotla Creek. Wetlands provides, flood attenuation,
polluant removal, and wildlife habitat.
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
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:Tributary 2 flows
directly into Iotla Creek (RPW).
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: There is a significant nexus between Iotla Creek, Tributary I and Wetlands F/G, Wetland G, Wetland GA, and
Wetland GB into Little Tennessee River.
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:
8 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: Tributary 1 contains continous bed and banks with significant flow during the one of the warmest
months of the year. This stream appeared relatively incised with scoured areas along the stream banks. The lack of vegetation
• resulted in highly eroded stream banks. This lack of vegetation may also be a result of airport runway maintenance. The
substrate consisted of larger coaser material including large pieces of gravel.
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):
Tributary waters: Tributary I = 250 linear feet 12width (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: Tributary 2= 37 linear feet 10 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
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:
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: acres.
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: 4.17acres.
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.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
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).
•
'See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE1 WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
• n, 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.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
El 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
factors (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.
Provide 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:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING 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 appIicant/consultant:Macon County Airport Runway Extension Wetland
Delineation.
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:Franklin, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, scale: 1 "=1600 ft.

10 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.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/ accessed [01-20-
2009].
• H National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Google Earth US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory Maps (accessed 10-
2008).
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:2007 FEMA map.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):NRCS 1953, 1980, Google Earth, 1994-2005.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Photos taken on 4-16-07 , 8-22-07 and 4-15-09 documented in JD Request letter (attached).
L Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:File No. CESAW-C091-J-057; July 16, 1991.
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Refer to 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Individual
Permit Application for copies of the above noted supporting data documentation.
0

•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 812212007
Macon County County: Macon County
Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
the area a potential Problem Area?
If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No Community ID: Wetland
Yes No x Transect ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland 1- #52
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Eleocharis sp. Herb OBL
Salix ni ra Shrub OBL
Rosa alustris Shrub OBL
juncus effusus Herb FACW+
Carex s p. Herb FACW

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100
Remarks: Linear wetland that may have once been a ditch which has reverted into a wetland
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
x Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: standing water within wetland area

•
r?
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 1- #52
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-12 10YR 4/2 5 YR 5/8 20% loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks: Wetland 1 abutts lotla Branch

•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 812212007
Macon County County: Macon
Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No _
Yes No x
Yes No x
Community ID: Upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 1 # 52
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Trifolium re ens Herb FACU
Daucus carota Herb NI

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks:
This Site is continually mowed and maintained for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No hydrologic indicators identified
0
•

Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 1 # 52
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Dillsboro loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Humic hapludults Drainage Class: well-drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
0-12 2.5 Y 3/3 2.5 YR 5/6
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
20% loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes x No
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
r ?
?J
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 812212007
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon Count
Investigator: Julie V Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland A Fla #1
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Eleocharis s p. Herb OBL
Polygonum enns Ivanicum Herb FACW

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100
Remarks: This site is continually mowed for runway safety purposes.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
•
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland A Flag #1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poor) drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 3/2 7.5 YR 5/8 20% clay loam
8-16 10YR 3/1 10YR 6/8 30% clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks: Buried 15" CPP identifed within wetland boundaries.
It has been determined that pipe is a remanant from the former construction
entrance utilized during the taxiway construction. Pipe is currently damaged and non-functioning.
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension
Applicant/Owner: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V. Ball
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes No x
Yes x No _
Yes No x
Date: 812212007
County: Macon
State: North Carolina
Community ID: Upland
TransectID:
Plot ID: Wetland A Fla(
#1 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Trifolium re ens Herb FACU

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: Site located in an area that is continually mowed for runway safety purposes.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: no saturation or free standing was oberserved on the surface or in soil borings.
0
•
•

Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland A Flag #1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 3/2 10YR 5/8 mixed matrix Clay Loam
8-16 10YR 3/1 10YR 6/8 30% clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: First layer contained a mixed matrix. The second layer contained hydric soils
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hvdric Soils Present?
Yes x No
_Yes x No
x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks: Point located in mowed grassey area.
No hydrologic indicators. Upland species present within data point location.
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 812212007
Macon County County: Macon County
Julie V Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No Community ID: Wetland
Yes No x Transact ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: Trib. B Flaq # 6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Eleocharis sp. Herb OBL
Vemonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+
Impatiens ca ensis Herb FACW
Dulichium arundinaceum Herb OBL
Polygonum unctatum Herb FACW+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Trib. B Flag # 6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 4/2 2.5 YR 5/6 20% sand loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
emergent wetland surrounding Tributary B
•
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 8/2212007
Macon County County: Macon
Julie V Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No Community ID: Upland
Yes No x Transect ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: Trib. B Flaq # 6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Trifolium re ens Herb FACU
Daucus carota Herb NI

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: Site is continually mowed for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators

•
•
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Thb. 8 Flag # 6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poort drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 2.5 Y 3/3 loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils were observed as well-drained and did not confirm hydric soils mapping
WETLAND DETERMINATION
ihytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
d Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Soils Present? Yes x No
L1
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
•
r
U
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 812212007
Macon County County: Macon County
Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No _
Yes No x
Yes No x
Community ID: Wetland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland CID #6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Eleocharis s p. Herb OBL
Vemonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+
Impatiens capensis Herb FACW
Dulichium arundinaceum Herb OBL
Pol onum unctatum Herb FACW+
Sa ittaria /atifolia Herb OBL
Lobelia cardinalis Herb FACW+
Sci us cyperinus Herb OBL
Verbena hastata Herb FAC
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
•

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 812212007
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland CID #6
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Trifolium repens Herb FACU
Ph olacca americana Shrub FACU+
Rubus argutus Shrub FACU

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: This site is continually mowed for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No saturation or standing water observed. Point is located within a grass-covered field adjacent to wetland.
E
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: U land
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland CID #6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10 YR 3/4 Clay Loam
10-20 10 YR 4/6 loam sand
20+ 2.5 Y 4/3 5YR 3/4 20% loam sand

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: not hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 812212007
Macon County County: Macon County
Julie V Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Yes No x Transect ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland FIG # 36
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ Rubus argutus Shrub FACU
Vernonia noveboracensis Shrub FAC+ Typha /atifolia Herb OBL
Impatiens capensis Herb FACW Mentha pi erita Shrub FACW
Dulichium arundinaceum Herb OBL
Pol onum punctatum Herb FACW+
Hibiscus moscheutos Shrub OBL
Lobelia cardinalis Herb FACW+
Scirpus c erinus Herb OBL
Verbena hastata Herb FAC
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 92
Remarks: Wetland has been disturbed through removal of vegetation and ditching.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r?
U
r?
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland CID #6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 5Y 4/4 silty cla loam
6-12 5Y 4/1 5YR 5/8 40% Clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks: Wetland located in Western portion of floodplain
•

C
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland FIG # 36
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 5Y 2.5 /1 clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks: Network of ditches currently exist throughout wetland boundaries
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension
Applicant/Owner: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V Ball
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes No x
Yes X No _
Yes No x
Date: 8/22/2007
County: Macon
State: North Carolina
Community ID: Upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland FIG #36
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Daucus carota Herb NI
Rhus co allina Shrub NI
Rubus ar utus Shrub FACU

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: Upland data point located in berm area constructed during the Taxiway extension in 1994.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
(Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks: No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
r?
L J
•
•

Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 8/22/2007 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland FIG #36
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 7.5 YR 2.5/3 Silty loam
12-18 5 Y 2.5/2 5YR 6/8 20% sil clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
.7
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G; DP-5
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks: Wetland appears to be drained by surrounding ditches.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland is considered "atypical" due to surrounding ditches.
?J
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G; DP-5
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-7 10YR 4/2 10 YR 4/6 4% loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland G; G-4
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Andropo on vir inicus Herb FAC-
Brassica Herb NI

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: Area is continually mowed for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:) Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No standing water or saturation was observed within this area
0
0

E
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G; G-4
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 4/3 silt loam
8-16 10 YR 5/3 7.5 YR 4/6 3% loam
16-22 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 5/8 5% loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydic conditions oberseved below 16 inches
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
0
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: - Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-11
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Vernonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+ Cyperus stri osus Herb FACW
Andropogon vir inicus Herb FAC-
Sambucus canadensis Shrub FACW-
Pol onum penns Ivanicum Herb FACW
Echinochloa crus alli Herb FACW-
Solanum caro/inense Herb FACU
Con a canadensis Herb FACU
Setaria pumila Herb FAC
Era rostis curvu/a Herb NI
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
is
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Upland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G DP-11
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-17 10 YR 3/3 5 YR 5/8 5% silt loam
5 YR 4/6 8%
17-30 10 YR 3/1 5 YR 5/8 5% silt loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
•

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-12
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Andro 0 on virginicus Herb FAC-
Sambucus canadensis Herb FACW-
Echinochloa crusgalli Herb FACW-
Conyza canadensis Herb FACU
Solidago canadensis Herb FACU
Trifolium pratense Herb FACU-
Verbascum blattaria Herb FAC
Vitis sp . Vine FACW
Cyperus striosus Herb FACW
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 44
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
(Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
(in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
C?

C
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-12
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10YR 3/2 7.5 YR 5/8 3% sand loam
10-16 10 YR 3/2 10YR 518 5% clay
16-24 10 YR 411 7.5 YR 5/8 8% Sand clay
24-30 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/8 10% clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: F-3 Depleted Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Yes x No
_Yes x No
x Yes No
x Yes No
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon Count
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-13
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Solidago canadensis herb FACU
Andro 0 on vir inicus Herb FAC-
Trifolium ratense Herb FACU-
Setaria pumila herb FAC
Echinochloa crusgalli Herb FACW

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 40
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 28 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

•
•

Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-13
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10 YR 3/2 10YR 5/6 5% silt clay loam
10-17 10YR 5/1 10YR 5/6 10% Sand Clay Loam
17-24 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 5/8 15% Sand Clay
24-31 2.5Y 5/2 7.5YR 5/8 10% Course Sand

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: F-3 Depleted Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 9/22009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-14
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Setaria umila Herb FAC
Sambucus canadensis Herb FACW-
Echinochloa crusgalli Herb FACW-
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
Solidago canadensis Herb FACU
Trifolium ratense Herb FACU-
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Rubus argutus Shrub FACU

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
(Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks: No indicators
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-14
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: ve poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10YR 3/2 7.5 YR 5/8 3% sand loam
10-16 10 YR 3/2 10YR 5/8 5% clay
16-24 10 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/8 8% Sand clay
24-30 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/8 10% clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: F-3 Depleted Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
r?
L_J
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon Count
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-16
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Polygonum enns Ivanicum Herb FACW
Echinochloa crus alli Herb FACW-
Solanum carolinense Herb FACU
Setaria umila Herb FAC
Diodia vi iniana Herb FACW
Cy erus stri osus Herb FACW

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 83
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators
0
?J
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Upland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland GDP-,
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorty drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-16 10 YR 4/3 10YR 5/6 10% silt loam
16-25 5YR 3/1 10YR 5/6 15% silt

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: not Hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
•
r?
I? J
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-15
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Setaria umila Herb FAC
Hibiscus moscheutos Shrub OBL
Echinochloa crusgalli Herb FACW-
Conyza canadensis Herb FACU
Solidago canadensis Herb FACU
Cyperus strigosus Herb FACW

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
IField Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks: No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)

r?
?J
•
9
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-15
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 10YR 3/3 silt loam
6-10 10 YR 3/2 7.5YR5/6 5% Silty clay
10-15 10 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/6 8% Silty clay
15-25 2.5Y 5/1 5YR 5/8 25% Silty Clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: F-3 Depleted Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
U
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-17
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Cyperus strigosus Herb FACW
Andro 0 on vir inicus Herb FAC-
Di itaria serotina Herb FAC
Setaria pumila Herb FAC
Echinochloa crus alli Herb FACW-

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 80
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No Indicators
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Upland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G DP-17
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very oody drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 10 YR 3/3 7.5 YR 5/8 3% loam
12-27 10YR 4/1 10 YR 6/8 25% Silty Clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Not Hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
•

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-18
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Diodia virginiana Herb FACW
Cyperus strigosus Herb FACW
Echinochloa crus alli Herb FACW-
Solanum carolinense Herb FACU
Solida o canadensis Herb FACU
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Panicum sp. Herb FAC

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 57
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
(Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks: No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
.7
•
•
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-18
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 10YR 3/4 Silt loam
4-15 10 YR 3/3 10YR 5/8 20% Silt Loam
15-25 10 YR 3/1 7.5 YR 4/4 15% Sili clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Not Hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
x_Yes No
_ Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
0
r?
?J
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 9/2/2009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon Count
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-19
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Cyperus strigosus Herb FACW
Andro 0 on vir inicus Herb FAC-
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Setaria pumila Herb FAC

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No Indicators
0
•
lr
u

Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Upland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G DP-19
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: verypoorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-15 10 YR 4/4 Silt loam
15-23 7.5YR 3/1 10 YR 4/4 2% Silt

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Not Hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 91212009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-20
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Andro 0 on vir inicus Herb FAC-
Cyperus stri osus Herb FACW
Setaria umila Herb FAC
Dactylis glomerata Herb FACU
Solida o canadensis Herb FACU
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 33
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
(Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
(in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-20
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 10YR 3/3 5YR 4/6 3% Silt loam
5-21 10 YR 3/1 7.5YR 5/6 5% Silty Clay Loam
21-26 10 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/6 10% Sand clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: F-3 Depleated Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
r?
?J
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 91212009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes x No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes x No Plot ID: Wetland G, DP-21
(if needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
C erus strigosus Herb FACW
Andro 0 on virginicus Herb FAC-
C perus stri osus Herb FACW
Setaria umila Herb FAC
Dactylis glomerata Herb FACU

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 60
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No Indicators
0
LJ
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 9/2/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland G DP-21
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-7 10 YR 3/3 10 YR 6/8 5% Loam
7-21 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 5/8 10% Clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: F-3 depleted matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland GA; GA-7
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks: Area is distrubed from continual mowing.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Not observed during growing season
0
•

0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland GA; GA-7
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 4/3 loam
8-15 2.5 Y 5/2 2.5 YR 4/8 2% clay loam
15+ 2.5 Y 3/1 2.5 YR 4/8 2% clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
C7
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland GA; DP-7
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: Area is distrubed from continual mowing
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
IField Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks: No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
0
•
•
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland GA; DP-7
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: ve poorty drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-15 10YR 3/4 7.5 YR 3/4 5% silt loam
15-20 10 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 4/6 8% silt loam
20-27 10 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 3/4 8% Silt

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Not hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
is
•
r
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon Count
Investigator: Julie V Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland GB #6
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks: Area is disturbed from continual mowing.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: standing water was observed at the time of the investigation; however not observed during growing season.
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 4116/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland GB #6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 4/3 loam
8-12 10YR 4/1 7.5 YR 5/8 7% clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
0
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No x Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland GB;DP -9
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: Area is continually mowed for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
(Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
(in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No standing water or saturation was observed within this area.
0
c:
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland GB;DP-9
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-7 10YR 3/3 10YR 3/4 5% sand clay loam
7-15 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 3/4 8% sand clay loam
15-31 10 YR 2/1 10 YR 3/4 8% Silt clay

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Remarks:
Yes x No
_Yes x No
x Yes No
Yes x No
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V. Ball & George Lankford State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland JIM, DP 2
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra herb FACU+
Juncus effusus herb FACW+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50
Remarks:
Wetland is located within floodplain and is continually mowed and maintained
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 19 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: standing water observed within low spots
0
•
•

Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot I D: Wetland J/M, DP 2
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-9 10YR 3/3 loam
9-24 10YR 2/1 7.5 YR 5/8 5% silt loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon
Investigator: Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No Community ID: Upland
Yes No x Transect ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland J/M,J-19
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: This site is continually mowed for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators
0
•

0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland J/M,J-19
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-11 10 YR 4/4 5Y 3/1 7% Loam
7.5 YR 5/8 3%
11-15 10 YR 3/2 7.5 YR 5/8 2% Silt loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydic soils oberseved below 11 inches
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks: This is a disturbed site that is continually mowed and maintained
•

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411612009
Macon County County: Macon County
Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes No x Community ID: Wetland AB
Yes x No Transect ID:
Yes x No Plot ID: AB WET 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

'uncus effusus FACW+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r1
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland AB
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: AB WET 1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents (formerly Hemphill)

Taxonomy Subgroup: Drainage Class: very oorty drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 5 YR 4/6 silt loam
3-8 2.5 Y 3/2 2.5 YR 6/8 3% silt loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland contains approximately 6 to 16 inches of fill material throughout boundaries. Wetland filled during 1991 runway extension.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks:
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411612009
Macon County County: Macon
Julie V Ball State: North Carolina
Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
the area a potential Problem Area?
'If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes No x Community ID: Upland AB
Yes x No Transect ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: AB- Uplan(
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: This site is continually mowed for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 22 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No idicators
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland AB
Date: 4/16/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: AB- Upland
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents

Taxonomy Subgroup: Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 2.5 Y 4/4 Loam
12-22 2.5 Y 6/4 10 YR 5/6 20% silt loam
22+ 5Y 5/4 10 YR 5/8 20% silty clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Not hydric
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks: This is a disturbed site that is continually mowed and maintained
r ?
?J
r,
?J
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411612009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon County
Investigator: Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland 2; #6
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra FACU+
Juncus effusus FACW+
Brassica NI

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 33
Remarks: This site is continually mowed and maintained for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 11 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
•
0
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland
Date: 4/15/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 2; #6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10YR 3/2 10YR6/8 1 % silt Loam
10-12 2.5 Y 3/3 2.5Y 5/6 3% clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is located in a topographical depression
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411512009
Macon County County: Macon
Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No _
Yes No x
Yes No x
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 2 #6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks: This site is continually mowed and maintained for runway safety purposes
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 14 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
•
•
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 4/15/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 2 #6
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Dillsboro loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Humichapludults Drainage Class: well-drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 10 YR 4/3 2.5Y 3/2 5% silt loam
10-14 2.5 Y 4/3 2.5 Y 3/3 3% silt loam
10 YR 5/8 2%

J

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
Yes x No
0
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Date: 411512009
Applicant/Owner: Macon County County: Macon Count
Investigator: Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x No Community ID: Wetland 3
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No x Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland 3- #1
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Scirpus cyperinus herb OBL
Juncus effusus herb FACW+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0-13 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: upper 12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rainfall within previous 2 weeks
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project Community ID: Wetland 3
Date: 4/15/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 3- #1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very oody drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
x Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-9 10YR 3/3 Loam
9-10 10YR 3/3 10 YR 6/8 5% silt loam
10-13 5 YR 2.5 /2 5 YR 4/6 5% clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? x Yes No
Remarks: Wetland delineated along area of vegetation change and topographical depression
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
Macon County Airport Runway Extension Date: 411512009
Macon County County: Macon
Julie V. Ball State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes x No Community ID: Upland
Yes No x Transect ID:
Yes No x Plot ID: Wetland 3 #1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Festuca rubra Herb FACU+
Andropo on virginicus FAC-

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) O
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 13 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
•
•
0
Project/Site: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Community ID: Upland
Date: 4/15/2009 Transect ID:
Plot ID: Wetland 3 #1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Toxaway Loam

Taxonomy Subgroup: Cumulic Humaquepts Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10 YR 3/3 silt loam
8-13 10 YR 3/4 7.5 YR 4/4 2% Silty clay loam
13-16 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 618 5-7% Clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: hydre conditions start at 13 inches
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
•
APPENDIX C
0?3-Usok V?.
0
Certified Soils Scientist Investigation
Supplemental Soil Report
(September 2009)
0
•
Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
Macon County, North Carolina
Soil Scientist Investigation
SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL REPORT
COE ID #SAW 2009-00321
Prepared for
Macon County Airport Authority
1241 Airport Road
Franklin, NC 28734
•
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
14 September 2009
Soil Scientist Seal and Signature
sots
K. L
a
L ---

n
U
Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
•
Macon County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................1
NRCS Soil Mapping ........................................................................................................1
On Site Soil Investigation ................................................................................................1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................1
NRCS Soil Mapping ........................................................................................................1
On Site Soil Investigation ................................................................................................1
Effects of Drainage ..........................................................................................................3
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 3
FIGURES
I. J
Figure - Soil Data Points Map ............................................................................................5
TABLES
Table 1. Hydric Soil Indicators in Soil Profiles (Wetland G) ...............................................3
APPENDIX
Appendix A Soil Boring Logs

Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
•
Macon County, North Carolina
BACKGROUND
This report supplements to the Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
Soil Scientist Investigation dated 28 May 2009. Lori Beckwith of the US Army Corps of
Engineers in the Asheville field office requested additional information requiring field
investigation after reviewing the original soils report in conjunction with the 404/401
permit process. A better understanding is needed of the soil characteristics and potential
biological and chemical processes occurring in the wetland soils and adjacent areas of
Wetland G (Middle Quad).
This report further describes the results of this soil evaluation and is part of the original
report dated 28 May 2009. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made
by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments
and disclaimers. This report follows Standard of Practice based on the Draft CSSC A-0002-
01. During the site evaluation soil borings were taken throughout the identified areas.
Typical soil profile descriptions were recorded (Appendix A). The NRCS guide for
identifying and delineating hydric soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States
(Versions 6) was used to determine if soil meets the status of a wetland soil. Indicators valid
for the mountain region, Land Resource Region N, were used.
METHODOLOGY
• NRCS Soil Mapping
A discussion of the mapped soil series, Toxaway, was expanded. This discussion includes
the effects of artificial drainage on the soils series and potential changes in the
characteristics are covered in this discussion.
On Site Soil Investigation
Additional soil data was collected on 2 September 2009 in Wetland G. In addition to the
previous four soil profiles, an additional 11 borings were described this area. A wetland soil
boundary was determined and flagged. Determination of this boundary is based on the
Guide to Hydric Soil Indicators NRCS V6.0 and 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. The
boundary and all borings locations were surveyed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
NRCS Soil Mapping
The floodplain is mapped by the NRCS Macon County Soil Survey as Toxaway series soils.
This soil is an alluvial soil found along larger stream channels. This soil is classified as a
Cumulic Humaquept. Inceptisols are soils that retain a close resemblance of the parent
material from which they formed and have not had time to developed adequate profile
features diagnostic for other orders or have weak diagnostic features. A Humaquept infers
that this soil, in its unaltered state, is not dry for more than three months a year and has
started accumulating organic matter in the upper horizons. The cumulic modifier refers to
the addition of mineral soils to the surface, such as natural sediment deposition.
On Site Soil Investigation
• The soil investigation focused on Wetland G and the development of a finer delineation of
the hydric soil boundary. In addition to the borings already described, 11 additional
Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
Macon County, North Carolina
• borings were recorded, resulting in 15 boring profiles in Wetland G (Figure). A hydric soil
boundary was determined and flagged on the ground and surveyed. The boundary parallels
the ditches is an approximate east-west orientation, with the wetter soils to the north,
toward the runway, and dryer soils to the south near lotla Creek.
The soil surface overlaying this area was found to have a brownish loamy texture (loam,
sandy loam, silty loam, and sandy clay loam). The surface horizons (Al and A2) range from
7 to 19 inches in the wetter areas and from 15 to 17 inches in the dryer areas. Below the
surface horizons are Cg horizons. The Cg horizons are similar to the Official Soils Series
Description for Toxaway soils. The surface horizons are stratified with brownish sandy and
loamy surface material of varying thickness. These cumulic horizons are younger soils
exhibiting few diagnostic soil characteristics. They are most likely the result of flooding and
sediment deposition events early last century.
The soils found in Wetland G are underlain by a black, thick, silty or clayey textured soil
high in organic matter. Many areas have developed redoxomorphic features of iron
concentrations indicating alternating periods of saturation and drying. These soils fall
within the color and texture range defined for the Toxaway series and based upon the
findings across this floodplain, the soils appear to meet the range of characteristics of the
Toxaway series. The taxonomic name appears to describe adequately the soil system found
in Wetland G at this site.
• Seven soil profiles were found to have hydric indicators in the upper 12 inches (Table 1).
The hydric indicator F3, Depleted Matrix, was the most common indicator. The hydric
characteristics observed in the upper 12 inches consist of a low chroma matrix with
common to many mottles (redoxomorphic concentrations) found in the Al and A2
horizons. Mottles are found both in the hydric and in the non-hydric soil profiles in the
upper horizons. The presence of these mottles is atypical of the Toxaway series and
possibly indicates repeated wetting and drying conditions. The ditches promote drainage of
this area and provide conditions for repeated aeration needed for oxidation of minerals in
these soils.
•
2
Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
Macon County, North Carolina
• Table 1. Hydric Soil Indicators in Soil Profiles (Wetland G)
Soil Boring 0111) Hydric llwkator
3 No Hydric Indicators
4 No H dric Indicators
5 A2-Histic Epipedon and F3-Depleted Matrix
6 No Hydric Indicators
11 No H dric Indicators
12 F3-Depleted Matrix
13 F3-Depleted Matrix
14 F3-Depleted Matrix
15 F3-Depleted Matrix
16 No Hydric Indicators
17 No H dric Indicators
18 No Hydric Indicators
19 No H dric Indicators
20 F3-Depleted Matrix
21 F3-Depleted Matrix
Effects of Drainage
Because of the lower landscape position of this soil, Toxaway soils are commonly drained
• or ditched to improve surface runoff and quickly remove floodwater. Drainage in these
low-lying areas is limited by the lack of slope and the elevation of outlet drains.
The soil in Wetland G has a number of areas underlain by clayey textures. These finer
materials likely slow internal drainage, allowing somewhat longer saturation periods. Most
of the soil profiles recorded indicate various degrees of mottling, providing evidence to
support the repeated wetting and drying cycles. Based upon the agricultural and cultivation
history of this site, these redoxomorphic mottles have formed since the agricultural activity
ceased. The ditches to each side of Wetland G appear to drain effectively surface waters
from rain and flooding events and enhance subsurface drainage.
CONCLUSIONS
The floodplain soil in Wetland G is mapped as alluvial Toxaway series. The soil
investigation resulted in a finer delineation of the hydric soil boundary, paralleling the
ditches in an approximate east-west orientation. The surface horizons (Al and A2) range
from 7 to 19 inches in the wetter areas and from 15 to 17 inches in the dryer areas. Many
areas have developed redoxomorphic features of iron concentrations indicating alternating
periods of saturation and drying. The cumulic surface horizons exhibit few diagnostic soil
characteristics and are most likely the result of flooding and sediment deposition events
early last century. The soils are underlain by a black, thick, silty or clayey textured soil high
in organic matter. These soils fall within the color and texture range defined for the
Toxaway series and based upon the findings across this floodplain, the soils appear to meet
the range of characteristics of the Toxaway series.
•
3
Macon County Airport Authority Runway Extension Project
Macon County, North Carolina
• The ditches enhance surface and subsurface drainage, resulting in alternating saturation and
drying. Mottles are found both in the hydric and non-hydric soil, indicating various degrees
of mottling and provide evidence to support the repeated wetting and drying cycles.
Saturation of the soil does persist long enough to form redoxomorphic mottles in many of
the profiles. Based upon the agricultural and cultivation history of this site, these
redoxomorphic mottles have formed since the agricultural activity ceased. The presence of
these mottles is atypical of the Toxaway series and possibly indicates repeated wetting and
drying conditions. The ditches promote drainage of this area and provide conditions for
repeated aeration needed for oxidation of minerals in these soils.
C7
•
4
/ r

Lnil
O'
O'.
N[

\
X t \ 1
\

\ \ ` I ` (cc_
L L
\
\
' a U
\
\
v
? vv d
v

\ + \ 0
\
\\ N
a_

Aw v ? a_
U

; ?OD
, 11
1
+' w
d
1
1
` d N
i i i i \ 11 X111
i # i i i \? I I
\
i
i i i i i i \\
U \\
? ? III
I k\ )
;i
i i W °
i # IZN
I /
# i \' \
W
C?
LL
p?n ?O
N x
W z
to
0
U
O
fi a .

Q M: LLI
H Q
Q of J A
g 5
OZ
H
3 CL oo
0
)
Z f
I _
?
Z O1
Q o LLJ
? z
?X
Z ye

Ys.
Z
_
O
d Z W
D z
O ° n
U9

Q Z Z
O :D
C)
E
Of
Q
z

O
V)
o p
$
die ?o

0
W
Cl)
Z
W
U

F- J
U U
Q Z
n
W
F- E- Z m
OU LL Z -?
ZLLJ O _O ?- w

(no
m ~
Q Y

Q
F- Wm W O a La
W Q W Q J ?
w JH
Q J ZO a_ U) Z?
O

Q
Z m Q
z
Q W
H W (n
W H
m O O O Q Q
w
0 F- :
2 M- a
CD U C - U
H (? U O O
Of 0

X M W a- -J -J
00
W ? ? .- Q Q 00
I '
z I i o0
W
O
0
N
O
O O
O
I I
Lei
A Q
u
In
O
0
i
•
APPENDIX A
Appendix Soil Boring Logs

•
m
H

o H
(' z
O
(
q J
?Q
o Z

Q 00
U?

o 0
Q
•
0
Y
I?)
E

W

0

0

J E
is
O
J

U 10
o

W
U
- = W

IL i a i a i a
co co 0 to

m
O .'1 lL O LL LL

w ; z cn m co CO
ow Q
c
o
a

LL
O
U O
iR 0 0 0
? o
o
'
3 m c
0-4
0 O O
00 0
d a N

E E E
r
o m e
m C ?3E o o`eo
o
to m
v
r- m
LO
O
rn
Q 0 c
c
c
m - o
m
O m
N ;p
? S?
a
O ;
2 CD
tm `
o P. Y
C? C Q
c w°
.
L
)
o a
o
LO
LO
r
z o

C
C: ??77C1y1y

K a

M

?`

N
O D = f
7 a
pc
U Cp
O C
O O O O

y
° v D
m
E a
c
S'
z C _O
O c c
1O? r
N
T
N
N
'
y W 7
.??Q 3 g
n m
=
m a ^ h

r
N
O
a
Q J
0 1 W
N M ?

y s ? N ?G.
N 6c
r

N
C) L"
a
E

C

z 0
0 0
6 = S 0

N W ? V UU
- m

T
P
P
o ? SS

a
W
G? O GO
W

a
0
0

N
SG
Oe
•
e
s
i

o of z
O
0-
J
m
UO Z

J
o O?
?
•
rn
0
0
UP
,P
O
m
o
wM
OW
10

o
O
J
c
m

w

O
J
c
m
N E
9
T

O
U
c
w
co

-? a a
Y

Na Z Z

S o
m ?

CO) V U) M co
to co

c?
C
JR
a
N
m?
a
a

a 0

7
O y
S CI

U
•o
d ? 0p ?
3 r Q U
? 0 Z p
a ?

Q7 m

C
8 V
C
8
C

O N
d g
I
V
a
z a o
0 ? 466 o
.N L
O 'O lC0 > = O
dJUJfA W

E
M
CO N
C a a
o?
LO
n
N ?
co N

O
O d'
}
47
n
t? N
O ^
r N M

y 3 a
X ?'

N Lo
co,
O
E
/6
0
? .o
n

c Q c
-S
c
Z ~ N
I ^ Z
LL?a s`s`
y
2
O O
L
L L L O Z
lag
.
_ _
N O C

O m
? °
a
O
N
u
Q
S ?

0 z o
00
Z Q J
?a
oZw
Q OZ
U
w Zg
oL
•
7
m
H
O
O
v?
c
o
a
m
m
..
M Q
W t6
w?
OW
m
E
'o
N
U
"C
?T
L
w
O
C
O
C
K
m
N
N
m
E
T
? v
A
J fn
a a
V)
z cn
CD 9

a 0
.C LL
L a
0) b! V W

O
e
0

U LL 3
? ?
O
0

? ?.
0
?p
C
m

U U
a
7
r ?O C
-
a a ?
-
? a o cO1
C C ? p

O C2 S
?
U p a? °D
o , c Q
m z
0

F C

O
c

8 C

0
.A ?
0i ? ? O V m
E CL
Z 0
o
c j
m
m
- ?
O _O
dJU Jfn w
w w
0 o
v Lo

O O

Y
N

co
N
O
n
t N M a N
V
h
W
U

2
N
O
E
o ?
?
g
3 d

O
F
o ?
0 ' t7
IL `o o
o.a?2.c? c?
t m 01 A C C o
Z
Q a ? N
m3 ?.? o

?7F, a
? W m
O
7 N O
.
.
W N
CL

p
'611

N
Cxi
y
Q
•
3
x
IT
(z
0O a.O
Z Q<
*z
0?
a
?u z
J U LU
? m

E
co
°
J
T
m
J w
J l6
U

C,

v
. a- a.
U)
E U
z z
z U)
rn
c ?d
m
J

(D
m E
iL
E

> c 3 ca
3 H V co

0)
U
o
> ?
w
C
L
0

m
7
,o
=1 Lo
>
00

v

U Lu O
x °
c
c
m ?j 'ao 0 uz
L°
• ;
2 c
F C C
m y r_
? v Q U U
d N
d

7 N
?

t cc
a ? o

CL k,
LO o,

c .o ¢ m v v
m
0
U co
r
n m d 0 Y1 ?'
? E
G
}
c (
Q V u
7,
h
h ?
CY,
h
° '01
m V
a
z o
a ?
x
O O ' C N
U U ? d
D
U o
U c
? ?
? ? 0 0
h
m? ? av L
m
m C
Z= Q b L L
N_ ?
?
N
M
a $ Y ° n
0
w
. (0
r N (q

pia
ul llilil
VIIIII

N
O
?
E
0
0
o
U
o , •0

o F
z N Z
= .2 Fy r? t
LL L }
U Q a

o
o z

r ca

O c
c

m
a
? ° o
M
W d
0
U) 0
O
a
O
C4
?Oc
3 0,
•
3
m
H
m Qz

o
f0
°
O CL
LL Q Q ..
O
W Wa
J 2 L
? W
W c
J 00
Uz
l0
•a
z = 23
O w W C'1
M
?
c ? U
•
E E
m 0
0 0
J J
CL n.
01 d
LL LL
03
o o
yC yC G C
U d 41
UU 9U
a n n
• N E E

?
?
° 0
o 0
'
0
U
) OD LO
Q ? c
C
?$ o
?_ •c
m°
d?
Loco
ao
n
U o cm p Lo v
Of Of I
$U? Q U ? Lo W) Wa
)
°
La z O
?
Q

0 m
3 '? m
0
0 0
0 o
c
v ? 0 0
m
2 to
2 IV 0
ai , 1
2
?
C c s
p
C ?p

to y C3
c
= p O
xx
`
u
U
? 2
a
J
iL
CO
r N
I
In
10

a? •
?a

0

0
0
3
)
°
F
- v

Z O Z Z
?
n
o D _ 0
Wv v
v

Wz c c
N
o o 0 N C
g 0° a
d = .
z = io

Q
0
rn

N
Li
i
O
-k
4
X -?
•
3
m
M
`0 U
T
? U !n U
0. a
z j
o a. 0p:
LL <
Q 0z
w zg
O W
0

?tl

` LL
m
>s 2? m
m N U N
?w
O
c
O

3
U li O
V
p
C C
C
. p o 0
m 0 C'

O O O
U U U
l?
3
a m
a N
5 m N
E
E

p r
a o 0 o O

O - m to co
Q 0 c
o c

m O

m

m aD ap

N
LO ao

CO
CO
`
U .a m 0
0
0

o

}
0? Q i

n
v
i
n to
to
n
v
L2
0 I
a ?
C C
p K
? . N
C_7 N
C? r
? r
?p
0
?8 =
o } of a
c c
$ c
O
'6 o 0
r 0
r 0
r
0 ,
0
22 V
0
a
E
z c
o v? O C
N r p
r ro
r v
N o
C?
0'a 0
V
Itl 0" 0 a 0 v
N
C O
s
U
I
O Y
a
_3
in
-
J w
r H M ?
- I
n 40
O ?
12?

JI
N
0
E x
m .?
o m
o
3
X
H
0
Z N n u.
a
p pO O
m
r t a`
m ? S S
D jp
? m w
° Q
c
n p
a
0
0
v
rn
O
N
c
U
4
k?
3 0>
• s

x
m
f
o 019
Q J
Z Q
O0?j
OZ
w .z g
J OW
•

E

m
U E
co
J
U
.o
co

U

?
co

?

m

g
N
N
V
E Y N
y m VJ co
C N0.
J

V

.? co

LL c ro
J m ..
) cq 0
U rn
ro
ow O
g c
0
W O
c
3
O
U) V m C

c
U LL O
x v
o
0
c
0

4•.
° m v
- 0
U 0
U 0
U 0
U
C
??

a CL N
my
E E E E
of
0 ? C
-
4
,
O
°
a

o .
1
to LO O

.-

Q ?
c
c
C
C
O 0
? C
O
in

m
iD
N
tp
)
OD
m
to
m
U •o d
y `
O o Q ?
(n 7
U
o Z b
O
Q ?

0

0 00 511,
_

Lo
U U Z76 >W w r
£
'
U
O o o to
N
c
S
m m o o
O V
a
E
(a m? c c
. z 2 C 6 O
, _
IL J UJfq W
r M a v1
:: ZL
4 ?
Y
LLl?
N
O
C C
- 16
? 0
m
N

F- t
?
C Q U
C ?
O
Z N LL
r y h o c N

a 2 0 ro o
Z
m
W
i N
V U r
a
7 C
) Co L O
!
-2 n

O
N
u
Q
3 0.
•
m az
O 0c)

J
?
a
>
>
a ? W
Q O
U Z

z5

•
E
Roil
U
`0
0
fd L_
w O
5
U
a
m
F
o E
J 0
? J
U cTv
E U
o
J (n (n
V z (? u?
z z vUi
a
J
_
0
c
c
0
U
Y
CO
Q
0
Z
c?
c
0
U
? r
nQ ; ?
t6//
3 a a N
a mN E E
_
C ?
IL c
m O
S' o
m o
O
to
°
0

:3
_ r-
"Q
0
m o CO
\
`
00
U .o >y ar o

C o
}
r
0 4 U ti
m
z +
o
a ?

M
j m
e x
ii
cn
U U g "
h
a
c
8 c
8 c
.2 c
i LQ
r-
y V
-
N C
CL C
°
C C

r

O

N
l0
?.+
y = N 3
SS
44 ? a C M
C p r 0)
X
w
U =
a J
? m
? N M
CV
O
E
O X

?

o m
m
F- y

z? LL

p C U L
-0 m o
06 CL ?Em
D U 'c ? O
?
y
N 2 2 ?
(
O
fq 0 O
0 d)
?, o a
a
0
0
v
a
S
N
C
O
Y
u
Q
? 4
•
?W- z
C?
Q<
OU Z
W 25
-' cOi w
•
E m m
U U U
.41 _Z"
g
N
N_
M a.
Y
r a •.?
(7
J
..> N? s
?0ui O Y ?..
c i
2 cc
W
tR ? `7 J
U w 0
c? x° c c c
m? O? o 0 0
0
d v m
w
0 0 0 0
U U U N
ro0
c
v
3 a N
a- mN E E oN
B w E
r? c 0 o e o
0q 2 E x
N (o
0 co
? (0(D
c G O (D To 0 in b
m - _I "' 2
UC y v tg
z ?g r (o za o
F M
?C Q
O
LL c?«y «
M N TTT
ta?ia?cnvi?? z
aam ?- m d
cc ?? o a o 40 °d10 CO
?
U Vc .?? 8 r r N r c
311?+ Q
Cl ?? H V L Z N = O t6
O y C
d ? ? ? y O
C
CL c
O
z g 0 0 o aai
?°8 m Qr5 0 c a
CL
cc =a
IL 0) w
o?
S
a
a
S
N
0
3 a

(Z
0F-
a >>J
W
po
Uz
og
u
m
E
co
J
r
rn
0
0
a
a a.
a c z
??
o U)
J
O {?
a? NV d
o w y? ! .-
o
6 a+
L
m 5i?
m w m
O LL O
O
c U O1+ 0 0
U
m O
c K m ? c
? ? QJQ
O O U1
io
U U v)
m ?
c
m mu m
C IL N
7 m N E N
O
? ? C O o 0
O p.f6
O
Q
13 >
c 0
m O (p (O 3
7 y m to
47
!T -5 0
CD 0
Z?m Z
Z 2:
c c a o D 0
00 00 0•? `? M r m ycn? z
occ o ,p O a vvU o
0 0 a
j Z2 ?y
d V
E 5 N O
?O?pp ? G C ? ? Q p
Z O U O N t - N U Q
0 o p CD
4
a` ?U -j fA W
N M N 40
o,
S
a
O
N
O
Y
V
O
Y
? oa
U
of z
o ao
Q J
W
Z >
?
Q C)Z
°W
•
LD

0
E U

?o
J _

(n
O
O
N
?
m'
rn c

Y Y
°C

N CL J
J

O c
c
v N
CA
?J
•
> ? M
CY °
E
V r
e N pG
0>
o 0
•

o
Z
c
O ,
40 e
'r
0
,
o
Q) ? g u"
c S` U K v o 0
V- 0 1.2 a L°
3 0 1 .,
m c c
0
• c
o
0
N
? U U cn
Q .+
x
W c
u
co it m

c
° N
a
m W

E

N
R/
z
c
N 0
?
o
? o
E
(
[ L
]
- co N N
O
a o
• o m

0 a
U
)
o v

d }

Y

}

}

h0-

v
ov
c a a 0 2 ? o c Q
? =
w 0 z 0) V o z z
LLZ
o
00
ID
m M r c
g
S
w 16 U O
O
0
too

8

8
C
r N C c
O
O 3 3
r? a
V rL
a

c m t
v
Z o V e F
y
? N N N
N O m Q
j A N c
=
a p
J 0%J w
d °U
N
o.
g
a
8
c
? g
•
Cz
o 0o
Z ¢_j
?a
wz?
OZ
z?
OW
CO
•
m
y
X
H
E
m
J
l0
J 0 U
_D
g
N
N
rn m •?
? Y
Y
r ?a
C7
3 w .-
m L L
y0
S.2
c PO
w O
m &0 .2
.2
o m
?d
W m m
9o
U o c o 0
0 'o
o m Q
v o o ul
c U U
t°
W
7 m N E E N
O
W c O o o E
o Q m "? 0 LO m
° c m CO v ;
V 0 I o
c z Q g ° mQ z
Z p Z ~ z
a ? LL'??tt$ o ? p d
c c ob a co pars o
o'o ?w C' M co t m mv? cw Z
00
ccc g o a o? cc? o
88. ? g r Tc ?? a
E a g m ° o
N C L t (A t•-•
Z d. o o N LO
•° m Q
Gl C? N 7 Q O ? LO
0 On z r
JUJU} W
r 04 0
h 1p
S
0
r
rn
S
N
U
0
D
12
l
•
M, Z
O ao
Q J
?Q
OU Z
Z3
J o
Lil
•
E
0
J
U) U)
8 _
N
N ?
a, a
u Z
Y N fn
IL z
c y
?a
J
w =m
w
W O
? W O '
c
o c
W
- A?
w72
c? U x ° c
V,' O
U co
L d m N N
it c
c O o
a E
a N m
_ p - o
a
Q .? o c
v
(n
0mo o
` a x v
U 'o o? O o
V } c
crn z Q
? ?Q S
w r-
o Z p Z~ Z
Q ?_ c n O O p N
T- 0
>> ?.ts
v ra?ia?i v a z
U U cn 2 i a s co _ t0 G)
V J U
c cc c 2 O ? 2 .C g S
2 'a W IL
C) O V N di S O c
E a (n 2
d t
m '0
Z C
C, U)
Q.o NL N .off v Q
o;Q0 =a
a_Iuj in w
t N l+f ? ?() i6
o?
S
a
O
N
0
0
3 oa
•
F
O 00
LL
Q
Q J
Q
w
0
? Zg
o?

•

K
H
E
E o
J
O
J
E
J U
c
V
to
!A R
t!1
0
0
N
N
m
'2
i I
O
Y
a
H
m
o ??

0
> N V r
p > L
ow O
° c ?

0

?
p
3
`T

0 :5 0
IL o

? 2 ?? c c c

°
p
v
o
o
0 QQ

U
U
U W
to

c
e
3 a. a N
.2 N E

0 E o
o

e N
o m
_
CL S
Ln o E
s x
`

cy,
o ? o
c ?
co CO
U

Q >> d

CF) O

p 7S

p Ix
c
f'
v
N
o z Q U
n
n d Q 4
m Z c Z ? LL

Q ?+ L L
y
t c a co
? .- o?S Z
'
p
U '
o
U 3
c
S

K
v
?yytn?ir
aaro -- °

c
c
c
0
0
0 w
'
cc? Q
? Z

U
U
0o

L
r
r
r D
v
vv
TGl T T Q
?
r2 p V O C
? y
E °
m (U? c
z
'
0
c L E

N

N CO COi •°`•
g Q
41)
(/J Q Q
•
Vj
y+ C d
m
c C P
p
m LO
N
c
a ?U
w S
3U
r m a W) ro
a?
0
0
v
O
N
u
c
h
V
O
o,
•
m 'w z
O aO
Q
z
w?
C)z
w zg
J OW
U)
•
m
H
N
J U
S
N
N
C
iL M
1 A
?e
>° a0
H
OW O
c 0
? c
O
w„ ?o
Kv c
?? U p C o 0
a O+m c°3
cis
J
C Z;
O m C C Q
CO) 9 O O uJ
U U (/j
x c
w
m `m m
d d
c H
m N E N
r E CD
N C o o w
O
p? O o E )(
a O 'O G - LD N O CL - O
c $ •c
o o y? CO 0 v
> m 4 • fD 'R X d
U o 0 C C O } } } H
o Z 4) V a c o o r z° 0 cn t LL
"0 a"
Z 2;
>> C M In O U O
K
UU ?' N pafOU C C d
C C O
E d O } O R U U L
O O CO 'D 47 ?M'A ??
I:e y N .?.. n m co ° ? _ 0 N
0
v 5 o
m £ w
m c C - ? n
z C 0 O O
N y
16 im CA
8 _$ z
a J U a w
r N l9 V to to
Vi
0
0
rn

N
u
O
_U
4
Y?
3 0,
•
u
Appendix M
Supplement to
Memorandum of Agreement
(Consultation Meeting Minutes)
0
•
Macon County Airport Authority
Consultation Meeting
March 12, 2009
Present: Parks Preston, FAA; Miles Gregory, Chairman of the Airport Authority;
Jack Horton, Macon County Manager; Eric Rysdon, W.K. Dickson; Paul Webb, TRC;
Steve Clagett, SHPO; Russell Townsend, EBCI; Tyler Howe, EBCI; Joe Collins, AA
Legal Counsel; Teresa McDowell, AA Clerk; and Lisa Favors, FAA; and Dana Perkins,
FAA.
By Telephone Conference: Lisa Stopp, UKPTHPO; and Kim Amao, FAA Legal
Counsel, Southern Region.
Mr. Preston starts the meeting by requesting clarification from Russell Townsend
regarding the procedure for reporting and consultation regarding any human remains
found during data recovery at the Macon County Airport, in the Runway Extension
• Project area. Mr. Preston suggests that he will make a formal request for consultation
within 24 hours of any human remains being found, with Mr. Townsend as the ECBI
representative to respond within 48 hours. Mr. Preston states that he will make his phone
number available in the e-mail, and will ask interested parties including Steve Clagett,
SHPO, Russell Townsend, EBCI, Lisa Stopp, UKPTHOP, and the Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma to respond to the e-mail by phone. Mr. Townsend suggests that he include an
invitation to consult within his e-mail, and state an available time convenient to Mr.
Preston for the consult. Mr. Townsend states that there is nothing in the MOA that states
that consultation with all parties take place at the same time.
Mr. Webb provides an update of the project findings to Ms. Stopp. Mr. Webb reports that
they have completed mechanized excavation of 22,000 square feet of the estimated
31,000 square feet necessary to satisfy the MOA, and that they are currently working in
the five (5) blocks specified in the scope of work. They are also working within a buffer
area which is identified as area 156. Until now, Mr. Webb states that they have
uncovered Cherokee materials in the blocks as well as materials extending outside of the
blocks in some areas. He also states that they have found an intact structure basis, post
patterns, and 17 likely graves, with human remains found in two (2) of those. The human
remains were found underneath a filter fabric installed during the 2000 excavation in one
instance, and a previously unreported tooth was found in an adjacent area. He also states
that there are woodland structure patterns present. He states that he hopes to complete
the additional 1.25 acres specified in the scope of work as soon as possible. Ms. Stopp
questions why any previously discovered human remains were disturbed again. Mr.
• Webb states that the remains have been re-exposed and recovered. He also states that
r 1
L_J
Macon County Airport Authority
Consultation Meeting-3-12-09
Page Two
upon observation of the previously unreported tooth, the area was recovered, with
nothing being displaced or removed. Mr. Webb also states that he cannot rule out
additional discoveries at this time. Mr. Webb states that there are approximately six (6)
to eight (8) weeks of work yet to be done.
Ms. Stopp expresses concern that her agency was not notified when the actual data
recovery work was started. Mr. Preston states that he will review the MOA, and will call
her to discuss these concerns. Ms. Stopp also expresses a desire that they be "kept in the
loop" with how things are progressing, and that they want to contribute during this
process. Mr. Clagett states that the weekly updates provided by the archeologists contain
much information which is both informative and detailed, and that these reports will be
provided to her. He also states that he will be happy to assist as needed by Ms. Stopp.
Mr. Preston asks Mr. Townsend to discuss the procedures regarding the remains in the
future. Mr. Townsend states that the EBCI wants all remains left undisturbed in the place
where they are found. Mr. Webb states that if any remains are uncovered, they will
• immediately recover and if the use of machinery exposes any remains, they will
immediately rebury in the area in which they were found.
Ms. Stopp asks if they are reburied in the area in which they are found, will that
constitute a defined environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Preston states that it will be
marked as an environmentally sensitive area, but will not be defined as such.
The MOA states that all work is to stop within a 50 feet area upon encountering a clearly
defined burial pit, with remains, but Mr. Webb states he would like to continue working
in the surrounding area while a decision is made regarding the remains. Mr. Townsend
and Ms. Stopp agree that this will be permitted.
Mr. Webb states that although the final areas for the remainder of the stripping are to be
determined by the contractor, he would welcome the tribes' input. Ms. Stopp states that
any recovery should be as non-invasive as possible, and that out of the five (5) sites
noted, that the emphasis should be on the areas where the most material can be found.
Ms. Stopp also states that they are watching the progress of this project very closely, and
suggests that a better line of communication be utilized by all parties.
Mr. Preston asks that the reburial procedures be discussed. The reburial procedure
involves re-interring the remains currently stored at the SHPO office. He asks who will
be the designated archeologist who will travel with the remains from Raleigh to Franklin.
Mr. Townsend responds that someone from his office will be available to accompany the
remains. In connection with the burial site, Tyler Howe informs Ms. Stopp that he chose
the re-burial site, which has good sight within the recovery area, and Ms. Stopp expresses
satisfaction with the site.
• Ms. Stopp expresses interest in visiting the site, accompanied by Dr. Richard Allen. The
travel expenses incurred by them will be the responsibility of the Macon County Airport
• Macon County Airport Authority
Consultation Meeting-3-12-2009
Page Three
Authority. Chairman Gregory states that travel arrangements will be handled in the way
that is most convenient for Ms. Stopp and Dr. Allen. Mr. Townsend states that federal
per diem is recognized by the Tribe.
To recap, Mr. Preston states that upon the finding of human remains, he will contact the
required parties by e-mail within 24 hours. Within the body of this e-mail will be stated a
convenient time for Mr. Preston to consult with the parties, with the hopes that everyone
can be available at that time. He will also provide a contact number. It is not necessary
that all parties consult at the same time. At that point, Mr. Townsend assured Mr.
Preston that either he or Tyler Howe will be available for consultation.
r?
U
0
0 Consultation Meeting - Friday, March 13, 2009
Participants: Paul Webb, TRC
Russ Townsend, EBCI THPO
Lisa Stopp, UKB THPO
Dr. Richard Allen, CNO THPO
Parks Preston, FAA
The following points were discussed:
Paul Webb reviewed the work completed to date. An email was sent by Paul on
3/13/2009 at 12:43 PM giving an overview of the data recovery effort. The
disposition of the two known graves was discussed. There has been no
exploration of grave features and no future investigation will occur. The two
burial sites will remain in place.
2. Procedures for future discoveries were discussed. Parks began by outlining Steve
Claggett's proposal to, "Identify, replace any displaced bone, cover with soil/filter
cloth (maybe to include metal/rebar to permit precise location later), and work can
continue around this location. Russ stated that it sounded o.k. and asked the
others for comment. No objections. A rebar grate will be placed over each burial
site before backfilling or construction. Notification to the consulting parties will
• take place through TRC's weekly updates. Lisa asked for detailed numbers in the
weekly update.
3. The reburial schedule was discussed in conjunction with a site visit for
representatives of the three Tribes. Parks stated that Macon County has agreed to
cover the travel expenses and federal per diem rates would apply. Parks agreed to
see if Macon County could book the flights directly. Tribal representatives will
coordinate dates and respond to FAA or Macon County. FAA will coordinate
with Macon County to discuss reimbursement procedures.
4. Parks stated that archaeological monitoring is required during the construction
phase and suggested TRC continue in that capacity. No objection. Russ stated
that he wanted to make sure adequate staff was on-site to provide proper
coverage. A scope of work will be circulated for comment to all three Tribes.
5. Dr. Allen wanted to be sure that he is included in all correspondence.
6. Dr. Allen questioned the public visit planned at the site. FAA will obtain details
regarding the public visits and coordinate with Tribal representatives. Details will
include: Dates/hours, access, protective measures, security, etc.
0
r1
u
R3-osC) t va
Appendix N
0
Revised Alternatives Analysis

February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
Revised October 2009 Runway Extension Project
Alternatives Analysis
• Alternative Analysis
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina
Various alternatives were investigated for the proposed runway extension project at the
Macon County Airport. The following includes descriptions of options considered during
the design process of this project. Additionally, drawings have been included to illustrate
the alternatives.
Runway Extension Alternatives:
Several alternatives were considered for a runway extension of 5,000 feet at the Macon
County Airport. In all cases, with the exception of the "No-Build" Scenario, Runway Safety
Area (RSA) improvements are included either as part of a proposed runway extension or as
an upgrade of the existing RSA to conform to FAA standards. The RSA is the area beyond
the runway utilized for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an
excursion from the runway. Typically, the RSA includes pockets of undeveloped land in
order to maintain clear approaches to the airport. Inclusion of the RSA improvements in
the scenarios is indicative of the Federal requirement to address deficient safety areas.
Alternative A: Extending Runway 7 west 600 feet (preferred)
is Alternative A includes extending the existing 4,400 ft. runway and taxiway by 600
feet west of Runway 7 and to construct a Runway Safety Area (RSA) to FAA
standards. This alternative is preferred because there are several advantages
including:
• Extending runway within existing airport property boundaries with no
additional land acquisition required;
• Development of this area would not involve extensive clearing and
grubbing of forested habitat. Existing extension area consists of grass-
covered pastureland;
• Available mitigation for environmental and archaeological impacts; and
• Project may be completed in reasonable time frame with reasonable
financial goals.
This alternative includes constructing approximately 150 linear feet of new stream
channel to divert upstream hydrology from lotla Branch and Wetland 1 into 560
feet of 72 inch and 124 feet of double 60 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that
will tie into the existing double 60 inch RCP culvert under Airport Road and outlet
into lotla Creek south of the runway.
The environmental concerns associated with this alternative include unavoidable
impacts to 748.86 linear feet of lotla Branch and 0.17 acre of adjacent wetlands
• (Wetlands 1, 2, and 3), potential downstream impacts to threatened and or
endangered species through sedimentation pollution, and disturbances to known
archaeological features (Site 31MA77).
-1-
February 2009 Macon County Airport Authority
Revised October 2009 Runway Extension Project
Alternatives Analysis
• Stream and wetland impacts are currently proposed to be mitigated through
payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) In-Lieu
of Fee Fund at a 2:1 ratio. The NCEEP has approved the Airport Authority's request
for mitigation until February 26, 2010.
During construction of the project, best management practices will be implemented
in order to avoid and minimize erosion and sedimentation to surface waters of lotla
Creek which could potentially impact threatened and endangered species
downstream. As a result, all proposed pipes are designed to be installed at a flatter
slope than the existing roadway culvert in order to reduce water velocities.
Increased runoff generated from this project will be controlled using underground
detention located in the infield between the runway and taxiway safety areas. Post
construction measures will include periodic sweeping of the new airport pavement
to reduce suspended solids prior to reaching the grass shoulders. Grass swales and
filter strips will be installed in grading areas to facilitate sediment attenuation and
pollutant removal prior to any stormwater discharge off airport property.
Archaeological impacts are currently being addressed through an ongoing data
recovery plan. The data recovery plan includes stripping and mapping of 100% of
runway extension footprint. The survey work includes stripping the entire footprint
of the proposed runway extension area of topsoil. Once this has been completed all
features identified during the stripping will be mapped, left in place, and covered
up with the removed topsoil or the runway extension fill depending on the timing.
This process will preserve features and or artifacts found in the footprint and will
• eliminate potential disturbances from the runway extension project. Once the
project is completed, the features or artifacts identified will be encapsulated
underneath the runway extension. The goal of the data recovery plan is to describe
the people who were buried at this site, to characterize and explain any skeletal
traits, pathologies or anomalies of the people and to provide information
concerning the lifestyles and histories of the people.
Although, environmental impacts are unavoidable, these impacts will be
appropriately mitigated. Alternative A meets the projects goals. Completion of this
alternative will increase the airport infrastructure allowing safer access to the region.
Alternative B: Extending Runway 25 to the east 600 feet. (opposite end)
Alternative B includes extending Runway 7/ 25 to the east 600 feet. Similar to
Alternative A, Alternative B would have archaeological impacts and impacts to lotla
Creek; however the most significant constraint for this alternative is the proximity to
Lyle Knob Mountain Range. A portion of Lyle Knob Mountain Range falls within
four nautical miles of the departure end of Runway 25. If the runway is extended in
this direction, this mountainous terrain would be included in the approach surface,
displacing the runway threshold, and reducing the utility and usefulness of the
airport.
This alternative was finally ruled out by the designers due to the significant amount
of property that would need to be acquired. It has been estimated that
• approximately 20 acres of residential property would need to purchase for the
physical construction of the runway safety area.
-2-
February 2009
Revised October 2009
r?
?J
Macon County Airport Authority
Runway Extension Project
Alternatives Analysis
Alternative C: Extending both ends of the Runway by 300 feet.
This alternative includes extending each end of the runway 300 feet to achieve the
total 5,000 feet needed to increase access and safety. Since each end would be
extended, completely new extended Runway Safety areas would be constructed as
part of the project to meet FAA safety requirements. As with the other alternatives,
this course of action raises concern regarding terrain, additional archaeological
testing, placement of culverts, and property acquisition.
Alternative D: Only extending RSA at both runway ends without lengthening of
runway pavement.
This would increase each extended RSA's length to 300 feet, consistent with FAA's
standards for a B-II Airport Reference code. While this alternative would fulfill the
Runway Safety Area improvement aspects of the Airport's purpose and need, it does
not provided the additional departure and stopping distances requirements for the
design aircraft at the Macon County Airport.
Alternative E: No action
• If no action is taken, the Macon County Airport will be unable to keep up with
current FAA safety recommendations.
Conclusions for Runway Extension Alternatives
Based on this review, it was determined that no alternative is without impacts. Many of
these alternatives raised concerns regarding significant wetland and stream impacts,
mountainous terrain, additional archaeological testing, property acquisition, and not
meeting additional departure and stopping distance requirements. The proposed project
location (Alternative A) was selected based on the least amount of adverse impacts while
meeting the overall project goals. Although the proposed runway extension location will
have unavoidable impacts to lotla Branch, wetlands, and archaeology; these impacts are
the least extensive and mitigation is available.
•
-3-
w
Q 0
z o wL
O zQ Q ?? so
(n V) or go
W F- O S=1
C:) LLI
X 0 bid
LLJ
Z p () ?aa
w Q = w -9
Q Z W D a gds
X O Z Q :j
o
Q Q V) m
+ . a' ?f Z Q of Z'
X W Z ° O
?= Q X Z W = N
F- >- W W Z w° <ZLLJ %? ° Q Q Q Z w WFW - > XZ Y"
W W -1 af X Z IiJ
®? Q Z I W D Y
Q Q U O}
<
i• W' ° U Q a
d 2 Q? z?`
Q W W O
U) Ll- LA- Z L)
LLI F- F--
U)
N Z Q=} r (? ~ Z
Z Q Q z w w oa 4
ink N Z Z N O J j
1ti X J Q? ? X R' Q (? ?
W Q 3 of of W W ? s 3
Ag \ Oil"
F LLI
O \ W
p \ CE
i
?'j I? T \ J ? I I
V ° LLJ?
LLJ
I
a sE
I
I
I
I I
r [ 0
Iz
i
Iz
F i -
w
s?
Lo I _ ?' ? I r
X L
I°o
Q
I ??/ II
I Jai
--- N
----- ham-
I! C) O o
o r Q `°
_ I" Of
ii
I
K I 0
o
r Y w
J
W
o O U
I O
I I I ?.
i
QQZZ? I ?it O
I Ir
3ZQof I I Cif
X
ZHOQ? I I 1?7ii 40
zzQ I I:
J r w
Q3WOO I _
Z a?
. Jl?
0 0 0
w
Q N
ff; Z m LLI LL.
O Z X
F- m O Q Q S?g -S
(n w U) Sn??
w QO w Q F- O> w 1
Qw> ?' = p w 3 '
< F- x Of F-
0 C1 Z xX w w C] H ass
w C) cr
Q Q LLI / Q Q Z w Q ? LLI 933
F-
F-
Z w LOS O¢ gds
NmQ CC O NZ ate? ?? V) U) D Of
+ o Z Q ?(r rZ< a
w w
--- LLJ CL 0 O F -
`? ? X
LLI
z f ~ O W Z
Z Z Q W o
zz z w J w fr wX mow: Y
C) 0 a Z3? ?r
a m > w [if
>- _
f/ I r j m O Q Q 3 > Q Q of
LLI
< 0 z
CC 0 a s
H W Q z Q ,,, w
H
Q 'd z M F F- O Z Z O _j -J
Z w X J Q w D X D 2 Q U
af >- H w Q d CC w x a-
?
?' s 7
H Q W L
Q z?
w
\ C) I 1
e \? a C) I 1J
? o z I '1
Li
W
I e
I
I ?-
I
I3 ?, L
i0 l
x
46
I? a -
:
w
---
M I LO
o
f ? I v/
I 0 /
i
o
l
t o i z co CC)
Q
m
Q
? ? L w
Y J
LLJ
CL ui O U
Q
o
Iti
0 0 0
w
af
0
O ly- _ z U z W Ii
F- O U O Q af
LL. H sg
Q O , Z CO O a"1 8mo
F- _ LL.
O O Z xx = w a-, F- Lj Z N mg os
??? ? O? ° oQo
2 988
Q Q (n U O F zn
t/
~ z Q Qw ? Z C-) Z
w w
w O
X
Q ? x Qw m V)
of
F- C)
F- w
f d r w z z 0 a w Z
Q CY Q Z Q w F- w >- Y
®T=' :? Q Z Q r w ix z w x
Q f.
Q w Of C) U it
3 Q m >- LLI } x z 3L,
//` I L N c?QO z v o? O? ~ U° ?
k ?FN a Q X Q w z Q
rl I Q H w >- (n (n r > ~
Of O Z
LLI x Z Z V) V) X w Q Z Q w z w a 4
f a z o z z o w D?f?
D x w Q Q' D x m x
-- \r? w Q 3 rl w Q z
LLJ
LLJ
pit I ? U a.;
V Q
o o Z y
O W
- Ku -
LLJ
?a
f
i
i
I
I? °
?3) T
Iz
41.
rF r I ;n ?-?-
J
o
o
1
o
o
N
I O
M I' _ o
I I; U O O
I I z O CO
Q CO
l' m II
I,' Q
!. I 0
I o
W
Y J
N I O W O Q
1 0-
Of O
cn
I I? U cn
I I I Q
F!
I I I /';
II o
40 o
I I
• 0 0
w
w
J
?o
V) 0
xX ?1 ? ~ s
< w
z r ° -, saa
U z 8gs
Z W W F- F- Z:)
o Q
Q ? ° Q
3
W 00 z > EL _
H
.. ,,._R_ ? F- F- a ry N O
H lit Z z Z Z Q W o
p Q Q W ZD I.- Y
-1 Lj Of x
r Q Q Q p o>- Q
C) LLJ
p U Q af
?'
Ih H Imo- S W z ?` Q z
z
z (A W 11 ~
LLLJ V) o- ? >- W U < Of
II II Z Of} z Q of > LIJ
0?
Of Q W ? a >?
y= F- z ? z o a<
f X Q =) X =) [Z'
1 \ 110
W
\ ?
is I \ a ? ? ;_ I
.oo \ o Z I i
\ W
-, CD 1 k ;,
LIJ
I ?.
0
3 ?.
Iz `
ID
af
10 -,y,
z
IF-
L
Lx
(?es?) I I ?; _ ter;
?£ X30 • I ? ? ? l- ri ® L
IX??' B
10
1
I ,JI o
U ® O O
z O CO
< (o
I I; II
I', I Y W
J
I' w O v
I I II? U (n
I I I, 0
I I I ?,
I I I I O
o
I
I ,;7;
a 0 0
0 Appendix Q
FAA ADVISORY CIRCULARS
0
q3-o,sot Va.
0
AC 150/5300-13 CHG 10
Declared Distances. The distances the airport owner.
* lares available for the airplane's takeoff run, takeoff
stance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing distance
requirements. The distances are:
Takeoff run available (TORA). The runway
length declared available and suitable for the ground run of
an airplane taking off,
'T'akeoff distance available (TODA). The
TORA plus'the length of any remaining runway or clearway
(CWY) beyond the far end of the TORA;
NOTE: The full length of TODA may not be usable for all
takeoffs because of obstacles in the departure area. The
usable TODA length is aircraft performance dependent
and, as such, must be determined by the aircraft operator
before each takeoff and requires knowledge of the location
of each controlling obstacle in the departure area,
Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA). The
runway plus stopway (SWY) length declared available and
suitable for the acceleration and deceleration of an airplane
aborting a takeoff; and
Landing distance available (LDA). The runway
length declared available and suitable for a landing airplane.
Fixed By Function NAYAID. An air navigation aid
OVAID) that must be positioned in a particular location in
order to provide an essential benefit for civil aviation is fixed
by function. Exceptions are:
a. Equipment shelters, junction boxes,
transformers, and other appurtenances that support a fixed by
function NAVAID are not fixed by function unless operational
requirements require them to be located in close proximity to
the NAYAID.
b. Some NAVAIDs, such as localizers, can
provide beneficial performance even when they are not located
at their optimal location. These NAVAIDS are not fixed by
function.
Frangible NAYAID. A navigational aid (NAVAID)
which retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to a
designated maximum load, but on impact from a greater load,
breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the
mininnum hazard to aircraft. The term NAVAID includes
electrical and visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and
associated supporting equipment.
Hazard to Air Navigation. An object which, as a
result of an aeronautical study, the FAA determines will have a
substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of
Sri., le airspace by aircraft, operation of air navigation
s, or existing or potential airport capacity.
2
9/29/06
Large Airplane. An airplane of more than
12,500 pounds (5 700 kg) maximum certificated takeoff
weight.
Low Impact Resistant Supports (LIRS). Supports
designed to resist operational and environmental static loads
and fail when subjected to a shock load such as that from a
colliding aircraft.
Object. Includes, but is not limited to above ground
structures, NAVAIDs, people, equipment, vehicles, natural
growth, terrain, and parked aircraft.
Object Free Area (OFA). An area on the ground
centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided
to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area
free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the
OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering
purposes.
Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS). An inclined
obstacle evaluation surface associated with a glidepath. The
separation between this surface and the glidepath angle at any
given distance from GPI defines the MINIMUM required
obstruction clearance at that point.
Obstacle Free Zone (Ol7). The OFZ is the airspace
below 150 feet (45 m) above the established airport elevation
and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is
required to be clear of all objects, except for frangible visual
NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their
function, in order to provide clearance protection for aircraft
landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed
approaches. The OFZ is sub-divided as follows:
Runway OFZ. The airspace above a surface
centered on the runway centerline.
Inner-approach OFZ The airspace above a
surface centered on the extended runway centerline, It applies
to runways with an approach lighting system.
Inner-transitional OFZ. The airspace above the
surfaces located on the outer edges of the runway OFZ and the
inner-approach OFZ. It applies to runways with approach
visibility minimums lower than 3/4-statute mile (1200 m).
Obstruction to Air Navigation. An object of greater
height than any of the heights or surfaces presented in Subpart
C of Code of Federal Regulation (14 CPR), Part 77.
(Obstructions to air navigation are presumed to be hazards to
air navigation until an FAA study has determined otherwise.)
Precision Approach Category I (CAT 1) Runway. A
runway with an instrument approach procedure which provides
for approaches to a decision height (DH) of not less than
200 feet (60 in) and visibility of not less than 1/2 mile (800 in)
or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800 with
operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights).
Chap I
AC 150/5300-13 CHG 8
d. Threshold Displacement. Incremental
0 provements that involve the displacement of a landing
eshold need to be carefully planned so that they do not
ncur unnecessary costs or create situations that could
compromise operational safety.
(1) Runway thresholds that are displaced
temporarily pending the planned relocation of objects (such
as Localizer antennas) should consider the extra costs
associated with re-arranging the runway lights, approach
lights and navigational aids.
(2) The displacement of a threshold that
does not also include relocation of the lead-in taxiway can
create an undesirable and confusing operating environment
for the pilot. (See paragraph 204.)
e. Allowance for Navigational Aids. The RSA
is intended to enhance the margin of safety for landing or
departing aircraft. Accordingly, the design of an RSA must
account for navigational aids that might impact the
effectiveness of the RSA:
(1) RSA grades sometimes require approach
lights to be mounted on massive towers that could create a
hazard for aircraft. Therefore, consider any practicable
RSA construction to a less demanding grade than the
standard grade to avoid the need for massive structures.
(2) Instrument landing system (ILS) facilities
ide slopes and localizers) are not usually required to be
40cated inside the RSA. However, they do require a graded
area around the antenna. (See chapter 6 for more
information on the siting of ILS facilities.) RSA
construction that ends abruptly in a precipitous drop-off can
result in design proposals where the facility is located
inside the RSA. Therefore, consider any practicable RSA
construction beyond the standard dimensions that could
accommodate ILS facilities if and when they are installed.
306. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OM. The OFZ
clearing standard precludes taxiing and parked airplanes
and object penetrations, except for frangible visual
NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of
their function. The runway OFZ and, when applicable, the
precision OFZ, the inner-approach OFZ, and the inner-
transitional OFZ comprise the obstacle free zone (OFZ).
Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5,and 3-6 show the OFZ.
a. Runway OFZ (ROFZ). The runway OFZ is a
defined volume of airspace centered above the runway
centerline. The runway OFZ is the airspace above a surface
whose elevation at any point is the same as the elevation of
the nearest point on the runway centerline. The runway
OFZ extends 200 feet (60 m) beyond each end of the
runway. Its width is as follows:
(1) For runways serving small airplanes
lusively:
9/30/04
(a) 300 feet (90 m) for runways with
lower than 3/4-statute mile (1200 m) approach visibility
minimums.
(b) 250 feet (75 m) for other
runways serving small airplanes with approach speeds of
50 knots or more.
(c) 120 feet (36 m) for other
runways serving small airplanes with approach speeds of
less than 50 knots.
(2) For runways serving large airplanes,
400 feet (120 m).
b. Inner-approach OFZ. The inner-approach
OFZ is a defined volume of airspace centered on the
approach area. It applies only to runways with an approach
lighting system. The inner-approach OFZ begins 200 feet
(60 m) from the runway threshold at the same elevation as
the runway threshold and extends 200 feet (60 m) beyond
the last light unit in the approach lighting system. Its width
is the same as the runway OFZ and rises at a slope of
50 (horizontal) to I (vertical) from its beginning.
C. Inner-transitional OFZ. The inner-
transitional OFZ is a defined volume of airspace along the
sides of the runway OFZ and inner-approach OFZ. It
applies only to runways with lower than 3/4-statute mile
(1200 m) approach visibility minimums.
(1) For runways serving small airplanes
exclusively, the inner-transitional OFZ slopes 3 (horizontal)
to 1 (vertical) out from the edges of the runway OFZ and
inner-approach OFZ to a height of 150 feet (45 m) above
the established airport elevation.
(2) For runways serving large airplanes,
separate inner-transitional OFZ criteria apply for Category
(CAT) I and CAT II/III runways.
(a) For CAT I runways, the inner-
transitional OFZ begins at the edges of the runway OFZ
and inner-approach OFZ, then rises vertically for a height
"H", and then slopes 6 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) out to a
height of 150 feet (45 in) above the established airport
elevation.
1) In U.S. customary units,
Hk,, = 61 - 0.094(5,,,) - 0.003(B,,).
2) In SI units,
K.- = 18.4 - 0.094(S.., ) - 0.003(E„m,rs).
3) S is equal to the most
demanding wingspan of the airplanes using the runway and
E is equal to the runway threshold elevation above sea level.
(b) For CAT 11/III runways, the inner-
transitional OFZ begins at the edges of the runway OFZ
and inner-approach OFZ, then rises vertically for a height
"H", then slopes 5 (horizontal) to I (vertical) out to a
22 Chap 3
LJ
0
•
9/30/04
distance "Y" from runway centerline, and then slopes
6 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) out to a height of 150 feet
(45 in) above the established airport elevation.
1) In U.S. customary units,
R. = 53 - 0.13(9,kn) - 0.0022(Er.) and distance
Yr,,, = 440 + 1.08(SRn) - 0.024(Ekn).
2) In SI units,
H,„n,„ = 16 - 0,13(S.n )- 0.0022(E,,,_) and distance
Y?n? = 132 + 1.08(Smnn,) - 0.024(E,,,n,, ).
3) S is equal to the most
demanding wingspan of the airplanes using the runway and
E is equal to the runway threshold elevation above sea
level. Beyond the distance "Y" from runway centerline the
inner-transitional CAT II/III OFZ surface is identical to that
for the CAT I OFZ.
d. Precision OFZ. The Precision Obstacle
Free Zone (POFZ) is defined as a volume'of airspace above
an area beginning at the runway threshold, at the threshold
elevation, and centered on the extended runway centerline,
200 feet (60m) long by 800 feet (240m) wide. See figure 3-
6.
The surface is in. effect only when all of the following
operational conditions are met:
(1) Vertically guided approach
(2) Reported ceiling below 250 feet and/or
visibility less than % statute mile (or RVR
below 4000 feet)
(3) An aircraft on final approach within two (2)
miles of the runway threshold.
When the POFZ is in effect, a wing of an aircraft holding
on a taxiway waiting for runway clearance may penetrate
the POFZ; however neither the fuselage nor the tail may
infringe on the POFZ.
The POFZ is applicable at all runway ends including
displaced thresholds.
Note: POFZ takes effect no later than January 1, 2007 for
all runway ends at which it applies.
307. OBJECT FREE AREA. The runway object free
area (OFA) is centered on the runway centerline. The
runway OFA clearing standard requires clearing the OFA
of above ground objects protruding above the runway
safety area edge elevation. Except where precluded by
other clearing standards, it is acceptable to place objects
that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or
aircraft ground maneuvering purposes and to taxi and hold
aircraft in the OFA. Objects non-essential for air
navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes are not
to be placed in the OFA. This includes parked airplanes
Chap 3
AC 150/5300-13 CHG 8
and agricultural operations. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3
specify the standard dimensions of the runway OFA.
Extension of the OFA beyond the standard length to the
maximum extent feasible is encouraged. See figure 2-3.
308. CLEARWAY STANDARDS. The clearway (See
figure 3-7) is a clearly defined area connected to and
extending beyond the runway end available for completion
of the takeoff operation of turbine-powered airplanes. A
clearway increases the allowable airplane operating takeoff
weight without increasing runway length.
a. Dimensions. The clearway must be at least
500 feet (150 m) wide centered on the runway centerline.
The practical limit for clearway length is 1,000 feet (300 m).
b. Clearway Plane Slope. The clearway plane
slopes upward with a slope not greater than 1.25 percent.
C. Cle in . Except for threshold lights no
higher than 26 inches (66 cm) and located off the runway
sides, no object or terrain may protrude through the
clearway plane. The area over which the clearway lies need
not be suitable for stopping aircraft in the event of an
aborted takeoff.
d. Control. An airport owner interested in
providing a clearway should be aware of the requirement
that the clearway be under its control, although not
necessarily by direct ownership. The purpose of such
control is to ensure that no fixed or movable object
penetrates the clearway plane during a takeoff operation.
e. Notification. When a clearway is provided,
the clearway length and the declared distances, as specified
in appendix 14, paragraph 7, shall be provided in the
Airport/Facility Directory (and in the Aeronautical
Information Publication (AIP), for international airports)
for each operational direction.
309. STOPWAY STANDARDS. A stopway is an area
beyond the takeoff runway, centered on the extended
runway centerline, and designated by the airport owner for
use in decelerating an airplane during an aborted takeoff. It
must be at least as wide as the runway and able to support
an airplane during an aborted takeoff without causing
structural damage to the airplane. Their limited use and
high construction cost, when compared to a full-strength
runway that is usable in both directions, makes their
construction less cost effective. See figure 3-8. When a
stopway is provided, the stopway length and the declared
distances, as specified in appendix 14, paragraph 7, shall be
provided in the Airport/Facility Directory (and in the
Aeronautical Information Publication for international
airports) for each operational direction.
23
1/3/08
AC 150/5300-13 CHG 12
Table 3-1. Runway design standards for aircraft approach category A & B visual runways and runways with not
lower than 3/4-statute mile (1,200 in) approach visibility minimums
•
•
(Refer also to Appendix 16 for the establishment of new approaches)

ITEM DIM AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP
12/ I II III IV
Runway Length A - Refer to paragraph 3 01 -
Runway Width B 60 ft 60 ft 75 ft 100 ft 150 ft
18 in 18m 23m 30m 45m
Runway Shoulder Width loft loft loft 20 ft 25 ft
3m 3m 3m 6m 7.5 in
Runway Blast Pad Width 80 ft 80 ft 95 ft 140 ft 200 ft
24 in 24 m 29 in 42 in 60 in
Runway Blast Pad Length 60 ft 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft 200 ft
18m 30m 45 in 60m 60 in
Runway Safety Area Width C 120 ft 120 ft 150 ft 300 ft 500 ft
36 in 36m 45 in 90 m 150 in
Runway Safety Area 240 ft 240 ft 300 ft 600 ft 600 ft
Length Prior to Landing
Threshold 3/,4/ 72 m 72 in 90 in 180 in 180 in
Runway Safety Area Length P 240 ft 240 ft 300 ft 600 ft 1,000 ft
Beyond RW End 3/, 4/
72 m 72 in 90M 180 m 300 in
Obstacle Free Zone Width
and Length -Refer to paragraph 30 6 -
Runway Object Free Area Q 250 ft 400 ft 500 ft 800 ft 800 ft
Width
75 in 120 in 150 in 240 m 240 in
Runway Object Free Area R 240 ft 240 ft 300 ft 600 ft 1,000 ft
Length Beyond RW End 5/
72m 72m 90m 180 in 300m
I/ Letters correspond to the dimensions on figures 2-1 and 2-3. Use this table only when both ends of the runway
provide not lower than'/,-statute mile approach visibility minimums.
2/ These dimensional standards pertain to facilities for small airplanes exclusively.
3/ The runway safety area (RSA) length begins at each runway end when a stopway is not provided. When a stopway is
provided, the length begins at the stopway end.
4/ The standard RSA length beyond the runway end may be reduced to the standard RSA length prior to landing
threshold if a standard Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) is provided. To qualify for this reduction,
the EMAS installation must provide the ability to stop the critical aircraft exiting the end of the runway at 70 knots,
and the runway must provide either instrument or visual vertical guidance for approaches in the opposite direction.
See AC 150/5220-22.
0 51 The runway object free area length beyond the end of the runway never exceeds the standard RSA length beyond the
runway end as provided by note 4 above.
Chap 3
25
8/28/2007
AC 150/5200-33B
SECTION 1.
GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS
ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS.
1-1. INTRODUCTION. When considering proposed land uses, airport operators,
local planners, and developers must take into account whether the proposed land uses,
including new development projects, will increase wildlife hazards. Land-use practices
that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly
increase the potential for wildlife strikes.
The FAA recommends the minimum separation criteria outlined below for land-use
practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of airports. Please note that FAA
criteria include land uses that cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or
across the airport's approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). (See
the discussion of the synergistic effects of surrounding land uses in Section 2-8 of this
AC.)
The basis for the separation criteria contained in this section can be found in existing
FAA regulations. The separation distances are based on (1) flight patterns of piston-
powered aircraft and turbine-powered aircraft, (2) the altitude at which most strikes
happen (78 percent occur under 1,000 feet and 90 percent occur under 3,000 feet
above ground level), and (3) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
• recommendations.
1-2. AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports that do not sell
Jet-A fuel normally serve piston-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent
requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of
5,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in
Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft
movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport's AOA and the
hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance measured from
the nearest aircraft operations areas.
1-3. AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports selling Jet-A
fuel normally serve turbine-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent
requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of
10,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in
Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft
movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport's AOA and the
hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance from the nearest
aircraft movement areas.
1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE.
For all airports, the FAA recommends a distance of 5 statute miles between the farthest
edge of the airport's AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could
• cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.
1
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
.7
•
•
Figure 1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated,
or mitigated.
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W ?? W W W ? W W ?? W W W W W W
W W
W I W ? - ?. W W W ? W ?,? W W? ? W W W W
f. W W
WW?WWWI WWW ? WWW?W WWI ? WW W WW
W ?I? IWW ?yW yyW
?W
W W I W W ? ?W
? W W I W ? W W W?? W W W? W W W
W W I W W I W W? W W ? W
?! W IW W W? W ? WW WW
W I W W I W W 1 ? I W
W ?{ W ly ? ? I W W J W
W IW WI ? WWI W IW
W .? W w W W IW W WI W W
W W IW W I W W WIW W IW W
P-N
W WI W w W W W WI W W
W W IW W `W W W L W IW W
W? W W W I WI
W W W W W\ W W' W W PERIMETER A W W W W W W W W W W
W W ?W W ??. W W ? W I W W W
W ?W W? W W I W WI W W
WW WWWW\W W ?W WW W .} W IW W
\W W W\ W W W W W W W W I W W I W W
.WW WWW??WW W\WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ? W IWW W\
W W W ?W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ?.
W W W W W W W W W W W W j pERIMET'ER ? W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
PERIMETER A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 5,000
feet from the nearest air operations area.
PERIMETER B: For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be
10,000 feet from the nearest air operations area.
PERIMETER C: 5-mile range to protect approach, departure and circling airspace.
2