20070168 Ver 2_Individual_20091217

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
December 14, 2009
Mr. Scott Jones
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2638
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
RE: Fall Creek Land Company
Grandview Peaks Residential Development
McDowell County, North Carolina
Mr. Jones and Ms. Karoly,
07-OkLO B02-
PAID
DEC 1 7 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
The attached Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of Mr. Todd Black of
Fall Creek Land Company. Fall Creek Land Company currently owns approximately 2,055 acres
southwest of Dysartsville in McDowell County, North Carolina and is seeking permit
authorization for impacts associated with development of a single-family residential community
and amenity lakes.
Should you have any questions regarding the attached permit application and supplemental
information please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800. A copy of this package has
been sent to Mr. David McHenry of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Mr. Bryan
Tompkins of the US Fish and Wildlife Service for review. A copy of this application has also
been submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville Regional Office.
Respectfully,

Rebekah L. Newton
Project Biologist
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S
Principal
Copy Furnished:
NC Division of Water Quality; Asheville Regional Office
NC Wildlife Resources Commission - David McHenry
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Bryan Tompkins
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv,com
DI-wLPS U9,
0
•
Individual Permit Application for
sPA17-
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
and
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
R-9@28"wg
December 2009 J
Applicant:
Fall Creek Land Company
?dl Cfeelctm,?l
Attn: Todd Black
Post Office Box 638
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Prepared by:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
828-698-9800
0r'--U- i i 2009
DEW • WATER QUALITY
KRANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
00
•
40
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Grandview Peaks
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Fall Creek Land Company; Mr. Todd Black
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/previous Action ID numbers(s): SAW-2007-200-359
5. Site Address: State Road 1778 (Joe Branch Drive)
6. Subdivision Name: Grandview Peaks
7. City: Dysartsville
8. County: McDowell
9. Lat: 35.550833N Long: 81.875555W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Glenwood
11. Waterway: Shoal Creek and unnamed tributaries, Weaver Branch and unnamed
tributaries, Kelly Branch and unnamed tributaries, Big Camp Creek and unnamed
tributaries, South Muddy Creek and unnamed tributaries, and Hoppers Creek and
unnamed tributaries.
12. Watershed: Upper Broad 03050105 and Upper Catawba 03050101
13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
X Individual Permit
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder
Authorization:
Assign number in ORM
Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity/Project Purpose:
Begin Date
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
Adjoining Property Owners

SRC Camp Creek, LLC James Hodges
c/o Jason Cooper 763 Malcolm Avenue
5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90024
Dallas, TX 75225
Leo Brevard
Roxanna Hoffman 600 Highland Forest Drive
7839 Old North Court Charlotte, NC 27280
Charlotte, NC 28270
Rita Guffey
Kenneth Bates 836 Guffey Drive
1251 S. Atlantic Avenue #505 Nebo, NC 28761
Cocoa Beach, FL 32931
Kenneth Collins
Kathleen Sebastiani 293 Collins Lane
315 W. Vesta Circle Nebo, NC 28761
Melbourne, FL 32901
James Lowery
Donald Woodworth 4724 Cedarfield Drive
580 Higgs Avenue NW Raleigh, NC 27606
Palm Bay, FL 32907
Arvin Gibson
Larry Sutherland 554 Joe Brach Road
3664 Rio Vista Way Nebo, NC 28761
Melbourne, FL 32935
Gary Gibson
Hoyt Reel 504 Joe Brach Road
PO Box 134 Nebo, NC 28761
Dumpheries, VA 22026
Ray Garland
Calvin Yelton 215 Park Street
207 Brentwood Circle Statesville, NC 28677
Morganton, NC 28655
Ronald Lyle
Joe Pitts 598 Tivoli Drive
PO Box 226 Saint Johns, FL 32259
Glen Alpine, NC 28628
Ball Green Leaf Co.
Victor McIntyre 452 Chislom Trail
57 Yow Drive Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Robert Honeycutt
James Morris 111 Sunrise Road
2242 S. Husik Road N. Charleston, NC 28139
Mesa, AZ 85210
Dave Mentink
• 3178 Mentink Way
Nebo, NC 28761
Anthony Gragg
PO Box 1886
Blowing Rock, NC 28605

DEC-14-2009 10:41 FALL CREEK LAND CO 828 652 8722 P.002
APPUCAMN FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MMM ONM APPROVAL NU.071 u-u113
CFR 3 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
.ectomte of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 222024302; and to the Office of Management and
et. Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your forth to either of those addresses. Completed
ications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
r O ( L08 V
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10;1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: 't'hese laws require permits authorizing activities in, or amcting. navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed
in full will be returned.

MS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIM AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not required)
Fall Creek Land Company ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Artn: Mr. Todd Black ATTN: Mr. R. Clement Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
1340 Westgate Center Drive 718 Oakland Street
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27103 Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A a, Residence N/A tt
b. Business [phone] b. Business [phone] -?T-----""""
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
=by authorize, R. Clement Riddle and ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
famish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
/ T. Q,aQi.,,1/ 121141d'?
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Grandview Peaks
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
Shoal Creels, Weaver Branch, Kelly Branch, Big Camp Creek, South Muddy 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Creek, Hoppers Creek, and unnamed tributaries to all.
Joe Branch Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
The Grandview Peaks project site is located southwest ofDysartsville in
McDowell County, North Carolina.
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see "Directions to the Site" below)
In general, the site is bordered to the north by Vein Mountain Road, to the south by the McDowell/Rutherford County line, to the east by US Highway 64, and to the
west by Coal Pit Mountain and South Muddy Creek. Lookadoo Mountain is located on the southern portion the property.
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
To access the site from Asheville, take 140 East to Exit 86 (State Route 226). Turn left (south) onto State Route 226 and continue approximately 8 miles to Vein
Mountain Road on the right. Turn right onto Vein Mountain Road and continue approximately 1 mite to Landis Lane on the left. Turn left onto Landis Lane and
continue approximately I mile to Joe Branch Road on the right. Turn right onto Joe Branch Road and continue to the Grandview Peaks entrance gate on the right.
C
•
D
•
DEC-14-2009 10:41
FALL CREEK LAND CO
828 652 8722 P.003
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The project will include the development of a residential subdivision and associated amenities. See attached description.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the mason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide road access to high ground residential lots and homesites and provide amenities for residential use. See
attached description.
USE BLOCKS 20-n IF DREDGED ANDIOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The proposed activities are necessary to provide road access to proposed residential areas of the property and amenities for residential use. See attached
description
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Material being discharged will be in the form of culverts, road fill, and dam fill. See attached description.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately 6,775 linear feet of stream channel and 0.73 acre of wetland will be impacted by the development of the residential subdivision. See
attached description.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
A Nationwide Permit 39 (Action ID 200632122) was issued for the extension of two culverts in May of 2006. These culverts were installed along with 20
additional linear feet at one of the crossings. No other work in jurisdictional waters has occurred on site. These crossings are accounted for in the permit
application end on the project map.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attached
a supplemental list).
See attached list.
25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovalwDenials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
US Army Corps of Engineers - Nationwide Permit 39 (Action ID 2006321221 approved May 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers -Individual Permit (Action ID 2007200359, applied for January 2007; withdrawn by applicant June 2009
NC Division of Water Quality - Individual Permit (1107-0168); applied for January 2007; returned as incomplete by DWQ March 2009
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application, 1 certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. 1 further certify that 1 possess the authority to undertake the k described hamin or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
31GNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Total P.003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT

1.1 ...................................................................................1
Project Location .....................................................................................................
1
1.2 ...................................
Jurisdictional Waters ...........................................................................
1
2.0 ......................................................
BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY

3.0 ...........................................................3
EXISTING HABITATS

3.1 ....................................................................................................5
Hemlock Forest

3.2 ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest

3.3 ......................................................................... 5
........................................
White Pine Forest

3.4 ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Bottomland Hardwood Forest

3.5 ................................................................................................................... 5
Clear Cut/Young Pine Forest ..

3.6 ............. 6
............................................................................................
Successional Areas

3.7 .................................................................................................................................... 6
Stream Channels

3.8 ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Jurisdictional Wetlands

4.0 ............................................................................................................................. 7
SOILS

5.0 .................................................................................................................................8
FISH AND WILDLIFE USE OF THE PROJECT SITE

5.1 ..............................................9
Terrestrial Wildlife

5.2 .................................................................................................................................... 9
Aquatic Biota ...........................

6.0 .................................................................................................................. 9
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

7.0 .......................................................11
CULTURAL RESOURCES

8.0 ............................................................................................12
PROJECT PURPOSE

9.0 .....................................................................................................13
PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

9.1 ..................................................................14
Lake Impacts ............................

9.2 ............................................................................................................... 14
Road Impacts .............................

9.3 .............................................................................................................. 15
Lake Management and Sampling ...........

9.4 ................................................................................................. 15
Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling ........................................
10.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES

10.1 ............................................................................20
Avoidance - Residential Development .......

10.2 ............................................................................................ 21
Avoidance - Amenities

10.3 ........................................................................................................................... 24
Minimization ..

10.4 .........................................................................................................................................33
Impact Justification ...................

10.5 .............................................................................................................. 33
Alternatives Conclusion .
......................................................................................................................... 43
11.0 MITIGATION PLAN

11.1 ......................................................................................................44
Stream and Wetland Preservation

11.2 ............................................... .................................................... 44
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) .....

11.3 .................................................................................... 44
Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation .....
..................................................................................... 45
12.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
47
12.1 ........
Factual Determination .....

12.2 ....................................................................................................................47
Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem .........
47
12.3 ...............
Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem

12.4 ........................................................... 48
Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites ..

12.5 ........................................................................................... 50
Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics

12.6 ..................................................................................... 51
Summary .........................................
...............
........................
............
52
13.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
13.1 ..................................................................53
Conservation ....................

13.2 ........................................................................................................................53
Economics ..........
.

13.3 .
........................... ............... 54
.........................................................................................
Aesthetics ..................

13.4 .....
.....................................................................
General Environmental Concerns

13.5 ............................................................................................................ 54
Wetlands ....................

13.6 ..............................................................................................................................54
Historic Properties

13.7 ...............................................................
Fish and Wildlife Values ...........

13.8 .............................................................................................................. 55
Flood Hazards .................................................................................................................
55
........................
13.9 Floodplain Values .................

13.10
13 .................................................................................................................. 56
Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 56
.11 Navigation ..............................

13.12 .....................................................................
Shore Erosion and Accretion

13.13 ................................................................................................................... 56
Recreation .....

13.14 .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Water Supply and Conservation

13.15 .............................................................................................................. 56
Water Quality (Stormwater Management) .........

13.16 ..................................................................................... 56
Energy Needs .......................

13.17 ................................................................................................................... 57
Safety .................................

13.18 .......................................................
Food and Fiber Production

13.19 ...................................................................................................................... 57
Mineral Needs .......

13.20 ................................................................................................................................. 57
Considerations of Property Ownership .................

13.21 .................................................................................. 57
Needs and Welfare of the Public
............................................................................................................. 57
14.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

15.0 SU .........................................................58
MMARY
.....................................................................................
•

•
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 Soils Map
Figure 4 Site Plans
Figure 5 Reference Lake Location
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
•
Attachment A Stream and Wetland Data Forms; and Delineation Map (completed
by MACTEC)
Attachment B FWS Correspondence
Attachment C TRC Solutions Literature Review
Attachment D Phase I Archaeological Survey
Attachment E Water Quality Data
Attachment F EEP Acceptance Letter
0
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT
• The applicant, Fall Creek Land Company, proposes to develop a low-density, residential
community that will be known as Grandview Peaks. The community will be master
planned with approximately 760 lots on approximately 2,055 acres southwest of
Dysartsville in McDowell County, North Carolina. The community will include single-
family home sites along with two on-line impoundments (approximately 9 acres and 25
acres).
1.1 Project Location
The Grandview Peaks project site is located southwest of Dysartsville in
McDowell County, North Carolina. To access the site from Asheville, take I-40
East to Exit 86 (State Route 226). Turn left (south) onto State Route 226 and
continue approximately 8 miles to Vein Mountain Road on the right. Turn right
onto Vein Mountain Road and continue approximately 1 mile to Landis Lane on
the left. Turn left onto Landis Lane and continue approximately 1 mile to Joe
Branch Road on the right. Turn right onto Joe Branch Road and continue to the
Grandview Peaks entrance gate on the right. In general, the site is bordered to the
north by Vein Mountain Road, to the south by the McDowell/Rutherford County
line, to the east by US Highway 64, and to the west by Coal Pit Mountain and
South Muddy Creek. Lookadoo Mountain is located on the southern portion the
property. A site vicinity map (Figure 1) and USGS topographic map (Figure 2)
are attached for review. Latitude and longitude for the site are 35.550833 N and
• 81.875555 W, respectively.
1.2 Jurisdictional Waters
Tributaries on site include Shoal Creek and unnamed tributaries, Weaver Branch
and unnamed tributaries, Kelly Branch and unnamed tributaries, Big Camp Creek
and unnamed tributaries, South Muddy Creek and unnamed tributaries, and
Hoppers Creek and unnamed tributaries. Shoal Creek, Weaver Branch, Kelly
Branch, and their unnamed tributaries are tributaries to Cane Creek. Cane Creek,
Big Camp Creek, and their unnamed tributaries are tributaries to the Second
Broad River. The Second Broad River is a tributary to the Broad River which is a
navigable in fact water in South Carolina. Hoppers Creek and its unnamed
tributaries flow into South Muddy Creek which is a tributary to Muddy Creek.
Muddy Creek flows into the Catawba River which is a navigable in fact water
from the Mountain Island Lake Dam north of Lake Wylie. South Muddy Creek,
Hoppers Creek, and their unnamed tributaries are classified by the NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) as class "C" waters. Shoal Creek, Weaver Branch, Kelly
Branch, Big Camp Creek, and their unnamed tributaries are classified by the
DWQ as Water Supply Watershed V waters (WS-V).
There are several wetlands located on site. The majority of these wetlands have
been identified as wetland seeps and are at the head of jurisdictional channels or
adjacent to their associated channels.
•
No open water currently exists on the property.
• The table below summarizes the amounts of jurisdictional waters on site.
Table 1. On-site Totals
Feature Amount Unit
Stream 75,165 linear feet
Wetlands 2.28 acres
Open Water 0 acres
An "Existing Site Conditions" section (Section 3.0) has been included in this
application for review and further describes the jurisdictional waters on site.
•
0
2.0 BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
• The proposed project has an extensive prior project history. In the table below is a
summary of the most complete project history available to C1earWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC).
•
•
Table 2. Project History
Date Action
January 17, 2006 US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues
jurisdictional determination.
May 2006 Nationwide Permit 39 issued by Corps (Action ID
200632122).
August 14, 2006 Pre-application meeting.
January 22, 2007 Individual Permit application submitted.
February 14, 2007 Public Notice issued.
February 14, 2007 Corps sends Card Letter 433.
Februarv 16. 2007 17Wn Cen Rern1PQt fnr Mnrn Tnf-+;-
March 8-15, 2007 Response to Public Notice received.
April 27, 2007 Corps provides Public Notice comments to applicant.
May 8, 2007 DWQ returns application as "incomplete".
June 1, 2007 Letter to applicant from Division of Forest Resources
(DFR).
September 25, 2007 Applicant responds to Public Notice comments.
January 4, 2008 Corps sends email to agent requesting/clarifying
additional information needed to review application.
January 10, 2008 Corps site visit with applicant and agent.
January 23, 2008 DWQ returns project as "incomplete".
February 6, 2008 Office meeting with Corps and agent.
June 6 and 9, 2008 DWQ provides comments regarding requested pond
monitoring protocol.
June 24, 2008 Applicant provides response to information requested
from site visit and office meeting.
July 8, 2008 Applicant provides DWQ with additional information.
July 21, 2008 Meeting with DWQ.
July 31, 2008 EEP acceptance letter received.
September 23, 2008 Applicant submits additional information to DWQ
October 1, 2008
October 15, 2008 Applicant submits additional information t
DWQ comments on lake modeling plan.

October 27, 2008
November 19, 2008
Applicant submits additional information t
Telephone correspondence between Corps
9andage
nt.
December 10, 2008 .
DWQ sends "Request for Additional Infor
December 22, 2008 .
A plicant submits additional information t
January 26, 2009 Corps sends letter to applicant requesting a
modification to the project proposal.
January 29, 2009 EEP acceptance letter received.
3
0
•
February 4, 2009 DWQ sends "Request for Additional Information".
February 20, 2009 Office meeting with Corps, applicant, and agent.
March 12, 2009 DFR sends comment letter.
March 21 and 23,
2009 Applicant submits additional information to Corps and
DWQ.
March 24, 2009 DWQ returns application as "Incomplete".
June 2, 2009 CEC is retained as agent for the project.
July, 2009 Applicant withdraws revious application from Corps.
November 30, 2009 Pre-application meeting.
11
3.0 EXISTING HABITATS
• Plant communities present within the subject site include Hemlock Forest, Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest, White Pine Forest, Bottomland Hardwood, Clear Cut/Young Pine
Forest, Successional Areas, Stream Channels, and Jurisdictional Wetlands. Community
descriptions listed below were taken from the permit application submitted on January
16, 2007 by MACTEC.
3.1 Hemlock Forest
Hemlock Forest is found in limited areas within the proposed subject site
primarily along Lookadoo Mountain within the ravines. This plant community is
generally found on sheltered slopes. Canopy composition of this community is
dominated by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), with occasional tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and white pine (Pinus strobus). Midstories within this
community are either absent due to thick clustering of overstory stems, or
comprised of dense areas of rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) with
doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris) or mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).
3.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is the largest remaining natural plant community
within the proposed development area. Canopy composition of this community is
varied, consisting of tulip poplar, eastern hemlock, northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciua),
• American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and red maple (Acer rubrum), with scattered
areas of big leaf magnolia (Magnolia fraseri), white pine, and shortleaf pine (P.
echinata). Midstory vegetation includes sapling sized stems of canopy species as
well as mountain laurel, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood
(Cornus Florida), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Herbaceous vegetation
includes trillium (Trillium sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Solomon's
seal (Polygonatum pubescens), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), and
scattered arrowleaf heartleaf (Hexastylis aaifolia). Tag alder (Alnus serrulata),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and
cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) are present adjacent to or in wetter areas.
3.3 White Pine Forest
White Pine Forest is found in small, scattered pockets within the proposed subject
site along ridge tops. Vegetation in this community consists of pure stands of
white pine with few hardwood species as found in the mesic mixed hardwood
forest habitat. Midstory and understory vegetation is generally absent.
3.4 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The Bottomland Hardwood Forest community type can be separated into two
distinct categories: (1) jurisdictional bottomland hardwoods and (2) non-
jurisdictional bottomland hardwoods (disturbed). The jurisdictional bottomland
hardwood communities are typically dominated by sweetgum, red maple, and
• green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum) in the overstory and midstory, and Jack-in-
5
the-Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), and numerous
• species of fern in the understory. Very few locations existed of this community
type within the subject property boundary.
Non jurisdictional bottomland hardwood forests are typically found in the
floodplain areas, but may not meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. Non-
jurisdictional bottomland hardwood areas were typically dominated by species
such as red maple, sweetgum, and tulip poplar, in the overstory. Midstory species
typically include ironwood, winterberry (Ilex verticilata), and Rhododendron sp.
3.5 Clear Cut/Young Pine Forest
Clear Cut/Young Pine Forest was one of the most common types of habitat
encountered at the subject site. This habitat type is dominated by Virginia pine,
(P. virginiana) and white pine. Some of these forests are a result of clear cutting
and natural regeneration. Other species found among these successional forests
include blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), catbrier, and a variety
of small hardwood saplings and native grasses.
3.6 Successional Areas
Successional Areas are limited to logging areas that have been subjected to recent
clearing and are currently regenerating. Canopy vegetation has been removed due
to extensive recent silvicultural activities by the previous landowners. These
areas are generally found adjacent to stream channels and on adjacent slopes.
Herbaceous vegetation dominates these areas and includes poison ivy, blackberry,
American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and wild rose (Rosa sp.).
3.7 Stream Channels
Approximately 14 miles (75,165 linear feet) of perennial streams are located on
the subject site. Many gravel bottom stream types exist throughout the subject
site within the southern, eastern, and western portions of the property. These
stream types have a low to moderate sinuosity and very low width/depth ratios,
which allow for little deposition. These woodland stream types typically have
banks that are stabilized by extensive riparian or wetland vegetation that forms
dense root mats.
Sand bottom stream types were also found within the northern portion of the
property primarily within the proposed impoundment areas. These stream types
are moderately entrenched with a moderate gradient; they are riffle-dominated
channels with infrequently spaced pools. Sand bottom streams are typically
located within stable, relatively narrow, moderately sloping valleys.
Stream channels were delineated by MACTEC in August of 2007. Streams and
wetlands are identified on the enclosed delineation map (Attachment A); and
associated data forms completed by MACTEC are included for review
(Attachment A).
•
6
3.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland areas within the subject site are small in areal extent, with
the largest contiguous wetland system totaling approximately 0.30 acre. The
majority of the remaining wetland systems were less than 0.10 acre in areal
extent. All wetland systems are associated with and have direct connection to
stream channels. The small wetland systems located throughout the site are
floodplain or headwater seep wetlands.
Vegetation in the majority of the wetland systems is herbaceous in nature, ranging
from large areas of jewelweed, royal fern, cinnamon fern, and cardinal flower to
areas of soft rush. A few of these areas appear to have been subjected to clearing
activities in the past and are currently regenerating. A series of logging roads
parallels many of the stream channels. Several wetland systems may have been
created by historic mining activities adjacent to the stream channels as evidenced
by spoil piles.
1?
•
7
4.0 SOILS
• The Grandview Peaks project site is located within the Mountain physiographic region of
North Carolina and more specifically the Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills Ecoregion. Two
soil associations are present on site; they are the Evard-Cowee association and the
Hayesville-Evard association. The Evard-Cowee association is classified as moderately
steep or steep, well drained soils that have a loamy subsoil. This association is found on
uplands in the mountains. The Hayesville-Evard association is classified as sloping to
steep, well drained soils that have a predominantly clayey or loamy subsoil. This soil
association is found on intermountain uplands and foothills. As determined by MACTEC
and confirmed by CEC, the following soil series are present on site: Evard loam, Evard-
Cowee complex, Hayesville clay loam, Hayesville loam, Hayesville-Evard complex, Itola
sandy loam, and Potomac-ltola complex. A soils map and legend have been attached for
review (Figure 3).
•
0
5.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE USE OF THE PROJECT SITE
• The proposed development area was visually surveyed for the presence of wildlife during
all phases of field work. The proposed development area is located in a very rural
setting. Wildlife observations listed below were taken from the permit application
submitted on January 16, 2007 by MACTEC.
5.1 Terrestrial Wildlife
Species documented within the proposed subject site include scavenging species
including turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos). Other species documented within the proposed subject site
include pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern flicker (Colaptes
auratus), and bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata). Game species such as wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), along with
species generally found in mature forests or along forest edges, such as red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), and
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) were also noted during the site
evaluation.
Signs (tracks, scat, etc) of wildlife species were also noted on site. Species
apparently utilizing the site although not physically observed include small and
medium sized animals adapted to the rural setting, including white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and coyote
• (Canis latrans). Interviews with logging crews indicate that black bear (Ursus
americanus) have been sighted within the property boundary. Other mammal
species noted in the vicinity of the proposed subject site include eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus) and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Terrestrial reptiles were documented within the proposed impoundment areas.
Terrestrial reptiles documented within the area include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and black rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta).
Terrestrial amphibians were documented within the subject area. Terrestrial
amphibian species documented within the proposed subject area include wood
frog (Rana sylvatica), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), American toad (Bufo
americanus), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), green treefrog (H. cinerea), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and northern red salamander (Pseudotriton
rubber).
5.2 Aquatic Biota
Sampling of aquatic wildlife was not undertaken within any stream channels in
the proposed subject site. No benthic sampling was undertaken, except as
incidental to stream quality assessment during the delineation of streams and
wetlands.
U
9
Physical characteristics of all on-site water bodies and the condition of the water
. resource influence faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities. Vegetation along the banks of all on-site streams includes those
species present in mature and early successional communities.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate
and vertebrate species. Aquatic species likely to occur in streams within the
project area include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), central stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), eastern ribbon
snake (Thamnophis sauritus), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata). Invertebrate species likely to occur include
various species of caddisfly (Trichoptera), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), crayfish
(Decapoda), dragonfly (Odonata), and damselfly (Odonata).
E
•
10
6.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
• CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The desktop
literature survey involved a review of FWS list of protected species in McDowell County
and the Glenwood USGS Topo Quad on which NHP identifies current and historic
occurrences of listed species for that locale. Bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is the
only current and/or historic record of occurrence for the Glenwood USGS Topo Quad.
The NHP database identifies one element of occurrence, bog turtle, within a 2-mile radius
of the project site. Bog turtle holds a Federal status of T(S/A), threatened due to
similarity of appearance, and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. Additionally, in the
pre-application meeting held on November 30, 2009, David McHenry with the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) indicated that a WRC herpetologist had visited the site
and concluded that the wetlands present did not provide the necessary habitat for bog
turtle.
By letter dated March 15, 2007, the FWS commented on the January 16, 2007 permit
application. In this letter, the FWS states that they "agree that no listed species or their
habitats occur on site and that the proposed project will not affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitats". Unless advised otherwise, CEC believes that the
findings by the FWS remain applicable to the project and site as a whole. A copy of the
FWS letter is attached for review (Attachment B).
As concluded in the FWS letter, it is the opinion of CEC that federally protected species are
not likely to be present within the project boundary. As such, development of the proposed
Grandview Peaks project site is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.
E
7.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
• A file review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates that there are no archaeological sites,
historic structures, or cemeteries with the project area. A background literature review was
conducted from February 8-11, 2006 by TRC Solutions (Attachment Q. Based on the
literature review, TRC Solutions discovered that there are four previously recorded sites
within 1 mile of the project site. The SHPO responded to the Public Notice dated February
17, 2007 by letter dated March 8, 2007 in which they stated that there were "no known
recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries" but that the area has never
been systematically surveyed. The applicant conducted a Phase I archaeological survey at
the site and forwarded the subsequent report dated September 25, 2007 (Attachment D) to
the SHPO. The survey recovered one archaeological site of small size and minor
importance. This site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
and no further studies are recommended at the site. SHPO did not commented on the final
report.
It is the opinion of CEC that development of the proposed Grandview Peaks project site is
not likely to cause an adverse impact to any cultural or archaeological resources at the site.
•
•
12
8.0 PROJECT PURPOSE
The basic project of the ro osed development at
purpose p p Grandview Peaks is to provide
residential housing. More specifically, the overall project purpose of the proposed
development at Grandview Peaks is to develop a viable, upscale, residential, community
with amenities in McDowell County, North Carolina.
0
•
13
9.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed project calls for the development of approximately 760 single-family lots
and all associated infrastructure. Also, included in development plans are two amenity
lakes with a surface area of approximately 25 acres and 9 acres.
The approximately 2,055-acre site contains approximately 75,165 linear feet of
jurisdictional stream channel and approximately 2.28 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
The applicant proposes to permanently impact 695 linear feet of stream channel and 0.04
acre of wetland for construction of two dams (hard impacts), 5,970 linear feet of stream
channel and 0.69 acre of wetland for subsequent flooding (secondary impacts), and 20
linear feet (and 90 linear feet of impacts to be considered cumulatively) for infrastructure
road crossings (hard impacts) to achieve the previously stated project purpose through the
development of a residential community with lake amenities. The larger dam (25 acres)
will have a dam height of approximately 96 feet; the smaller dam (9 acres) will have a
dam height of approximately 40 feet. Both dams will be considered high hazard by North
Carolina Law (Title 15A, Subchapter 2k: Dam Safety). Total impacts at the site are
6,775 linear feet of stream and 0.73 acre of wetlands. There are 8 permanent stream and
wetland impacts associated with the development of Grandview Peaks. These impacts
have been identified on the site plan, which is enclosed for review (Figure 4). As a part
of this project, 62,000 linear feet of stream will be preserved for mitigation along with 90
acres of 30-foot to 60-foot buffers.
• Water features are extremely desirable for private residences, and have become more
popular over the years. A lake brings many recreational opportunities for residents and
their guests. These recreational opportunities include fishing and wildlife watching. The
lake plan will include a central community dock facility. Furthermore, when a lake is
created, new habitat is created. This new habitat supports an array of wildlife, including
fish, birds, and reptiles.
9.1 Lake Impacts
The project will include 4 permanent stream impacts associated with lake
construction. Approximately 695 linear feet of impacts are necessary for
construction of the dams; 5,970 linear feet of stream channel will be flooded. To
minimize the downstream aquatic impacts, the dam designs will include a cold
water release, a low-flow release pipe (maintaining 7Q10 flows during low-
flows), anti-seep collar, and outfall designed to aerate water released from the
dam. Permanent fill and flooding impacts associated with lake construction are
identified in the table below.

14
•
Table 3. Grandview Peaks
Lake Impacts
Stream
Impact Linear Feet
2 420 (dam)
5 275 (dam)
6 1,390 (flooding)
7 4,580 (flooding)
Total 6,665
Wetland
Impact Acres
1 0.43 (flooding)
3 0.26 (flooding)
4 0.04 (dam)
Total 0.73
9.2 Road Impacts
A Nationwide Permit 39 was issued to the applicant in May of 2006 for the
extension of two existing culverts on site; these crossings are indicated on the site
plan and considered cumulatively in this application. The current project includes
• one culvert extension. Permanent fill impacts associated with road and
infrastructure development are identified in the table below.
Table 4. Grandview Peaks Road
Impacts
Stream
Impact Linear Feet
8 20
Previously Permitted 90
lbtal 110
All lots are buildable without additional road or driveway impacts.
9.3 Lake Management and Sampling
Currently, the dams for the proposed impoundments have not been designed;
however, the dam designs will include a cold water release, a low-flow release
pipe (maintaining 7Q10 flows during low-flows), anti-seep collars, and an outfall
designed to aerate water released from the dam. These lakes are uniquely situated
within the development such that their entire watersheds are within the
development; thus, making them easier to manage. Water quality standards will
be monitored for a period of 5 years as outlined below (Section 9.4). The
15
applicant is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the dam and will
is follow the "Dam Operation, Maintenance, and Inspection Manual 1985 (revised
2007)" developed by the NC Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section.
The applicant is proposing a Lake Management Plan prepared by a Certified Lake
Manager. The plan will include discussions and recommendations for the items
such as sediment, depth, water quality, vegetation, algae, fisheries, boating types
and usage, capital improvements, and maintenance. This plan will also address
the locations of potential stormwater outflow, road runoff, and necessary
treatments (level spreader, filters, etc).
The applicant has also agreed to adhere to the intent of recommendations in the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Instream Impoundment
Guidelines, July 2006 by doing the following.
• The applicant will obtain a NCWRC stocking permit if stocking fish is
planned.
• The applicant will ensure the lake is appropriately sized for the watershed.
• Sediment and erosion control measures will be used before construction and
maintained.
• Any concrete work will occur in dry areas that are isolated from stream flow
to prevent uncured concrete from coming in contact with stream waters.
• Rock, sand, or other materials, will not be excavated from the stream channel
• except in the permitted area.
• Sandbags, flexible pipe, or other stable diversion structures will be used to
avoid excavation in flowing waters.
• All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters will be inspected and
maintained regularly to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
• The applicant will utilize vegetation and bioengineered structures for stream
stabilization where possible. Any riprap (rock revetment) for outlet
stabilization will be clean and limited to the stream bank below the high water
mark.
• The applicant will minimize temperature deviations from upstream ambient
conditions by incorporating a cold water release into the dam designs.
• To minimize temperature elevation in waters downstream, the applicant will
reestablish native woody vegetation wherever possible along the lake, but not
on the dam. Also, the dam design will incorporate an outflow pipe that draws
water from near the bottom of lakes of the appropriate depth. Cold water
bottom withdrawal devices will be within 1-2 feet of the bottom, but not on
the bottom. This design will prevent buildup of poorly oxygenated water and
improve water quality in the lake.
• Stormwater ponds will be planted with local native trees and shrubs to provide
a reduction of direct sunlight and restore some lost habitats for birds and small
animals.
16
• Residual flow in the stream below the dam will be maintained when filling the
• lakes to protect aquatic life. The applicant will partially opening the gate
valve during the filling process. However, turbid water will not be
discharged. Until water in the lake is clear, flexible pipe will be used to
maintain any stream flow, if applicable, around the lake.
• The applicant will develop a plan to manage sediment behind the dam.
• If fish are stocked, the applicant will only stock desirable species that are
currently found in adjacent waters.
• A threatened and endangered species survey has been conducted at the site
and demonstrates that there is no threat to game fish or state or federally listed
species in adjacent waters.
• The proposed lakes will not be located in streams that contain migrating or
spawning fish; therefore, the dam will not be designed with a fish passage
structure. Passive macroinvertebrates may pass through normal water flow,
the spillway, or periodic flushes.
• The applicant has proposed a mitigation plan as a part of this permit
application to compensate for all unavoidable impacts at the site.
• Prior to construction of a dam, the applicant will contact the NCDLQ regional
office or central office to determine if the dam will be jurisdictional. Prior to
constructing any jurisdictional dam, the applicant will submit plans and
specifications, along with supporting data and calculations produced by a
professional engineer to the NCDLQ for review and approval.
• The applicant will apply for and receive all applicable local, state, and federal
permits prior to beginning construction at the project site.
9.4 Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling
Water quality measurements at two referenced impoundments were taken in
accordance with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Wetlands and
Stormwater Branch's "Predictability Study Protocol for Sampling Reference
Impoundments - DRAFT" (Protocol) dated February 28, 2008. The reference
lakes are located approximately 7 miles and 10 miles from the center of the
project site and are approximately 21.5 acres and 16 acres. A site map showing
the location of these lakes is included for review (Figure 5). This data is being
submitted in support of this project proposal and all water quality data has been
included for review (Attachment E).
Upon completion of lake construction at Grandview Peaks, a water quality
monitoring and sampling study, as outlined below, will be conducted for 5 years
during August and September of the respective year. The 5-year monitoring
period will begin the August following construction and filling of the lakes. Upon
completion of each year's study, the applicant will provide the DWQ with a report
summarizing all results and an electronic copy of all data. As discussed at the
pre-application meeting on November 30, 2009, if water quality parameters
measurements are found to be unsatisfactory by the DWQ, at the request of
DWQ, the applicant will submit a contingency plan to return water quality
parameters to satisfactory levels.
17
9.4.1 Methodology
Sampling as outlined in the Protocol will be planned to begin the first week of
August after construction and filling of the lakes. At each impoundment, at least
six sampling stations will be identified. During the first sample, latitude -and
longitude of each station will be taken for use with topographic maps or GIS data.
A summary of the general locations of the sampling stations is as follows:
• Station 1 will be located upstream of the impoundment in the flowing
(lotic) stream reach. If the impoundment has more than one feeder stream,
each will be sampled (Station la, lb, lc, etc);
• Stations 2, 3, and 4 will be evenly spaced across the centerline of the
reference impoundment (lentic);
• Station 5 will be located downstream and within 200 linear feet of the
impoundment outfall in the flowing (lotic) stream reach; and
• Station 6 will be located downstream and between 200 and 500 linear feet
of the impoundment outfall in the flowing (lotic) stream reach.
9.4.2 Sampling
Six water quality sampling stations will be established at the two impoundments as
described above. Water samples will be taken every other week during a portion of
the growing season from the first week of August to the end of September, yielding 4
sample sets. Samples are divided into lotic samples which include the samples and
• measurements taken at Stations 1, 5, and 6; and lentic samples which include samples
and measurements taken at Stations 2, 3, and 4. Field measurements and grab sample
results will be recorded on data sheets taken from the DWQ's "Intensive Survey Unit
Standard Operating Procedures". The type of sample or measurement taken (field or
grab) and parameters measured are outlined below.
• Lotic Samples (Stations 1, 5, and 6)
o Field Measurements (taken 0.1m below the surface)
¦ temperature
¦ dissolved oxygen (% and mg/1)
¦ pH
¦ specific conductance
o Grab Samples (taken 0.1m below the surface at/near the thalweg)
¦ nutrients (total phosphorous, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia
[NH3), nitrate + nitrite [NO2+NO31, chlorophyll-a)
¦ turbidity
• Lentic Samples (Stations 2, 3, and 4)
o Field Measurements (taken 0.1 in below the surface and at 1 in intervals to
the lake bottom)
¦ temperature
¦ dissolved oxygen (% and mg/1)
• pH
18
¦ specific conductance
o Field Measurement (1 measurement reported at each sample location)
¦ Secchi depth transparency - reported value as the average of two
measurements
o Grab Samples (taken 0.1 m below the surface)
¦ fecal coliform
o Grab Samples Using a LabLine (taken as spatial composites of the photic
zone, defined as twice the Secchi depth)
¦ nutrients (total phosphorous, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia
[NH3], nitrate + nitrite [NO2+NO31, chlorophyll-a)
• turbidity
9.4.3 Equipment
The in situ field measurements (temperature, dissolved oxygen (% and mg/1), pH,
and specific conductance) will be taken using a Hydrolab Quanta. A Secchi disk
will be used to measure the water transparency at the three lentic stations across
the centerline of the impoundment. All data conforms to the "Standard Method
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" and EPA methods.
9.4.4 Reporting
Upon completion of the reference impoundment sampling, the applicant will
provide the DWQ with a report summarizing all results and an electronic copy of
all data.
•
•
19
10.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, Corps in evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at Grandview Peaks in McDowell County, North
Carolina.
An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) requirements for
consideration of alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below.
The Guidelines' alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." [See
40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain "sufficient information
to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of Section
230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a
determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with
the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of the aquatic
resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See
Corps/EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for
Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p.
• 2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the
Memorandum on pages 3-4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a
practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to
the applicant, the alternative is not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic
Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and capable
of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification is provided
in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the determination of
practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is presently owned by the
applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to
fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
The intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope and cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs"
was substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry
which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
0
20
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have
is chosen instead to impose an explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to
discharges in special aquatic sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are
environmentally preferable." Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the
aquatic system not be acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient
flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December
24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow
filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other
areas.
10.1 Avoidance - Residential Development
The applicant was willing to consider sites other than the proposed project site for
development of Grandview Peaks. A set of criteria was developed to aid in the
search for a site and ultimate selection of a site. The site selection portion of the
alternatives analysis was taken from the permit application submitted on January
16, 2007 by MACTEC. CEC has reviewed the site selection portion of the
alternatives analysis and has provided further discussion and clarification where
necessary.
10.1.1 Site Criteria
A. Location/Accessibility
The chosen project site must be located in general proximity to major
routes of transportation within this area (I-40 and US Highway 64). The
chosen project site should also be located in close proximity to a town or
city where potential residents can obtain goods and services. A network
of existing logging roads that could be upgraded and used as subdivision
roads is a plus.
B. Size
The chosen project site must be of sufficient size to accommodate
proposed uses.
C. Acquisition
The chosen project site must be available for acquisition without
unreasonable hindrances.
D. Consistency with Land Use Plan
The chosen project site must be capable of being developed as a single-
family residential development and provide opportunities for the creation
of amenities.
E. Natural Resources
The chosen project site should avoid impacts to natural resources to the
maximum extent practicable.
•
21
F. Economic Feasibility
The chosen site should meet the above criteria at a reasonable cost that
creates an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on investment from the
site for this type of development.
10.1.2 Site Options
Three potential sites (the proposed project site, and two "off-site" locations) were
identified and further evaluated to determine which site best meets the
needs/requirements of the project. The off-site locations evaluated were generally
similar to the proposed project site in land use and grade (mountainous).
A. Option 1(Thermal City)
Option 1 is located west of the proposed project site and is comprised of
seven parcels consisting of approximately 2,300 acres. The site is located
approximately 4 miles east of Thermal City in Rutherford and McDowell
Counties, North Carolina. Access to the site is provided by Brackett Town
Road, Frog Creek Road, Burning Tree Lane, Camp Creek Road, and
numerous abandoned logging roads. Camp Creek Baptist Church is
located in the west-central portion of the site.
The site is currently used for silviculture. Previous land uses at the site
included mining and agriculture. The site is located in a sparsely
populated area of Rutherford and McDowell Counties. There are scattered
• residences and woodlands (i.e., there are no residential subdivisions in the
vicinity).
The site contains extensive stream systems and associated wetland areas.
Numerous streams originate on the site, including Gap Branch, Little
Camp Creek, Box Creek, and numerous unnamed tributaries. The
relatively flat and wide Big Camp Creek floodplain may contain
significant wetland acreage. The site has access to high ridges and deep
cove valleys with few existing accessible roads. Potential impacts to
seepage slope wetlands and headwater tributaries may occur if this site
was developed to accommodate road access and lot development.
A preliminary desk review (conducted by MACTEC) using available
resources including USGS topographic mapping, NWI mapping, and
NRCS soils mapping revealed few options to avoid and minimize impacts
to wetlands, streams, and other natural resources while still accomplishing
the project purpose of providing residential housing. The development of
the site would have resulted in considerable increases in number of
residential lots, reduction in lot size, and increased road construction
thereby creating increased land disturbance, decreased buffers, and the
need for significant stormwater management areas. The conceptual plan
for this alternative site creates the most favorable return on investment for
the developer. However, wetland, stream, and potential water quality
22
is impacts are the most considerable with this alternative. Option 1 was not
chosen because of the greater potential impact to natural resources with
development of this property (Criteria E).
B. Option 2 (Sunshine)
Option 2 site is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the proposed
project site and consists of one parcel that is approximately 260 acres in
size. The site is located approximately 2 miles north of the Sunshine
community in McDowell County, North Carolina. Access to the site is
provided by Golden Valley Church Road to the northwest, Laser Drive to
the south, and Bostic-Sunshine Road, which bisects the site. Fortune
Cemetery is located adjacent to the southern portion of the site.
The site currently contains agricultural fields with scattered residences.
The site is located in a sparsely populated area of McDowell County.
There are several residential subdivisions located north of the site.
The site contains stream and associated wetland areas. Four unnamed
tributaries originate on the property. Big Branch transverses the eastern
portion of the site, and the floodplain contains some wetlands. The First
Broad River is located to the north and west of the property. Potential
impacts to jurisdictional streams in the form of road crossings and lot
development for this site may occur to the smaller tributaries of the First
Broad River and Big Branch if this site was utilized.
Option 2 did not meet the specific needs of the selection criteria
specifically due to economic and environmental requirements of the
development along with size. More specifically, the very small size of the
site would increase the density and reduce the size of residential lots.
Other practicable alternatives, in design, were not readily available to
avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and other natural
resources on this site. In addition, the viability of the desired retreat
community would be affected by the reduced lot size and density of
residences at the site. This alternative site plan creates the least favorable
return on investment for the developer and would require impacts to
streams and wetlands for the development to be feasible. Option 2 was
not chosen because of its small size (Criteria B), increased impacts to
natural resources (Criteria E), and economic infeasibility (Criteria F) to
develop this area.
C. Option 3 (Dysartsville/As-Proposed)
Option 3 consists of land totaling approximately 2,055 acres. The site is
located approximately 2 miles southwest of the Dysartsville Township in
southern McDowell County, North Carolina. Access to the site is from
Joe Branch Drive to north and Brackett Town Cemetery Road to the west
•
23
• (Figure 1). The Brackett Town Cemetery is located adjacent to the
western portion of the site.
The site was most recently used for silviculture. The site is located in a
sparsely populated area of McDowell County. Scattered residences and
woodlands are located in the vicinity of the site. Past land use consisted of
silviculture and mining activities. An abandoned gold mine exists in the
eastern portion of the property and abandoned mine pits exist throughout
the site.
The site contains streams and associated wetland areas. Weaver Branch,
Shoal Creek, Big Camp Creek, and Hoppers Creek and numerous
unnamed tributaries originate on the site. Approximately 2.28 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands exist within the site boundaries. Some of these
wetlands appear to have been created by past mining activities along the
streams.
Based on the applicant's analysis with regards to the selection criteria,
Option 3 best meets the needs of the project resulting in fewer potential
impacts while preserving the most on-site natural resources (Criteria E).
Secondary components considered for selection include ease of access
(Criteria A), availability for purchase (Criteria C), and adequate access to
utilities (Criteria A). Option 3 provides variable landscapes offering
• aesthetic views and potential for recreational amenities. Based on these
criteria, Option 3 offers the least environmentally-damaging practicable
alternative and provides the most feasible return on investment for the
developer to meet the project purpose (Criteria F). Therefore, Option 3 is
the preferred development site.
10.2 Avoidance -Amenities
The applicant was willing to consider amenities other than the proposed amenity
(lake) for development of Grandview Peaks. A set of criteria was developed to
aid in the selection of an amenity at the site.
10.2.1 Amenity Criteria
A. Location/Accessibility
The chosen amenity needs to be located within the residential
development in an aesthetically pleasing locale and accessible to all
residents of the community.
B. Predicted Use by Residents
The chosen amenity must be one that will be utilized by residents of the
community.
•
24
• C. Natural Resources
The chosen amenity should avoid impacts to natural resources to the
maximum extent practicable.
D. Economic Feasibility
The chosen amenity should meet the above criteria at a reasonable cost
and create an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on investments from
the site for this type of development when taking into consideration
absorption rates and increased costs of lots when an amenity is present.
E. Development and Construction Feasibility
The chosen amenity must be able to be constructed and function as an
amenity for the life of the project.
10.2.2 Amenity Options
Five potential amenities were evaluated to determine which best meets the
needs/requirements of the project. The Option 6 (Open Water) portion of
the alternatives analysis was taken from the permit application submitted
on January 16, 2007 by MACTEC. CEC has reviewed the amenity
selection portion of the alternatives analysis and has provided further
discussion and clarification where necessary.
A. Option 1 (No Build/Use of Off-site Amenities)
• Lake Lure and Lake James are within a 50-minute and 45-minute
drive, respectively. These impoundments do offer boating access,
fishing, and swimming opportunities; however, driving times
approaching 1 hour are less desirable and may be considered too
far to travel for some residents. On-site amenities require less cost,
less time, and expenditure of fewer resources by residents.
As indicated in the Year 2009 Fee Schedule for Boat Permits, there
are fees required for use of Lake Lure by non-residents. Boating
fees range from $22 per year for a non-motorized boat (canoe,
kayak, etc.) to $600 per year for a motorized boat. Additionally,
the Town of Lake Lure only issues 50 non-residential permits per
year. Daily and weekly boat permits are also available and vary in
price from $11 a day for a non-motorized boat to $200 for a
weekly motorized boat permits depending on the time of year and
day of the week users intend to visit the lake. Boat slip fees range
from $1,500 to $2,000 per year for non-residents. Motorized boat
access and boat storage for a non-resident would cost up to $2,600
per year. The ability of Grandview Peaks to provide a similar
amenity at little to no cost for its residents is very desirable to
potential residents of the community.

25
• Additionally, there are also fees to use the swim beach (up to $8
per visit) and swim beach picnic area ($50 per hour).
Lake James and its facilities can be utilized for nominal fees;
however, Lake James, along with Lake Lure, do not create the type
of lake experience Grandview Peaks desires to give its residents or
will obtain with smaller on-line impoundments. Lake Lure and
Lake James are approximately 720 acres and 6,500 acres,
respectively. According to Sean Elhone, the Lake James State
Park Superintendent, Lake James State Park had 375,000 visitors
in 2008. A secluded, semi-private to private lake experience is not
possible at Lake Lure or Lake James.
The proposed impoundments will provide on-site recreational
opportunities including swimming, kayaking, canoeing, and
fishing to residents of the community (Criteria A). The applicant
is faced with a competitive real estate market that provides on-site
amenities to clients. The need for impoundments as a recreational
amenity comes from a comparison of developments around Lake
James and Lake Lure which directly compete with Grandview
Peaks (Criteria D). Therefore, the applicant has to take into
consideration the real market competition for home buyers within
the region, including the sector of home buyers which desire on-
site, water-based recreational amenities.
B. Option 2 (Trails/Open Green Space)
Trails and open green space have not been proposed as a part of
this development. In lieu of open green space, the applicant has
chosen to provide home owners with larger lots and an
aesthetically pleasing lot layout which creates a feeling of
openness and spaciousness. In essence, everyone has the feeling of
open space on their own lot. Setting aside large areas of open
green space would require fewer lots or lots to be reduced in size,
this feeling of openness and spaciousness would not be as readily
available to each home owner (Criteria A). Additionally, a trail
system is not a unique amenity that draws prospective buyers to a
site.
An extensive trail system would be required to utilize the entire
site with the length of trail per lot ratio being much higher than a
denser, more compact development. The applicant would expend
greater monetary resource through constructing and maintaining a
trail system without the return of monetary gains from lot sales.
Additionally, with the current lot layout, trails would have to pass
through private lots. This is undesirable and would not be a selling
• point for potential purchasers.
26
C. Option 3 (Open Pasture/Equestrian)
Although equestrian areas can improve upon the appearance and/or
desirability of a location, they simply do not result in a significant
economic gain in profitability (Criteria D). In fact, amenities such
as these rarely change lot values, and are typically seen as a loss to
the developer. Unless the development is marketed and developed
as an equestrian community, an equestrian amenity may be under
utilized and/or abandoned (Criteria B). The applicant does not
want to market Grandview Peaks as an equestrian community
because in doing so, potential buyers who are not equestrian
hobbyists are eliminated. Many times equestrian amenities are
added as an afterthought, typically utilizing spaces that are difficult
to build on (i.e. floodplains) to maximize use of a piece of property
and make use of land that would otherwise be undevelopable.
Additionally, significant pasture land must be available at the site.
Significant pasture land is not available at Grandview Peaks.
Traditionally, creating pastures includes removal of all woody and
shrubby vegetation along with stream buffers. Although creating
pasture land may not include direct resource impacts, removal of
stream buffers for pasture is not desirable (Criteria Q.
• Equestrian driven developments are better suited for cities and
towns that already have a strong equestrian population such as
Tryon, North Carolina; and Aiken and Camden, South Carolina.
D. Option 4 (Residential Golf Course)
Golf courses are popular and attractive, but also expensive to build
and maintain. They have become more and more common
throughout the years, and developers have tried to justify their up-
front cost and ongoing cost to property owners by getting their
courses endorsed by professional golfers. As a result, many top
tier course communities have had tremendous success over the past
decade.
However, private golf course operations are rarely a profitable
endeavor. Developers use them as an amenity to draw people to
their developments and increase the rate of sales, but do not rely on
revenues from the course itself for financial gain (Criteria D). As a
result, a typical golf course (approximately 200 acres) community
needs 300 to 400 acres of relatively flat and/or rolling land for the
course on which to site a facility, and additional acreage to develop
(as economics dictate) to realize the appreciation in property
values from the golf course. The steeper or more difficult the site,
27
• then generally the more acreage is needed to design and construct
the facility.
The topography of this site does not lend itself to a golf course.
Successful golf course fairway designs generally stay at a grade of
6% or less. As a rule, modern golf course tend to have very
minimal grade change on each hole, although there may be a golf
hole or two on the course that will exceed this standard. This site
does not provide rolling hills and enough contiguous flat land to
wrap fairways around from hole to hole. Therefore, significant
grading (cut and fill) and impacts to stream and wetland would be
required to obtain the desired effect (Criteria C).
The slope and cross slopes of a property provide for a general
understanding of the steepness of the site and allows the applicant
to understand the amount of earthwork that may be required for
development. For instance, the steeper the slope, the more likely
the development will require exaggerated cut and fill areas in order
to achieve necessary grades. Steep slopes (those in excess of 20%)
present difficult areas to develop without causing excessive land
disturbance and potentially prohibitive costs during construction.
In addition to cut and fill grading plans, sediment and erosion
control measures are more difficult to install and maintain for a
• large scale grading project on site exceeding 20% slopes.
Additionally, development of residential golf course communities
do not preclude or eliminate stream and wetland impacts for
construction. Below is a table that summarizes initially proposed
impacts for some of the residential golf course communities put on
Public Notice by the Corps in the last 3 years.
Table 5_ Summarv of Golf Co rrse Permits
Project Stream Impacts Wetland Impacts ac
Cliffs at High Carolina 6,149 0.22
GINN-Laurel 6,331 0.18
Legasus at Webster Creek 3,890 0.48
Mill Run 2,550 0.03
Queen's Gap 2,020 0.16
Quigley Tract 2,584 3.12
Seven Falls 7,888 0.57
E. Option 5 (Community Center/Wellness and Fitness Center)
Community Centers and Wellness and Fitness Centers are an
important and attractive amenity for any community; however,
they provide for a specific type of activity. One of the reasons the
• applicant purchased this property is because of its potential for
28
outdoor recreation and outdoor amenities. Community Centers
and Fitness Centers would provide for recreation but outdoor
recreation in only a very limited capacity (i.e., tennis court,
basketball court). Additionally, admission into these facilities
often requires membership fees or additional property dues on top
of what is already required to live in the community. Some
residents may choose not to utilize an amenity if additional fees are
required for utilization (Criteria B).
Community Centers and Fitness Centers are often expensive to
maintain and require a staff to occupy the facility. This cost is
compounded when the majority of the development is second
homes or seasonal housing. Cost associated with the development
and continued operation of such a facility make is undesirable to
the developer (Criteria D).
F. Option 6 (Open Water) - analysis provided by MACTEC
-Watershed Lakes
The option to use upland, watershed lakes was considered. In
theory, small 1 to 4-acre lakes could be constructed upstream of
jurisdictional steam limits. The lakes would be filled with
stormwater and rainfall only. Watershed lakes are not a viable
• option for one or more of the following reasons: not enough
watershed area to keep lake filled (Criteria E), adverse cost
(Criteria D), and/or unsightly location within the development
(Criteria A). During an on-site visit, four potential watershed lake
locations were identified by the Corps. Each location was
examined as a potential watershed lake location. The following
table summarizes characteristics of each area and potential lake.
Tahle (i_ Phvsiral Attrihntpe anti Fvacihility fnr Pn4ont;?1 W?+o.?6oa ....a
Lake Max Volume Length Drainage Acre Foot per
Type* # Size (ac) Size (ac ft) Height of
(ft-3) of Dam Area 0.6 Acre
Dam (ft) (ft) (ac)** Ratio**
WP 1 2.9 58 45 2,526,480 532 10.3 2/7
WP 2 2.2 33 22 1,437,480 466 11.2 4/7
WP 3 8.7 104.4 55 4,547,664 520 16.6 1/4
WP 4 1.4 23.8 22 1,036,728 365 12.1 6/7
w r- w AterSneU LaKe
**Drainage area (ac) needed to keep lakes filled (MRCS Engineering Manual 1984).
-- reason(s) not preferable.
The table shows the maximum dam height and an estimated dam
length needed for each potential impoundment. The table also
shows a ratio of drainage area of each contributing watershed to
actual lake volume and assumes the guideline for needed drainage
29
areas to fill a lake set forth by the NRCS Engineering Manual,
1984 (0.6 acre drainage area to fill 1 acre-foot of impounded
water). Drainage areas were calculated based on 5-foot contours
using GIS. The highlighted numbers represent reasons that each
impoundment may not be feasible.
WP1 would require a 532-foot dam (45 feet tall) to create a 2.9-
acre lake. Also, in accordance with the NRCS, National
Engineering Field Handbook, WP1 has less drainage area than
needed for an impoundment of this size (0.6 acre per 1 acre-foot
volume). The 0.6-acre drainage area needed per each lake acre-
foot (58 ac ft x 0.6 = 34.8 ac) is less than half the predicted
drainage area needed (10.3 ac) for filling and maintaining water
volume at the location of WP 1. Therefore, WP1 is not feasible.
WP2 would require a 466-foot dam (22 feet tall) to create a 2.2-
acre lake; however, in accordance with the NRCS Engineering
Manual, there is not enough drainage area to fill and maintain
water volume at the location of WP2. Based on the same
calculation above, approximately 20 acres of drainage area would
be required; this location only has a drainage area of approximately
11 acres. Therefore, WP2 is not feasible.
• WP3 would require a 520-foot dam (55 feet tall) to create a 8.7-
acre lake; however, in accordance with the NRCS Engineering
Manual, there is not enough drainage area to fill and maintain
water volume at the location of WP3. Based on the same
calculation above, approximately 63 acres of drainage area would
be required; this location only has a drainage area of approximately
17 acres. Therefore, WP3 is not feasible.
WP4 would require a 365-foot dam (22 feet tall) to create a 1.4-
acre lake; however, in accordance with the NRCS Engineering
Manual, there is not enough drainage area to fill and maintain
water volume at the location of WP3. Based on the same
calculation above, approximately 14 acres of drainage area would
be required; this location only has a drainage area of approximately
12 acres. Therefore, WP4 is not feasible.
Additionally, according to the NC Cooperative Extension Service
and NC Wildlife Resources Commission Pond Management
Guide, watershed lakes are more likely to have problems with
muddy water, high siltation rates, rapid fluctuations in flow rates,
aquatic weeds, temperature fluctuations, and wild fish invasions.
They are also highly susceptible to drought conditions.
• Maintenance of several small watershed lakes would be
30
cumbersome and put an undue burden on residents of the
community.
-Off-line Impoundments Excavated in High Ground
The excavation of" lake sites was considered. This project site
consists of up to three potential lake sites that are located in
uplands, avoiding impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands.
The preferred aspects of the locations include being capable of
supporting an ideal lake depth of at least 6 to 10 feet without rock
excavation, an area providing ground waters and/or surface runoff
capable of supporting a relatively static water level, and an area
providing relatively flat topography to maximize lake area while
minimizing soil excavation and placement.
The potential for excavated lakes on this property is limited. The
lake site could be located in any of the upper reaches of the
multiple drainage basins supplying the streams, or on adjacent flat
areas and in alluvial floodplains out of streams and wetlands. In
upland basins in the vicinity of the project, the typical depth to
groundwater is greater than 10 feet. The terrain is relatively
incised, preventing a balanced excavation of large lake sites while
encouraging steep slopes and negligible shallow water areas. Both
surface runoff and groundwater from wells or excavation would
. appear to be inadequate or too costly to be considered a feasible
option (Criteria D). The surface water discharge in upland areas is
limited by the size of the contributing watershed. The only way to
provide enough runoff control is to impound further in the
watershed.
Excavated lake sites in the floodplains of major streams on the
property have some potential to provide a continuous water supply.
The floodplains have relatively flat areas, relatively shallow
ground water, access to some runoff from contributing watersheds,
and more fertile soils. The limiting factors are the lack of large
contiguous areas in alluvial habitats on the subject property
(Criteria E). The largest areas are along the larger tributaries with
meandering stream beds and adjacent wetlands and seepages.
These resources would have to be buffered from the vegetation
removal and large soil excavation operation necessary to dig out a
large lake. The significant soil disturbance associated with this
project has potential for temporary impacts to adjacent streams and
waters during high flow events that could occupy and scour the
excavated lake during and after construction. The long narrow
nature of the potential excavation sites exacerbate the potential for
impacts to adjacent streams, to include loss of shading vegetation
• and loss of essential active floodplain for streams to grade and
31
meander. The cost of hauling excavated material from large lake
footprints is inhibiting to the project.
-On-line Impoundments (As Proposed)
Two impoundments are proposed for the project site (25 acres and
9 acres). Stream and wetland impacts associated with the
impoundments total approximately 6,665 linear feet and 0.73 acre,
respectively. The proposed impoundments are located in a very
accessible portion on the property (Criteria A). Grandview Peaks
has one main entrance and residents of the community can drive by
the impoundments as they make their way to their home, if they
choose. In response to discussions during and after the pre-
application meeting on November 30, 2009, every resident will
have access to both lakes on the property. With the installation of
residential access areas, it is predicted that residents across the
community with utilize the lakes (Criteria B) for the recreational or
relaxation activity of their choice: fishing, boating; bird watching,
swimming, respiting, etc.
The two lakes are located in the northern portion of the property
boundary in close proximity to each other. These locations were
chosen because of the flatter (relatively) topography and stream
classification. Stream on site located in the Catawba River Basin
are classified as "C" waters; those in the Broad River Basin are
classified as "WS-V". The Catawba River Basin was chosen as a
preferable location for the lake because of its lesser classification
(Criteria C). There is a portion of the southern piece of the
property which is also included in the Catawba River Basin;
however, it includes the ridges and side slopes of Lookadoo
Mountain and due to topography is not the preferred location for a
lake. The decision to place the lakes in the Catawba River basin
by nature puts them in close proximity to one another.
Streams and wetlands will be impacted by development of the
lakes. Stream and wetland functions within the dam footprints will
be lost as a result of construction. However, the majority of
impacts associated with impoundments are flooding impacts.
Stream and wetland functions will be converted in these areas; all
aquatic function and habitat will not be lost (Criteria C).
Construction of the impoundments is the only option that meets the
project purpose. Environmental impacts will be offset through the
implementation of on-site preservation and payment into the EEP.
The construction of the dams is economically and constructionally
feasible (Criteria D and E). The project as proposed meets all the
Criteria defined above and is the developers amenity of chose.
•
32
Justification for construction of the lakes in discussed in Section
10.4.
10.3 Minimization
As stated in the permit application submitted by MACTEC on January 17, 2007,
construction of up to five impoundments was considered and planned during the
initial stages of the development. That permit application described and applied
for impacts associated with three impoundments (6 acres, 25 acres, and 9 acres)
totaling 8,023 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.60 acres of wetland impacts.
During the course of the permitting process, Lake 1 (6 acres) was eliminated from
the site plan. This elimination reduced impacts to 6,966 linear feet and 0.60 acre
of wetland, a 13% decrease in impacts. During CEC's evaluation of the
submitted permit application, it was discovered that the estimated impacts for the
preliminary dam design and associated flooding were incorrect. Reevaluation of
the dams and flooding decreased the impacts associated by 301 linear feet, an
additional decrease of 4% (for lake impacts only). Additionally, the originally
submitted permit application did not account for road impacts at the site. CEC
has identified 3 road crossings at the site. Each road crossing was placed at an
existing crossing. A Nationwide Permit 39 was issued in May of 2006 for the
replacement and lengthening of two culverts. The third crossing was preexisting
at the site and required no alteration. These crossings are identified on the site
plan. Only 20 linear feet of additional impact is being requested for road impacts
at the site. Three road crossings are all that is needed to access the entire 2,055-
acre site. Wetland impacts at the site have increased; however, some wetland
impacts associated with the project were not included in the original permit
application (most notably, 0.04 acres of wetlands within the proposed 9-acre
lake).
10.4 Impact Justification
Master Planning and permitting large/long term development projects depend
highly upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering
design principles which are often conceptual at the time of permitting, but which
must include available land for development to economically justify the project,
reasonable site access, construction of utilities and stonnwater systems, and
appropriate location of various land use amenities.
It has been determined that other mountain properties of similar size located in
western North Carolina would likely contain comparable streams, wildlife, and
cultural resources, presenting similar engineering and land planning challenges
and opportunities. The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct
intensive surveys and assessments, including land survey, wetland delineation and
survey, threatened and endangered species survey, archeological surveys,
intensive land planning and market analysis. The information gathered from these
tasks has been considered in preparation of the master plan submitted with this
permit application. Market analysis conducted by the applicant confirms the
• aptness of the project site for the intended purpose. However, for the project to be
33
• economically viable, enough real estate must be made available for amenities to
cover development costs and provide a reasonable profit. Since the land area is
finite, development costs, particularly construction costs, must be limited for the
project to be successful.
The proposed development will contain a variety of land uses, generally
consistent with their other successful projects in the southeast. These land uses
include single-family parcels, impoundments (amenity feature), wetland-stream
preservation, and infrastructure. The proposed land use provides the future
residents with an attractive low-density and aesthetically pleasing place to live in
an attractive location.
The applicant proposes to create impoundments for both the private residents and
their guests to enjoy. The applicant has considered both the advantages and
disadvantages of this proposal, and they have faced the challenge of maintaining a
balance between residential and economics with minimal environmental impacts.
Water features are extremely desirable for private residences. The residential
access to the impoundments will provide unique recreational opportunities for
both the private residents and their guests (residents and non-residents). In
addition, this project will likely provide an overall boost to the surrounding
economy.
Financial justification of an in-stream impoundment can be somewhat subjective
depending on the type of development. Developments that have another primary
amenity, such as a signature golf course, do not see a significant increase in lot
values due to the presence of a lake. These developments may indeed have an
easier justification for a lake (irrigation needs, integral part of the course, etc.),
but the presence of the lake itself does little to boost property values. However,
when the lake is the primary amenity, lot values become heavily dependant on its
presence, and the value of lots on or in close proximity of the lake see a
substantial increase in value. This statement can easily be supported by looking at
any number of lake lots and their associated value, versus lots in the same region
a few thousand feet from the lake and/or out of view of the lake.
In order to establish a baseline with which to compare lot values before and after
the construction of the lakes, data must be gathered on the existing infrastructure
costs and then those costs projected forward. Expenses at Grandview Peaks have
been categorized and projected forward based on their applicability. Some items
such as road construction are based on price per linear foot, and some, such as lot
clearing, are based on total number of lots. Some items, such as road signage, are
not so clearly defined but it is assumed the cost will grow in proportion to length
of roads constructed. Below is a table showing all expenses paid to date, along
with projected expenditures at project completion.
•
34
•
Table 7_ FxnenCP.C PAid to nAtP. nnrl PrniPr•t _PVnanrlifiirac
Expense
Description Units Current Units
Completed Units at
Completion % Complete Sent to Date
p Anticipated Total
E
xpenditure
Road
Construction Miles 11.8 27.8 42.45% $5,617,825.00 $13,235,214.83
Electric Utilities Miles 11.8 27.8 42.45% $1,031,981.00 $2,431,277.27
Lot Cleanup and

Landscaping Lot 331 761 43.50% $593,166.00 $1,363,744.19
Surveying Lot 331 761 43.50% $186,365.00 $428,470.59
Ent Gate Lump Sum l 1 100.00% $33,962.00 $33,962.00
Road Signs Miles 11.8 27.8 42.45% $36,365.00 $85,673.47
Erosion Control Miles 11.8 27.8 42.45% $110,300.00 $259,859.32
Engineering Miles 11.8 27.8 42.45% $220,099.00 $518,538.32
Advertising Miles 11.8 27.8 42.45% $1,951,585.00 $4,597,801.95

Anticipated Total Expenditures $22,954,541.95
Average Cost $30
163
66
,
.
Per Lot
Average Cost
per Linear Foot $156.38
of Road
This information was simplified for applicability to the discussion of financial
justification. All of the costs associated with the development of Grandview
• Peaks total $22,954,541.95. These costs have been broken down into a cost per
linear foot of road. This is likely a more realistic approximation than a cost per
lot since it takes into account the added expense for larger lots, which would
likely be the result if lots were developed in low-lying areas where the proposed
lakes exist. Should this land be developed without the lakes, additional benefits
would need to be offered to increase the value of these lots to make them
marketable. These areas are all low-lying and do not have the advantage of good
to excellent views. Additionally, much of the area has slopes that yield difficult
land to develop, resulting in the inability to develop the area with as high a lot
density as areas with milder slopes. Furthermore, much of the area in and around
the proposed lakes has been recently cut over, and the stand of trees present does
not include mature trees as in other portions of the property. As a result, lots
would be made larger to increase appeal and include areas that simply cannot be
developed into individual lots. This resulting increase in size would inevitably
increase the cost of development per lot.
Presently, the average road-frontage lot width is 188.23 feet. Using the cost
breakdown in the previous table, this yields an average to-date lot development
cost of (188.23 feet x $156.38/foot) $29,435.31 per lot. This cost is very close to
the per-lot divination of $30,163.66 calculated in the table above. This fits well
into the original business model for the development, with an average sale price
of roughly $60,000. This difference includes net profit and other overhead
expenses such as employee salaries, benefits, land maintenance, etc. The original
• business plan called for lots to sale much quicker, reducing the advertising costs
35
• and debt service penalties. Expenses have grown above what was anticipated due
to the present state of the economy. Given the increase in expenditures per lot,
the difference between the selling price of the lot and actual lot development cost
is becoming less and less. The only way to reverse this trend is to reduce the cost
of development for each lot or increase the sale price of each lot.
When discussing the lots located around the lakes, it becomes evident that the
development of these lots is not feasible without the lake. As discussed above,
without the lakes, the low-lying lots would need to be increased in size.
Increasing the size of these lots to make them marketable will increase the current
cost of lot development. The anticipated increased lot size would be an average 5
acres, with the road frontage growing to 300-350 feet. This would yield an
average development cost of $46,914 to $54,733 per lot (based on the per linear
foot cost of development). This would decrease the difference between the
selling price of the lots and the actual lot development cost, narrowing margin of
$30,000 by 56% to 82%.
The proposed lakes make the property more desirable and in particular the typical
"low-lying" properties with limited mountain views much more desirable due to
the close proximity and view of a lake. Thus, it takes lots that may sell for
$60,000 and increases the value to an anticipated $160,000 (lake front properties).
Without the lake, low-lying lots may not sell at all, or are likely to sell at a much
slower rate. Furthermore, it takes the next "level" of lots with somewhat better
views of the mountains, and adds in a component of a lake view coupled with the
mountain view. Every single lot will have the access and use of the lake for
themselves and their guests, which increases lot values with no view of the lake.
Developing the lakes will create additional expenses for the development. The
table below (Table 8) shows the cost of construction for both of the lakes. These
items were lumped together for the sake of this report since either lake
constructed individually would enable savings based on an economy of scale.
Approximately 2/3 of the costs below are for the larger 25-acre lake; the
remaining amount is for the 9-acre lake. The discrepancy in price is due to the
larger amount of fill and increase in pipe size and length for the spillway system
of the larger lake.
•
36
•
Table 8. Cost of Construction for T.akec
Expense Description Units Quantity Unit Price Total
Clearing and Grubbing Acres 35 $3,000.00 $105,000.00
Dam Coring (Excavation &
Compaction)
CY
7500
$15.00
$112,500.00
Cut/Fill, Erosion Control
Measures CY 102000 $4.00 $408,000.00
Piping for Primary Spillway LS 2 $45,000.00 $90,000.00
Construction Subtotal $715,500.00
Construction Contingency $71,550.00
Dam Structural Design Engineering $42,000.00
Environmental Permitting $260,000.00
Soil Testing $30,000.00
Mitigation $227,040.00
Surveying (re and post) $15,000.00
Total Project Cost $1,36],090.00
Based on the table above, the price of construction for the lakes is $1,361,090.00.
These numbers include every aspect of the lake construction costs, including $344
• per linear foot mitigation fees proposed for the dam impacts.
The following tables (Tables 9 and 10) will compare the development cost of the
remaining portion of the development with and without the dams, as well as
anticipated profits with and without the dams. The first table (Table 9), shown
below, along with a summary table displaying the anticipated gross profit, is for
the current development without either of the dams.
•
37
Table 9. Develor ment Costs without Lakes
-

Expense Description

Units
Current Units
Completed
Units at
Completion
Units
Remaining
g

Spent to Date
Anticipated
Total
Expenditure
Antici ated Remainin
p g
Expenditure
Road Construction Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $5,617,825 $13,235,215 $7,617,390
Electric Utilities Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $1,031,981 $2,431,277 $1,399,296
Lot Cleanup and
Landscaping Lot 331 761 400 $593,166 $1,363,744 $770,578
Surveying Lot 331 761 400 $186,365 $428,471 $242,106
Ent Gate Lump Sum 1 1 0 $33,962 $33,962 $0
Road Signs Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $36,365 $85,673 $49,308
Erosion Control Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $110,300 $259,859 $149,559
Engineering Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $220,099 $518,538 $298,439
Advertising Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $1,951,585 $4,597,802 $2,646,217
Antici ated Remaining Expenditures without Dams $13,172,894
Average Cost Per Lot $32,932
Average Lot Sale Price $55,000
Difference $22,068
Number of Lots 400
Antic' ted Gross Profit $8,827,106

•
38
• The second table (Table 10), shown below, along with a summary table
displaying the anticipated gross profit, is for the development with both of the
dams.
Table 10. 17evelonment C'nctc with T.Aee

Expense Description
Units Current
Units
Completed Units at
Completion Units
Remaining Spent to
Date Anticipated
Total
Expenditure Anticipated
Remaining
Expenditure
Road Construction Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $5,617,825 $13,235,215 $7,617,390
Electric Utilities Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $1,031,981 $2,431,277 $1,399,296
Lot Cleanup and Landscaping Lot 331 761 430 $593,166 $1,363,744 $770,578
Surveying Lot 331 761 430 $186,365 $428,471 $242,106
Entry Gate Lump Sum 1 1 0 $33,962 $33,962 $0
Road Signs Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $36,365 $85,673 $49,308
Erosion Control Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $110,300 $259,859 $149,559
Engineering Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $220,099 $518,538 $298,439
Advertising Miles 11.8 27.8 16 $1,951,585 $4,597,802 $2,646,217
Dam Construction Lum Sum 0 27.8 1 $0 $1,612,210 $1,612,210
Anticipated Remaining Expenditures with Dams $14,785,104
Average Cost Per Lot $34,384
Average Lot Sale Price $77,000
erence $42,616
ber of Lots 430
Anticipated Gross Profit $18,324,896
It is important to note the number of overall lots in both scenarios. For the
development without the dams, the actual lot yield was decreased by 30 lots, for a
total lot yield of 400. Common sense would seem to indicate that recapturing the
area flooded by a lake would increase the availability of raw land, and thus
increase the number of lots for sale. In reality, it is just the opposite. For
instance, if the lake was not constructed, the 25-acre surface area of the largest
planned lake and the surrounding 75 acres proposed for lake lots would likely
yield only twenty, 5-acre lots. Based on the current plan with the lakes, the
number of lots in this same 100-acre area will be more than twice the number than
without the lake, with each of these lots being considerably higher in value.
As can be seen from the numbers above, the anticipated revenue from both lakes
more than doubles the anticipated profits of the remaining development, going
from an anticipated gross profit of $8,827,106 to $18,324,896. These values were
based on an assumption of the average sale price of each lot without the lake
being $55,000, which is in line with the current averages from the development
thus-far, with the average being brought down slightly due to the lower sale prices
of the lots within the basins where the proposed lakes are located. The number
• used for the average lot price including the lake construction ($77,000) includes
the current average of $60,000 per lot, with an additional $100,000 for each of the
39
70 lake lots, yielding a lake-front lot price of $160,000. The planned list prices of
these lots are $200,000 and above, but $160,000 was used as a conservative figure
given the current economy.
Financial justification of the lakes also needs to include a discussion of the state
of the economy. The state of the economy is perhaps one of the most compelling
reasons to include the lakes as a part of this project proposal. Decline of the most
recent real estate boom began the latter half of 2007, with the final result being a
deep recession with numerous developers declaring bankruptcy. The real estate
boom had been one of the greatest growths in real estate, with North Carolina
being one of the leaders in mountain development sales. With economic decline,
large numbers of bankruptcies in the vicinity of Grandview Peaks in the
mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee has flooded the market with
countless lots in foreclosure. In response, banks are selling foreclosed lots for a
fraction of the lots initial value. As a result, the strong price point for such lots
has declined dramatically. These lots are very typical of lots in Grandview Peaks
with nice views, large stands of hardwood trees, etc. This has made it
exceedingly difficult even for financially responsible companies such as Fall
Creek Land Company to go unaffected throughout this downturn. Due to this
flood of comparable, discounted lots into the market, Fall Creek Land Company
has come to realize the importance of separating their lots from the other typical
lots on the market today. Amenity lakes would serve this purpose and give the
development a chance to weather through this turbulent market.
• As can be seen from the information above, the impact of the two proposed
recreational lakes within the Grandview Peaks development is significant. Not
only does it give the development a unique marketability in an exceptionally
turbulent environment, but it also ensures a significant increase in gross profit,
which would be an absolute necessity if the market continues to slow and the
developer has to carry large amounts of debt service over time. Another
important factor is absorption rate. With the lakes, the project could sell out in 3
years. Without the lake, it would likely take 6 or 9 years for the project to sell
out. An additional 3 to 6 years of financing and marketing cost, without the lakes,
will substantially reduce the overall profitability of this development.
The applicant's market research is also consistent with a study cited by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their discussion of the economic
benefits of runoff controls indicating that "whether a beach, pond, or stream, the
proximity to water raises the value of a home by up to 28 percent."I A 1991
American Housing Survey conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Department of Commerce also concurs that "when all else
is equal, the price of a home located within 300 feet from a body of water
increases by up to 27.8 percent."2 EPA states that "when designed and sited
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted Runoff
• (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls.
2 NAHB. 1993. Housing Economics. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC.
40
• correctly, artificial lakes or wetlands can help developers reduce negative
environmental impacts caused by the development process and increase the value
of the property."
In addition to meeting the proposed project purpose, the significance of the
proposed lakes is more than simple monetary values. The addition of the lakes
makes the property more marketable, and also makes it more appealing to a wider
range of people due to the increase in recreational opportunities. As a result of
this, the property will undoubtedly sell faster and for more money than property
without a large water feature.
Fishing and wildlife-watching are two favorite past times of both North Carolina
residents and nonresidents here in the United States. A national survey of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation in North Carolina boasts that 3.5 million
fishing and wildlife-watching participants in the state spent approximately $2
billion in related expenses, resulting in an increase in local and state revenue 3. The
creation of a lakes that support both of these uses will not only serve the immediate
private residences surrounding the lakes, but will likely provide an overall boost to
the community's economy. The team responsible for this project has had the
challenge of maintaining a balance between the possible recreational and economic
advantages of creating lakes, and the potential environmental impacts.
With fishing expenditures in North Carolina for both state residents and
• nonresidents totaling 1.1 billion, it is hard to say that the creation of lakes will not
bring an increase in economic input into the surrounding local area. This increase
in economic activity will likely result according to the 2001 National Survey for
North Carolina.4 According to this data, 1.3 million North Carolina residents and
nonresidents fished and spent $1.02 billion on trip-related and equipment
expenses.
North Carolina residents and nonresidents make up a total of 1.3 million wild bird
observers according to the 2001 National Survey. According to this same survey,
wildlife-watching expenditures in North Carolina totaled $827 million. The
increase in both fishing and wildlife watching opportunities with the creation of
lakes will likely extend these revenues to this surrounding local community in
McDowell County.
Grandview Peaks has chosen to propose earthen dams for the lake development.
Rolled concrete dams were considered because of their lesser impact to streams;
however, after evaluation were dismissed as an option. A discussion of this
evaluation follows.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Revised March 2003.
4 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Revised March 2003.
41
Rolled concrete is relatively new to this region but has been used successfully in
the western United States. Rolled concrete is a material comprised of large
aggregate and cement mixed with a reduced amount of water to create a very dry
concrete mixture. Once the mix is created, it is placed in layers and roller
compacted. This construction technique is much less expensive than a typical
concrete dam where tons of steel formwork is required prior to placing the
concrete.
There are several advantages of roller compacted concrete dams versus earthen
dams. Although a roller compacted dam has a much larger footprint than a
traditional concrete dam, it is still significantly smaller than an earthen filled dam.
Typically, the upstream and downstream slopes are placed at 1:1 slopes, versus a
2:1 upstream and 3:1 downstream slope characteristic of earthen dams. In
actuality, a 1.5:1 slope is preferred on both the upstream and downstream sides,
but the minimal allowed is used in this example since it is much more
conservative for this comparison. Slopes of 1.5:1 would result in costs of nearly
$8 million. As a result, the overall "hard" impacts are less than '/2 of the impacts
created by an earthen filled dam. Another advantage of rolled concrete is
consistency of materials. Since concrete is mixed at a plant where all of the
aggregate is tested and the water and cement is accurately measured, the
consistency of a rolled concrete dam is very high. Lastly, cost savings can be
realized by using the downstream slope as the spillway as opposed to using a
typical pipe spillway system in an earthen dam.
• Even with all the advantages; however, there are numerous disadvantages
of
rolled concrete. The first is cost. On a large scale, the cost of rolled concrete can
be reduced to around $75/cubic yard, but when compared to approximately
$4/cubic yard for on-site fill material, this difference cannot be made up simply
by the material reduction from rolled concrete (comparison below). Additionally,
rolled concrete is placed in "lifts", creating potential areas for weep and cracking.
Rolled concrete materials cannot use the usual practices of poured concrete to
resolve these issues (steel reinforcement, water stops, etc.). This characteristic of
rolled concrete has undergone considerable speculation and testing, and although
many theories have been devised on how to minimize this problem (using gap
graded aggregate, etc.), an accepted solution has yet to be determined. As a
result, a "cap" layer must be placed on the upstream and downstream side of the
rolled concrete dam, and on steeper dam faces this can be an expensive and
daunting task. Rolled concrete dams also have the disadvantage of having to be
tied directly to a homogenous rock layer on the subject property. Typically, this
requires a large area to be excavated over the entire length of the dam footprint to
expose a rock layer for the dam to rest on, and the excavation can be quite deep.
Not only is this excavation costly, but due to the depth and nearby water table,
dewatering may be needed.
•
42
The table below gives an estimated cost for two roller compacted concrete dams
in place of the proposed earthen dams. The cubic yardage of material is much
less, but the cost is significantly higher.
Table 11. Cost of Roller Compacted Concrete Dams
Expense Description Units y Quantity Unit Price Total
Clearing and Grubbing Acres 35 $3,000.00 $105,000.00
Excavation to Tie into Bedrock CY 15000 $10.00 $150,000.00
Roller Compacted Concrete CY 50000 $75.00 $3,750,000.00
Cut/Fill, Erosion Control Measures LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Construction Subtotal $4,020,000.00
Construction Contingency $402,000.00
Dam Structural Design Engineerin g $65,000.00
Environmental Permitting $260,000.00
Soil Testing $45,000.00
Mitigation $192,000.00
Surveying (re and post) $15,000.00
Total Project Cost $4,999,000.00
From the table above, it is clear that the overall cost of the rolled concrete dam is more
than $3.5 million more expensive than traditional earthen dams using even a 1:1 slope
• profile. Since these structures are not an activity that results in the creation of parcels
that can be appraised, it is highly unlikely that a bank would be willing or able to finance
the $5 million needed to construct the dams. As a result, the owner would have to pay for
this investment with current sources of funds, which is not possible.
10.5 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with the documents submitted by the
applicant in support of the 404 Permit, show that the project is in compliance with
the Guidelines. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the Grandview Peaks
development is designed to avoid and minimize impacts at the site to the
maximum extent practicable while maintaining a rational project design.
•
43
• 11.0 MITIGATION PLAN
Upon completion and implementation of all practical avoidance and minimization efforts,
6,775 linear feet of stream channel and 0.73 acre of wetland impacts associated with the
development at Grandview Peaks are unavoidable. As a result of discussions before and
after the pre-application meeting on November 30, 2009, the applicant has increased the
mitigation ratio from 0.5:1 to 1:1 for flooding. All unavoidable impacts for streams will
be mitigated for at a compensatory mitigation ratio of 2:1 for dam impacts and 1:1 for
flooding impacts. All unavoidable impacts for wetlands will be mitigated for at a
compensatory mitigation ratio of 2:1 for dam impacts and 1:1 for flooding impacts. It is
estimated by the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
that there are approximately 16,093,440 linear feet of streams in the Catawba River Basin
and 7,920,000 linear feet of streams in the Broad River Basin. Flooding is a secondary
impact and would not result in a direct, "hard" impact to stream channels. Hard impacts
to 805 linear feet of streams at the project site accounts for 0.003% of the streams in the
watersheds. Any required mitigation measures should be commensurate with the degree
of project impacts and are in accordance with mitigation guideline set forth by the Corps
and DWQ. The following conceptual mitigation plan is provided in support of this
permit application.
11.1 Stream and Wetland Preservation
The applicant proposes to partially mitigate for unavoidable stream impacts at a
mitigation activity ratio of 9:1 through preservation of portions of remaining
• streams on the site. Approximately 62,000 linear feet of streams will be
preserved, along with a 30-foot wide and 60-foot wide buffers on each side of the
stream. Upland buffers will total approximately 90 acres. The applicant proposed
to partially mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts at a mitigation activity ratio
of 5:1 through preservation all remaining wetlands on the site. Approximately
1.55 acres of wetland will be preserved (0.31 acre of wetland credit). A table of
stream and wetland preservation is on the following page (Tables 12-15). As a
result of the pre-application meeting on November 30, 2009, preserved wetlands
are no longer within stream buffers. In areas where proposed stream buffers
included proposed wetland preservation, stream buffers were removed so only
wetland preservation is present in the area. All preserved streams, stream buffer
areas, and wetlands will be protected via restrictive covenants. Restrictive
covenant language will be consistent with model language provided by the US
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Any changes to the model
restrictive covenant language will be approved by the Corps.
11.2 NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
The applicant proposes to mitigate for the balance of unavoidable impacts (695
linear feet and 0.5 acre) at a mitigation activity ratio of 2:1 through payment into
the EEP in-lieu fee program. By letter dated November 3, 2009, EEP has
indicated they are willing to accept payment for impacts associated with
development at Grandview Peaks. The acceptance letter is enclosed for review
(Attachment F).
44
11.3 Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation
The applicant is proposing to mitigate for 6,775 linear feet of unavoidable stream
impacts and 0.73 acre of unavoidable wetland impacts. Compensatory mitigation
will be in the form of preservation and payment into the EEP. The tables below
summarize the basic mitigation requirements along with the proposed stream and
wetland mitigation.
Table 12_ Basic Mit;ontinn RPrnl;rPmPnt _ Qfv,-a ?
•

Impact Linear v
Feet of
Impact Compensatory
Mitigation Ratio
(x:1) Basic
Mitigation
Requirement
2 420 2 840
4 275 2 550
5 1,390 1 1,390
6 4,580 1 4,580
7 20 2 40
Previous
Impacts 90 2 180

Total Impacts 6,775
Total
Mitigation
Requirement
7,580
Tah1P 1't Prnr%nv,-A NA;+;no+;-r Q+----
0
Linear Feet Mitigation
Stream of Type Activity Ratio Total
Mitigation (x:1) Credit
EEP 695 Restoration 1 695
Throughout 62,000 Preservation 9 6,885
Total Mitigation
Proposed 62,695
Total Mitigation
Credits 7,580
45

Table 14. Basic Mitigation Requirement - Wetland
Acre of Compensatory Basic
Impact Impact Mitigation Ratio Mitigation
(x: l) Requirement
1 0.43 1 0.43
3 0.26 1 0.26
4 0.04 2 0.08
Total Impacts 0.73
Total
Mitigation 0.77
Requirement
Table 15. Proposed Mitiuntinn _ wptinnrl
•
•

Wetland Acre of
Type Mitigation
Activity Ratio Total
Mitigation Credit
(x:1)
EEP 0.5 Restoration 1 0.5
Throughout 1.55 Preservation 5 0.31
Total Mitigation
Pro osed 2.05
Total Mitigation
Credits 0.81
46
12.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
The EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites for
dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R. 230 per
Section 404(b)l. Sub-Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits, and apply to
project sites similar to this project.
Sub-Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)l guidelines. This
section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a dredge and fill
permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist. Alternatives reviewed and
details detailed in Section 10.0 were assessed for compliance with 404(b)l guidelines.
Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria, wildlife
value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill material is
considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity: does not
contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate toxic effluent
standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened and
endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent
amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries; does not contribute
to significant degradation of "waters of the United States"; does not adversely affect
human health as it pertains to water supply; does not adversely impact wildlife, the food
chain, and special aquatic sites; does not contribute to the discharge of pollutants that
may affect the food web; does not have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic
• ecosystem, or their physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation,
aesthetic, or economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize
potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
12.1 Factual Determination
The Corps is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects
of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and
biological components of an aquatic environment.
12.2 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic
Ecosystem
Sub-Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical
characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of
which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem.
12.2.1 Substrate
Fill material in the form of a dams, associated outfall culverts, and subsequent
impoundments will be placed in jurisdictional streams on site. Any discharge will
consist of suitable fill material and will not include any trash, debris, car bodies,
asphalt, etc. The fill material will also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts. Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be installed prior to
and during construction to ensure that the bottom elevation of remaining streams
and wetlands on the property will not change.
47
• 12.2.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
During construction activities on the site, there may be a minimal increase in
suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity downstream.
However, the increase is anticipated to be minimal and temporary due to the
installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures
during construction and shortly thereafter.
12.2.3 Water Quality
The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause increased
chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically,
changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to possible chemical
contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All discharges of dredge and fill
material will be controlled with a sediment and erosion control plan.
It is anticipated that all of the fill material needed at the site will be taken from
on-site areas. The fill material used on site will be clear and free of chemical
contamination. Should additional fill material be required, suitable, off-site, clean
fill material will be purchased and transported to the project.
The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Certification and has proposed to participate in a Water Quality
Monitoring and Sampling study on lakes similar to the ones proposed at the
Grandview Peaks site.
12.2.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged dredge and fill material associated with construction of the lakes
will modify flow and circulation in the impounded stream channels. Adequate
mitigation will be provided to compensate for any lost functions and values that
may be caused by the conversion of streams to open water.
12.2.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated to
have any significant effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes. The lakes will
be designed in a manner that ensures flow into the stream channel is not inhibited
or eliminated.
12.2.6 Salinity
Because this project is located inland and away from tidally influenced waters and
wetlands, no modification to the salinity of on-site or adjacent waters is expected.
12.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub-Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern in
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are threaten and endangered species; fish,
• crustaceans, mollusks, other aquatic organisms in the food web; and wildlife.
48
12.3.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the FWS and NHP.
The desktop literature survey involved a review of FWS list of protected species
in McDowell County and the Glenwood USGS Topo Quad on which NHP
identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for that locale. Bog
Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is the only current and/or historic record of
occurrence for the Glenwood USGS Topo Quad. The NHP database identifies
one element of occurrence, bog turtle, within a 2-mile radius of the project site.
Bog turtle holds a Federal status of T(S/A), threatened due to similarity of
appearance, and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. Additionally, in the pre-
application meeting held on November 30, 2009, David McHenry with the WRC
indicated that a WRC herpetologist had visited the site and concluded that the
wetlands present did not provide the necessary habitat for bog turtle.
By letter dated March 15, 2007, the FWS commented on the January 22, 2007
permit application. In this letter, the FWS states that they "agree that no listed
species or their habitats occur on site and that the proposed project will not affect
endangered or threatened species or their habitats". Unless advised otherwise,
CEC believes that the findings by the FWS remain applicable to the project and
site as a whole. A copy of the FWS letter is attached for review (Attachment B).
As concluded in the FWS letter, it is the opinion of CEC that federally protected
• species are not likely to be present within the project boundary. As such,
development of the proposed Grandview Peaks project site is not likely to cause an
adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species or their critical
habitat.
12.3.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the Food
Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting
animals, such as invertebrates, that make up the basis of a food chain. The release
of contaminants or an increase in turbidity has the potential to negatively effect
certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may also potentially increase the
levels of exotic species.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US and
wetlands on the project site are expected to be minimal. Any impacts to primary
food chain production will be compensated for through the proposed mitigation
plan.
12.3.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food
sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
•
49
While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream-dependent species will result from
construction of the lakes, the proposed preservation of approximately 90 acres of
riparian buffer on site along with 62,000 linear feet of stream channel should
compensate for any minor loss of habitat.
12.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub-Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges,
wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle-pool complexes.
12.4.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges by impacting water quality, decreasing
wildlife habitat, increasing human access, and creating the need for frequent
maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment of undesirable plant and
animal species, which can change the balance of habitat type. There are no
designated sanctuaries or refuges located within the project vicinity; therefore,
impacts to sanctuaries or refuges will not occur as a result of development at
Grandview Peaks.
12.4.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely effect
wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can
• lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and
groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material and flooding associated with
development at Grandview Peaks will impact on-site wetlands (0.73 acre).
Approximately 1.55 acres of wetlands on site have been avoided and will be
preserved.
12.4.3 Mud Flats
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect mud
flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. There are no mud
flat communities within the project boundary; therefore, loss of these ecosystems
will not occur as a result of development at Grandview Peaks.
12.4.4 Vegetated Shallows
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
vegetated shallows. Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that
contain rooted aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within
estuarine and marine environments; and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No
vegetated shallow habitats exist within the project boundary; therefore, no
impacts to this ecosystem will occur as a result of development at Grandview
Peaks.
•
50
i 12.4.5 Coral Reefs
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect coral
reefs. Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. Coral reefs do not
exist within the project boundary; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will
occur as a result of development at Grandview Peaks.
12.4.6 Riffle-Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle-pool complexes
has the potential to negatively affect water quality and wildlife value. Any
permanent impact to riffle-pool complexes will be compensated for through the
proposed mitigation activities.
12.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
Sub-Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water-related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines.
12.5.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
The public water supply will not increase or decrease due to proposed activities
within the Grandview Peaks project boundary. Potable water will be supplied by
single-family wells.
• 12.5.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
recreational and commercial fisheries. The project as proposed will increase
opportunity for recreational fisheries. It is expected that the lakes will be home to
a thriving population of fishes. This project will have no effect on commercial
fisheries.
12.5.3 Water-Related Recreation
Proposed activities within the Grandview Peaks project boundary will increase
waterborne recreation within the project boundary.
12.5.4 Aesthetics
Aesthetically, the residential development proposed at Grandview Peaks will be
no different from any other residential community in outlying areas. Because of
the nature of this development, an aesthetically pleasing design is of utmost
importance. The design team has strived to integrate the residential development
into the surrounding environment so that they can work together and act as a
single unit. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of the area
or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view.
•
51
i 12.5.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be effected by the proposed development at
Grandview Peaks.
12.6 Summary
Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated
herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and
subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 6,775 linear feet of
streams and 0.73 acre of wetland will not cause any off site adverse impacts.
Mitigation offered both on site and off site should more than compensate for any
on-site impacts.
•
•
52
• 13.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
When reviewing this application, the Corps is required to consider the project in terms of
the public interest. In considering the public interest, the Corps must evaluate the
probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may be
expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments". In
balancing these interests, the Corps must consider the public and private need for the
proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and the
extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project. The
Corps also considers the following public interest factors:
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and water quality, energy needs, safety,
food and fiber production, mineral needs, and considerations of the
property ownership.
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
Furthermore, the Corps regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the district
• engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors through the planning process and
believes that the proposed project is clearly not contrary to the public interest.
13.1 Conservation
The applicant proposes to preserve approximately 62,000 linear feet of stream
channel. These waters are ecologically important as cold water mountain streams,
which empty into the Broad River and Catawba River via Shoal Creek, Weaver
Branch, Kelly Branch, Big Camp Creek, South Muddy Creek, and Hoppers
Creek. These streams will be preserved in perpetuity through the implementation
of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms (i.e. restrictive covenants).
The applicant will also preserve the functions and values of these streams by
establishing 30-foot and 60-foot upland buffers on the right and left sides of the
preserved channels. The total land mass of the upland buffers will be
approximately 90 acres.
The location of these upland buffers and stream preservation areas will serve to
protect and preserve the function and value of the areas and maintain suitable
foraging, breeding and nesting habitat, and corridors for wildlife species.
•
53
• 13.2 Economics
The project will provide an overall benefit to the local economy of McDowell
County. During and upon completion of construction, the site will provide job
opportunities associated with maintenance of the residential development. The
project will also benefit the local economy by providing additional tax revenues.
Taxes paid each year prior to purchase by Fall Creek Land Company totaled
approximately $198,000. At build out, estimated taxes for the development will
be $1,368,000 per year. This provides for a significant increase in tax revenue for
McDowell County. The appropriate economic evaluations have been completed
and the project as proposed is economically viable.
13.3 Aesthetics
Aesthetically, the residential development proposed at Grandview Peaks will be
no different from any other residential community in outlying areas. Because of
the nature of this development, an aesthetically pleasing design is of utmost
importance. The design team has strived to integrate the residential development
into the surrounding environment so that they can work together and act as a
single unit. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of the area
or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view.
13.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than stream impacts, proposed development activities within the Grandview
• Peaks project boundary will have no significant identifiable impacts upon other
environmental components.
13.5 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely effect
wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can
lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and
groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material and flooding associated with
development at Grandview Peaks will impact 0.73 acre of on-site wetlands. Any
permanent wetland impacts will be compensated for through the proposed
mitigation activities.
13.6 Historic Properties
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the
SHPO indicates that there are no archaeological sites, historic structures, or
cemeteries with the project area. A background literature review was conducted
from February 8-I1, 2006 by TRC Solutions (Attachment Q. Based on the
literature review, TRC Solutions discovered that there are four previously recorded
sites within 1 mile of the project site. The SHPO responded to the Public Notice
dated February 17, 2007 by letter dated March 8, 2007 in which they stated that
there were "no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries"
but that the area has never been systematically surveyed. The applicant conducted
• a Phase I archaeological survey at the site and forwarded the subsequent report
54
. (Attachment D) to the SHPO. The survey recovered one archaeological site of
small size and minor importance. This site is not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places and no further studies are recommended at the site.
SHPO has not commented on the file report.
13.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
Riparian and' wetland areas provide habitat for many types of wildlife because of
their diverse and productive plant communities, complex structure, and close
proximity to surface water. Wildlife may be permanent residents of riparian and
wetland areas or occasional visitors that use the areas for food, water, or
temporary shelter.
Food availability varies with the type of vegetation in riparian and wetland areas,
but includes fruit, seed, foliage, twigs, buds, insects, and other invertebrates.
Trees and shrubs produce a variety of foods that are eaten by many animals and
may be especially important sources of nutrition during the winter months.
Grasses and herbaceous vegetation provide seeds and forage both within riparian
and wetland areas and along the forest border.
The stream environment provides moving water for many animals to drink, feed,
swim, and reproduce. Water is also available on moist vegetation and in wetlands
that are often associated with riparian areas. These areas, both permanent and
temporary, are especially important for amphibians and macro-invertebrates.
• Riparian and wetland areas provide a sheltered environment for many species of
animals to feed, rest, and reproduce. Animals use these areas to seek shelter from
extreme weather and to escape predators and human activity. Riparian and
wetland areas may also provide important travel corridors for some species, and
are frequently used as stop-over points for migratory birds.
Although impacts to these systems will occur at Grandview Peaks, adequate
avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation will compensate for lost
functions and values. The proposed project will not impact any federally listed
threatened or endangered species as protected under Section7 of the Endangered
Species Act as indicated by the FWS letter dated March 15, 2007.
13.8 Flood Hazards
It is likely that some tributaries on the property will flood occasionally due to
natural fluctuations in weather patterns that increase precipitation. Upon
completion of construction, downstream flooding may not occur as frequently
depending on how the impoundments are managed. The activities taking place
within the Grandview Peaks project boundary are not expected to increase or
decrease the natural rate of flooding at the site or downstream.
0
55
•
13.9 Floodplain Values
FEMA designated floodplains will not be impacted by activities within the project
boundary (FIRM Map 3710164600K, Panel 1646). Flood stages and frequencies
should not increase or decrease as a result of activities taking place within the
Grandview Peaks project boundary.
13.10 Land Use
The proposed project will be in compliance with local zoning regulations and
ordinances. The project is consistent with surrounding land use and development.
13.11 Navigation
The stream channels identified on the site are headwaters to Hoppers Creek,
Weaver Branch, Shoal Creek, Kelly Branch, South Muddy Creek, and Big Camp
Creek. All tributaries on site are relatively permanent waters that drain to
traditionally navigable waters (TNW). Both the Broad River and Catawba River
are designated TNW.
13.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. An erosion control
plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the project. During
the construction process, best management practices (BMPs) will be followed.
These BMPs may include the construction of swales, erosion and sediment control
structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that will prevent sediment
• transport off the project site and into adjacent waters. Activities proposed at
Grandview Peaks are not likely to cause significant erosion or accretion.
13.13 Recreation
The construction of two on-line impoundments will increase small-scale open
water recreational opportunities such as canoeing, fishing, or swimming.
13.14 Water Supply and Conservation
The public water supply will not increase or decrease due to proposed activities
within the Grandview Peaks project boundary. Potable water will be supplied by
single-family wells.
13.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated. BMPs
will be incorporated during construction. Stream buffers are being provided to
assure long-term stream protection and integrity.
The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Certification.
E
56
13.16 Energy Needs
Activities taking place within the Grandview Peaks project boundary, during
construction and at full build out, are not expected to significantly increase energy
demands beyond the capacity of the local facility. Energy will not be produced as
a result of the proposed activities within the Grandview Peaks project boundary.
13.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations
for public safety. The lakes at Grandview Peaks will be outfitted with dry hydrants
for fire suppression in the event of an emergency. Public safety will not
significantly increase or decrease as a result of the proposed activities at Grandview
Peaks.
13.18 Food and Fiber Production
The proposed activities within the Grandview Peaks project boundary should not
increase or decrease food and fiber production.
13.19 Mineral Needs
The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are proposed as
part of the development at the Grandview Peaks project site.
13.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
Fall Creek Land Company owns the property proposed for development and has
• the inherent right to develop the land in a reasonable and responsible manner,
which includes adhering to all Federal, State, and local regulations.
Property Owner:
Fall Creek Land Company
1340 Westgate Center Drive
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27103
13.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by providing
additional tax base and housing in McDowell County, North Carolina.

57
14.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
• Grandview Peaks includes two DW defined watersheds: the
Q Second Broad River
Watershed (HUC 0305010504) and Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30.
The Second Broad River Watershed begins in the southern McDowell County mountains
and ends at its confluence with the Broad River in the Rutherford County piedmont region.
Most of the land is forested; however, large urbanized areas of Rutherfordton, Spindale,
and Forest City are also located in the watershed. Tributaries in this watershed include Big
Camp Creek, Cane Creek, Catheys Creek, Roberson Creek, Puzzle Creek, Webbs Creek,
and Hills Creek. Approximately 70% of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass
includes approximately 90 square miles (57,640 acres). Grandview Peaks is comprised of
approximately 2,055 acres (3.2 square miles) with approximately half of this acreage
contained in the Second Broad River Watershed. All of the land mass contained in the
Second Broad River Watershed within Grandview Peaks accounts for approximately 3.5%
of the land mass of the basin. This percentage alone, limits significant cumulative effects
on the watershed. The land and streams within the project boundary are an abundant
resource in the region and could not be considered rare or unique. Although not currently
active, it is suspected that small-scale silvilculture activities have occurred within the
Grandview Peaks project boundary. These activities remain active in other parts of the
watershed.
The Catawba River Subbasin contains the headwaters of the Catawba River from its source
near Old Fort to the confluence with Silver Creek in Burke County and includes the entire
watershed of Lake James. Approximately half of this subbasin is within the Pisgah
National Forest. Tributaries in this watershed include Corpening Creek, Mackey Creek,
North Fork Catawba River, Muddy Creek, Linville River, and Lake James. Approximately
87% of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes approximately 526 square
miles (326,120 acres). Grandview Peaks is comprised of approximately 2,055 acres (3.2
square miles) with approximately half of this acreage contained in the Catawba River
Subbasin. All of the land mass contained in the Catawba River Subbasin within
Grandview Peaks accounts for approximately 0.6% of the land mass of the basin. This
percentage alone, limits significant cumulative effects on the watershed. The land and
streams within the project boundary are an abundant resource in the region and could not
be considered rare or unique. Although not currently active, silvilculture activities have
occurred within the Grandview Peaks project boundary. These activities remain active in
other parts of the watershed.
Continued and future development of the watershed is independent of activities proposed at
Grandview Peaks. Impacts at Grandview Peaks include the road crossings and installation
dams and subsequent impoundments. Minimization activities have lessened impacts
associated with the project and its effects cumulatively on the watersheds will be minimal.
Activities at Grandview Peaks should not result in a major impairment of the water
resources on site or interfere with the productivity and water quality of the existing aquatic
ecosystem. Any goods and services needed by the residence of Grandview Peaks can be
• obtained from the nearby towns of Marion and Morganton. This project should not result
58
in additional development, which would impact nearby downstream water quality. The
is applicant is protecting approximately 62,000 linear feet of streams with 30-foot and 60-foot
upland buffers (totaling approximately 90 acres) on either side.
•
•
59
15.0 SUMMARY
• The development of Grandview Peaks involves the construction road crossings and lakes
impacting approximately 6,775 linear feet of stream channel and 0.73 acre of wetland.
Alternative site plans have been evaluated and the project "As Proposed" is the least
damaging practical alternative. Avoidance and minimization has taken place on site
reducing impacts as compared to previous proposals. Potential impacts to the physical
and chemical characteristics of the ecosystem, biological characteristic of the ecosystem,
impacts on special aquatic sites, and potential effects on human use characteristics will be
minimal. The project is not contrary to the public interest and will aid in the continued
growth of McDowell County.
•
U
60
Grandview Peaks
_ 1138
1741
112+
i 01?
rG
226 176s
°--- 1760
} A cl??
v
112
a
a
X/ S 1s Cow
?J 1
M
r °,
ft Yv; ??
or,
r7
McD©we!! County
I -
WIP
E
Legend
e
N Property Boundary
0 0.5 1 2 3
-
Union mims Miles
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
McDowell County, Site Vicinity
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Figure I
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks
Grandview Peaks
Grandview Peaks

i 4r' o

Wetland Impact #4 Stream Impact #5
Dam (0
04 ac)
.
Dam (275 linear feet)
Stream Impact ;tl6
A3
coding (1,3901'mear feet)
Wetland Impact *3
Flooding (0.26 ac Total for Lake
Total for Lake
Stream Impact #2
Al /?
A2 Dam(420linear feet) A4
Welland Impact#1 -
Flooding (0 43 ac Permitted Crossing
Total for Lake 20 linear feet existing

.
linear feet installed
M Permit issued for 40 linear feet
A
b
ID 200632
,
on
122)
1 (
t?
I- -- - Stream
coding (4,5801 near feet) B4
Total for Lake
B3

B1 ?

I

Permitted Crossing !
20 linear feet existing
- - --
70 linear feet lnstalle
B2 Permit i
e
d i
o ID 200632122)
(Ac
e

Stream Impact #8
Extension of Permitted Crossin
20 linear feet
I
C1

C2 C3 stin
Crossin
g
g
(no change)

Legendti ?r
3, ?;:,}5
N
Property Boundary Lot Lines
Roads Stream Buffer
Streams Wetland
0 1,250 2,500 5
000 7
500
Dams ,
,
Lake
yawn by RLN mmi? Feet
ate: 12.08.09 1 inch = 2
500 feet
Clearwater rInvironmental Consultants, Inc. ,
McDowell County, Stream and Wetland
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville
North Carolina 28791
, Index Map
828-698-9800
PROJECT DATA
TOTAL PROJECT AREA +/- 2,055 ac
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE US
Streams 75,165 if
Wetlands 2.28 ac
Open Water 0 ac
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
Roads
Streams 201f
Permitted Stream Impacts
(to be considered cumulatively) 90 if
Wetlands 0 ac
Total 110 if and 0 ac
Lakes
Streams (Dam) 695 if
Streams (Flooding) 5,9701f
Wetlands (Dam) 0.04 ac
Wetlands (Flooding) 0.69 ac
Total 6,665 if and 0.73 ac
Utilities
Streams 0 if
Wetlands 0 ac
Total 0 if and 0 ac
IMPACT GRAND TOTAL 6,775 if and 0.73 ac
AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION
Streams 68,390 ft
Wetlands 1.55 ac
MITIGATION
Streams
Preservation 62,000 if
Preservation of Upland Buffer
(30-60 feet wide) 90 ac
EEP 695 if
Wetlands
Preservation 1.55 ac
EEP 0.5 ac
ClearWaterr-nvironmental Consultants, Inc.
McDowell County, Project Data
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Grandview Peaks
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,
f
1 inch = 500 feet
McDowell County,
North Carolina
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Stream and Wetland
Impact Map
Al
Grandview Peaks
Wetland Impact #3
Flooding (0.26 ac)
Total for Lake
Stream Impact #2,
Dam (420 linear feet)
Wetland Impact #1
Flooding (0.43 ac !
Total for Lake
N
0 250 500 1,00 1,5
et
1 inch 500 feet
McDowell County Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
828-698-9800 A
Grandview Peaks
Wetland Impact #4 Stream Impact #5
Dam (0.04 ac) ' /Dam (275 linear feet)
Stream Impact #6
Flooding (1,390 linear feet)
Total for Lake

--G-1 250 500 1,000 1
1 inch = 500 feet
McDowell County Clearwater E-nvironmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 A3
828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks
Permitted Crossing
20 linear feet existing
60 linear feet installed
Permit issued for 40 linear feet
(Action ID 200632122)
0 250 500
1,000

1,500
ii Feet
1 inch =
Clearwater Environmental consultants, Inc.
McDowell County,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Stream and Wetland
Impact Map
A4
Grandview Peaks
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
McDowell County ClearWater Environmental Consultants, ?nc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
929-69R-9900
Grandview Peaks
Permitted Crossing
20 linear feet existing
70 linear feet installe
N
(Action ID 200632122)
Permit issued for 50 linear feet
0 250 500 1,00 1,500
Fe
1 inch = 500 fe t
McDowell County ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 B2
828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks

Stream Impact #7
Flooding (4,580 linear feet)
Total for Lake

L02 0 5 0 1 0 1,500
:-
eet
inc 00 feet
McDowell County Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 B3
828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks

' J•
T
?
I
I
- I? lr
f

2 500 Y - 1„500
Feet
1 i ch = 5 et JC?f Clearwater r_nvironmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
McDowell County,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 ??
828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks

Stream Impact #8
Extension of Permitted Crossin
20 linear feet

0 250 500 1,000 1,500
-- iiiij Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
McDowell County Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 C 1
828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks

11

i
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
McDowell County, ClearWater Environmental Consultants, 1nc. Stream and Wetland
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 C2
828-698-9800
Grandview Peaks

xisting Crossing
(no change)
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
McDowell County Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Stream and Wetland
,
North Carolina 718 Oakland Street Impact Map
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
828-698-9800 1 C3
Grandview Peaks
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)]
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach-under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: `
3. Data of evaluation: ° i 2I 1 D 5-
5. Name of stream:. 51- M.
7. Approximate drainage area: iy 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex 34.872312):
va uator s name:- f (1 , 8.4 e' S
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: A-64 A A-
8. Stream order: 2 -
10. County:_ - M c b? 1 I
12. Subdivision name (if
Longitude (ex 47.556611
Method location -determined (circle): T et Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GI5 Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluatio?f(note n?arby'roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams location)-
14. Proposed channel work (if any
15. Recent weather conditinnc-
16. Site conditions at time of visit: vY .- Q
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10
-- -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed
(I-IV_)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does charnel appear on USGS quad map? NO ' 20. Does channel-appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
• 21. Estimated watershed land ase: -% Residential ° o
Commercial Indnsti-ial o
_/o Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged ` % Other(
)
22. Bankfull width:- 4, (f r4. 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): J Z ?
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10.%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -LOccasional bends -_Frequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on,page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion: Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion.. Page .5 provides'a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an-overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity; and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): $S Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date_
This channel evaluation form is intended to be ed only as a guide to assist landowners and envlro mental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
,quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following informatioin for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: TF2 4 ( fB,,, f ? L (L 2. Evaluator's name: ¢?? E 5
3. Date of evaluation: p S 4. Time of evaluation:. 3
.5. Name of stream:- # • 6. River basin: C_,,A fro b
7. Approximate drainage area:- L?•tn fL u. c?1,y h 8. Stream order: G
9. Length of reach evaluated:. k ??61) ICl 10. County; . . f A
z "1';ts 1,j2 1
11: Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): S i l Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Methbd location-determined (circl6): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS : Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ( f A r + l ,f?
15. Recent weather, conditions: Pra ;
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any specialwaterway classifications known:. -Section 10, -Tidal Waters. -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters., -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there:a,4)ond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES N. If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad ;map? .; YYE? NO 20. Does. channel appear.on USDA Soil Survey? iffi-NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential ' % Commercial _ % Industrial. % Agricultural .
% Forested % Cleared I Logged % Other:
22. Bankfulliwidth: :23. Bank.height (from bed to top of bank :__l • A h `
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 40/ ) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: TStraight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous. Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin. by determining the most appropriate ecoregion. based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be Scored .using the same ecoregion.: Assign points
to each characteristic *,Within the range. shown for the ecoregion.. Page' 3 provides . a .brief.. description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should.reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to-site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. I'
Total Score (from reverse): '-! 5 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature _'p Date _L/?,ZS
This channel evaluation form is intende to be use only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does. not imply a
• particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
0
?l
STREAM: QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
• 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
A-%F
Provide the following information for the stream 'reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 1,44
Q n vl?-
3. Date of evaluation:-_ a Z ct n I?
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area:/ ?
9. Length of reach evaluated: lob
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name:__ SNs
4. Time of evaluatioon: 30
6. River basin: G 4tv
8. Stream order:
10. County:- Im r, 1'} b 112 r i l
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.55661
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photolm Other GYS • Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): -S,, w rA) t r rl (,t, r.- fL
15. Recent weather conditions: r?r u
• J
16. Site conditions at time of visit {, , ; F<
17. Identify any'special waterway classifications known: -Section 10
-.Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters
_,__Water Supply Watershed (I-M
18. Is there pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES . 60' If Yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?
NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed ]and use: Residential _% Commercial °
_/o Industrial -%A
gricultural% Forested -Is:% Cleared /Logged Other
22. Bankfall-width: $ )
23. Bank heigbt (from bed to top of bank);
24. Channel'-slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 20%) -Gentle 2 to 4% ,?C °
( ) _Modeiate (4 to 10%) `Steep.(>l0%)
25. Channel sinuosity; Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander _ ___Ve sinuous '
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2); Begin b dete ry Braided channel
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must•bescored using the same appropriate
based on
ecoregion. ecoregion Assign hints
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a:stream reach must range between 0 and 100; with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 2 h Comments:
---------------
Evaluator's Signature.
This channel evaluation furor >a intended to be used only as a Date_ ? ?D t-
guid to assist the data required by the United States Army Corps ofeEngineers
s in
quality landowners
make s 'preliminary assessment?of stream
. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
.particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) {
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
ad
1. Applicant's name: Tbd (?l A u,?
3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: ST
7. Approximate drainage area: IV I AL- S.,V A-1l
9. Length of reach evaluated:- 7 (v
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name:--. , 4.-Time of evaluation:- y 7. D ,,..
6. River basin: C AJ-A, )6 4
8. Stream order: /
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex_ -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/M Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): lr E G rqc i?- • b kv k.. _ t I1 ? 61Q 6,_.
15. Recent weather conditions:,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: rllet-. n, 1 Ne-4
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: --Section 10 ----Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-TV)
18. Is there d: pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO, If yes, estimate the water surface area:
• 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES O?
21. Estimates watershed land.use: _% Residential -% Commercial %Industrial -% Agricultural
Forested %, Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22.1Bankfull :width:- 4-A !:`23. Bank height. (from bed to top of bank): .'1o '
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 101/6) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: __k Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander .Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):. Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, teriain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using- the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within 'the range shown for. the ecoregion. Page. 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified'in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. -If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or. weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, arid a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a .stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Z-9 Comm
Evaluator's Signature ?•?i. Date 5(la yei-
This channel evaluation formntended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make e preliminary assessment of stream
• quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
•
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHFF,T
USACE AID# DWQ # Site 4. (indicate-on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information.ffor the stream reach under assessment:
1..Applicant's name: TJ p IAfi?C- 2. Evaluator's name: (,a1
3. Date of evaluation:- gl2 r JD.}' 4. Time of evaluation.: A,-
5. Name of stream: ST-. A 6. River basin: C 44
7. Approximate drainage area: NIA 8. Stream. order._ / g
9. Length of reach evaluated: 25 10. County: M t Jave/l
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS . Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map.identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): (? Gl 1vJ F'
15. Recent weather conditions:- /'lrG „r oro r,`
16. Site conditions at time of visit: d\ 19 r ti ,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 :.. Tidal Waters _ Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource.Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed -I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?. YES .NO . If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ( ?S NO. 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?. NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential_ _% Commercial ' _% Industrial _% Agricultural
f l% Forested % Cleared /Logged
Other ( yl
22. Bankfull Width:__ 7 `? • 23. Bank height (from bed to top ofbank):?
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to, 2%0) -Gentle (2 to 4%)Nioderate.(4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%) .
25. Channel sinuosity:.' Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander -Verysinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining. the -most.appropriate ecoregion'based'on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic. must be scored using the same ecoregion.. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief'description of how to review. the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an.overall assessment.of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the'
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from- reverse): 3 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date- 2 t,
This channel evalua on rm is intend to be used only as a guide to assist'landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data re fired by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of. stream
?nality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• s ? n-
l LIGJU L1LLW at LrA ISLLCiS SI U HU1 U55USSUU Ill W=Ldl SII' aMs.
USACE AlD# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: n? nit-2. Evaluator's name:- j1
3. Date of evaluation:- q l 1i (*J 4. Time of evaluation: Y, vo o•-•
5. Name of stream: S'f A
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:. L e) Qp1
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex 34.872312):
6. River basin: (?rl,n???
8. Stream order: 2
10. County: /1A.tJcrwpll
12. Subdivision.name (if any):
Longitude (ex -77.55661
Method location determined (circle): • GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS , Other
13. Location"of reach under evaluation (note -nearby roads and landmarks. and-attach map identifying. stream( s) location):_
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ;N.., a ?- n• ?? t ?,,.d, ?, t,?„
15. Recent weather conditions: d W,
16. Site conditions of time of visit: /: I)? &,&-
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 1.0 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is therea pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?. YES . NO: If yes, estimate the water'surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USD.A'Soil Survey? YES .NO .
21. Estimated watershed land use: -% Residential _% Commercial • Industrial . -%A Agri cult
_ gn
o Forested A. ClearedLogged _% Other
22. Bankf Umidth: 23. Bank height (from bed to.top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) .--Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 t9,10%) _Steep
Steep
25. Channel sinuosity:. . Straight ,Occasional bends • -Frequent meander Very sinuous -Braided channel .
Instructions for completion of • worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be:scored using the same ecoregion. 'Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 `provides a brief description of how. to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach. under evaluation:. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): r Comments
Evaluator's Signature ` Date_ LZ/L r
This channel evalua o , form is int d to be used only as a guide to assist landowne "d rs d environmental professionals in
gathering the data • e uired by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary.assessment of stream.
quality. The total ore resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a.
• particular mitigation ratio or requirement Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-WI x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

!k
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information fort a stream reach under assessment .
1. Applicant's name:._1 _11k 2. Evaluator's name:
(, I p i
3. Date of evaluation: l f ?? O 4. Time of evaluation: 1 ? Zp l` •
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin: C??3
7. Approximate drainage area: .8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?a .10. county: 11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if an
2 y):
Latitude (ex.34.872312): _ lls 3J ..` ? J Longitude (ex.-77.5566.11):
Method location determined (circle): P Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Pboto/GIs .Other GIS. Qther
13. Location of reach under evaluanote nearby roads and.landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): B a tilt ' ?i ,r c? P r e- v g "
15. Recent weather conditions: 1M- 13 ?'1 hC
16. Site conditions at time of visit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 ' Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutri ent Sensitive Wat= Water Supply Watershed
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream. of the evaluation.po 1 :.YES 0 If yes, estimate the grater surface area
777777--77777-
?9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO Z0. Does channel appear on USDA$oil Surveys
NO-
21. Estimated watershed land use % Residential _LC °!o Industrial % Agricultural .
/o Forested _% Cleared / Logged Other ( ?1
22. Bankfull vdth: 23. Bank height (from bed. to top of bank):
24.'Channel slope down center of stream: flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Mod. (4 to.10%) .Steep-(>10.%) . .
25. Chapel sinuosity Straight.,. Occasional. bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of .worksheet: (located on. page 2).. Begin,by determining the most..appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classif cat30u, etc. Every . characteristic must be scored using the same. ecoregion ' Assign points
to each characteristic within the .range shown for the. ecoregion. 'Page 3 provides a brief description of how. to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an.overall.assessment of the"'stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that .display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of. 10.0 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Pate_yf,/dT
his channel evaluatio o is mten to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
Vathering the data req ' d by the sited States Army .Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the. completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide .the following information for the st cam reach under assessment:
4
i. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: LIlljlr
3. Date of evaluation:-- 4. Time of evaluation: / 'r?-
5. Name of stream Sr r 6. River.basin:
7. Approximate drainage area:- U &A-? aw,-, 8. Stream order:-( s F
9. Length of reach evaluated: yD ?4y 10. Coun : D
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12: Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GP To S et Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS :..:Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nerb-y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams location :
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ( ,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Sectiori YO -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed
(I-?
18. Is there a pond or. lake located upstream of the evaluation point?. YES If yes, estimate the.water surface area
,.
:19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
....
• 21. Estimated watershed land.use:. _% Residential % Commercial _0 Industrial, Agricultural
? 0 Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24: Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 20/.) Gentle .(2 to 40%) ..Moderate (410 10%) o
-Steep
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ,Occasional bends.. Frequent meander -Very, sinuous .. -Braided channel
Instructions. for completion:of worksheet (located on '-page 2): Begin by determining the most appropri
ate' ecomkion based o
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must.be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign;poin?
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion.. Page: ,3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect. an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated :due to site or weather conditions, enter U in the scoring .box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream maybe divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate.form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach. must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comm
Evaluator's Signature Date ?,u/?J j'
This channel evaluation r ' is irate to be used only as a.guide to assist landowners and a vironmental professionals in
gathering the data requ re by the nited States Army Corps -of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score ulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
. particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919476-84-41 x 26.
STREAM OUALTTY ASSESSMENT WORKSHERT
114
U

i nese cnatacwnsncs are not assessea in coastai streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
1
• STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET r
a
Provide the following-information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 4.// CtC?l I ? 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: ? J/S- 4. Time of evaluation:
Name of stream:- 6. River basin: I
7. Approximate drainage area:. G.v1?k-A-A%_ 8: Stream order: S(
9. Length of reach evaluated:- • :r,y od 10. County:
_?Z ?Ow A J?!
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ' I
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): .? Longitude (ex -77.556611): 0 (? b '?1
Method location determined (circle): t:--PS, ' Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other.
13. Location of reach under evaluaion (note nearby roads and-landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): T( DYN f
15. Recent weather conditions: 2 tr, ti L a I h r G
16. Site conditions at time of visit: •
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:- -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters '-Outstanding Resource Waters- _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (1-IV)
18. Is there apond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES To If yes, estimate the water surface area:
. 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 20. Does channel appear on- USDA Soil Survey?. Yd. NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: =% Residential _% Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
9-% Forested _% Cleared / Logged '/o -Other
( 1
22: Ban kfull.4=width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel "slope down center of stream: _lalat (0 to.21/o) -Gentle (2 to 41/o) _LModerate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%0)
25. Channel sinuosity: -straight, -Occasional bends . Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page -2): Begin. by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter O.in the scoring' box and provide an explanation. in the
comment' section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a- stream reach must range between 0 and 100,-with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest -quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 5 } Com
Evaluator's Signature Date t-- (Q pj
This channel evaluati*rbbyy intend 1 of
'be used only as a guide to assist landowners and n ironm ntal professionals in
gathering the data rethe ni States Arm y Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment . stream
quality. The total scng from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM OUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
5f t
i nese cnaractensucs are not assessea to coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) j
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following, information for the stream reach under assessment
1. Applicant's name:
2. Evaluator's name. `?R6!
3. Date of evaluation:- IZQ ?? 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: ?t .O t 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: u-1 'i4--k1.dbV-N 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated ( DD 10. County:-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees..:. 12. Subdivision name (if any)-
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): IJb Longitude (ex. -77.556611): l?to ?? ? ??
Method locatiob determined (circle): rPyS o S t Ortho (Aerial) Pboto/GIS Other GIS . Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks.and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): f\ Dne

15. Recent weather conditions; U
16. Site conditions at time'of visit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications lm own; Section 10 -Tidal. Waters ::. _Essenti'al Fisheries Habitat
.411
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
- ..r-
7777
18. Is there a pc6d or, lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES .:. If yes, estimate the water surface area
•.9. Does 9hanne1 appear on USGS' quad map?.. NO 20. Does channel -appear on USDA Soil Survey?... NO
21. Estimated-,ivaterslied land use: .: _% Residential %. Commercial % Industrial .' ; _% Agricultural
%
Forested % Cleared /Logged _% Other.(
22. B ankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to stop of bank):
77
24.'Channel slope down center of stream Flat (O to 2%)_Gentle.(2 WOO t%Modemate (4 to 10%) ',Steep'(>10%) . '
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Gemstonal bends 1LP'requent meander : -Very sinuous _Bratded.chaxhi
Instructions for completion of worksheet-Qocated:on page 2j: Beby 'determining the most'appropri* ecoregion
based on
-
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using. the same, ecoregion. Assign points .
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how : to.review. ,the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under:evaluation.: If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to sife or weather conditions, enter 0.in the scoring box. and provide an explanation'iu-.the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes. in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller leaches that display.more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
'
reach. The total score 'assigned to a stream reach must range
between 0 and 100, with a score: of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature I Date
This channel evaluation for eded to by used only as a guide to assist landowners and nvir6 ental prrofessionAg in'
.fathering the data requi by the United??States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and .does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment; please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # '
(indicate on attached map) ?
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Orovide the following information for th stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: • tR'I ? 1 Vlo 2. Evaluator's name: ?• 1.11i
3. Date of evaluation: 4.. Time of evaluation:- T', t5a
5' Name of stream: 6. River basin: Ca ?R.c J ba-
7. Approximate drainage area:- 1 i ?In.y-tn e,.u,? 8. Stream order.
9. Length of reach evaluated: Le / 1.0. County: j&
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.. 12., Subdivision name if any)-
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex.-77.556611):.`
Method location determined (circle): r opo-S -I Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS ` Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach
.map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Ad f I?
15..R
ecent weather conditions: 11Q r r,
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries. Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Vaters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18'. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
. Does phannel appear on USGS quad map? ftS NO. 20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
01'. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Coimmercial ,=% Industrial % A •or
Forested.%.Cleared/ Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width A 'Q1 ??r ?? l 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank): f
24.•Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%0) Gentle P A%.) L-Moderate .(4 to My.) -Steep (>100/0) .:
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight /Occasional bends . Frequent meander Very sinuous . Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2j Begin by determuung' the most appropriate ecoregion.based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the.sa 3!ecoregion; tlssiga:points
to each characteristic within the range :shown for. the ecoregion `Page 3 provides a brief description of how to "review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an.overall.assessmeut of-the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions,, enter. 0 in the *scoring box. and provide an explanation' in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of.a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows'from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evahuite each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing 'a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date-
This channel evaluation form ' intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environments! professionals in
0thermg the-data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
ality. The total score resulting from the. completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
r. b

z.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
•
ad'
rz
'b
m
0
i
It
A
3
ra
U
cn
"a.
10
x C o 'u-So.
u G F At o C 4x
2 7? ?E
O v U .O ?o S .° O m O F
z U ° FO .. .m OE :2 O p'
53 *2 c µ ?o w oco?3v00 cBod
Pi ?+ y Z o a° c o o °. a E m
O I 7 ° ? ? X .? O im.
- ?.6 0 Q a' O °n v ocuo°? ?cWE
oa o°+ ?I sa?yf'mu6? Yd m.0 o
O ? ? vi 'd •? I ? o - I - I '$, I .1 p 'O .m o •q? •? . m A a w „'?, o
??y" ai o° 6 ?' is ">, 0. m o •p " =? "u d Fd o+°+.. m
o? l a .w+ m m? a ?Vie.7oopo' ?GjO',b
> r G iii y U O p
C C O -A w F Lll o w m ° yy L
A C> V
W .,F a .1s U rn kJ c° ?+ .A 66l{ a?:. o E m w I
`16
W In m E -° 'o `\°I l7 C ?? m±± C ? a ? m
GO' N ,.v' V 0o H N H. a C !n z ,cam N .I ?1 ?.I - d u .-F? A O ++ •-
-.s 0 1-9
cd PI
491 7k -S b 1:6
s t? it a w o -.r
44 0
W' C'1 ° to
a d ° o a
2'0 'D
° C & C N a .C ° •r ° C L e
r?(1 •y° ,? ? .. a e = m •2 ? Cam') ei ? w °p w ? ° 3 u :?' m '°" ? ? ? . q
a u •? m vi O ya .?. .O ?. L
Cl? ? oV1
12 - r C m c u 0 t o a o E m° tF. o f L L m L :°? c
3 ° °
a?i `?w. s S o c m v o - L> CC 03° E a 8 a
w Ta v °° ° ami 2 °n c 3 r3 011- y ° + c ?iy o o t o >y o ?°, m
-61
r ?? ?E!
m F •i? ° oO U m g c y O y 3 ? U o 'F E 3 d ¢¢m Ei ?? .v 9 u m °0 Z q 'G °' O ?,'?V ' C U +? ,U ,.• ??, B ° .? ?. 2 ? ;C ; tmw ca LL°
,
` E
?v 2L En ?0 y vo ppa °
o
V3 7
o¢ A 2 Q ..01 .-1 A W' rn E' .'; A W Gq U U p u g E m r
M .••i i+i Vi tz rte-/ '?•1 N N N H - - B U U V C :E E W k? en O' d
0
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ST L?-
•
lllcav bual9L1.1c11S11t7J WE; IlUI G55G55rU JU I:VSSLHI KrCaMS.

1 USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) 1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ,,
t
Provide the. following information for the stream reach under assessment:
L. Applicant's name:_ Te L All, ll 2..Evaluator's name: A4 f.,l
3. Date of evaluation: Z-' V25'_ 4. Time of evaluation: S-
5. Name.of stream: .F Q -? S 1 F Z L 6. River basin: ea 6,044
7. Approximate drainage area: Gt. -fi A Ow^ 8. Stream order: 2-
9. Length of reach evaluated: ISO 10. County: lVL {, ?1
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal. degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex -77155661 1)
Method location determined (circle): BPS o Sh? et Ortho (Aerial) Photo/01S Otber GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location).
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 'S l a 6 < < t_'' r c uwr'
15. Recent weather conditions: t-k4 ra n n r sit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: f\ 4 tv?d
7: 1
17. Identify any special,waterway classifications known: , _Section 10 Tidal :Waters _ Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
•18. Is there a pond:or lake.located upstream of the evaluation point? -..YES . .)f .yes, estimate the water surface area
?. Does 9hannel appear on USGS quad map?.. : NO .. 20, Does channel appear on USDA So>I Survey? NO
21. Estimated watemhed land use.. Residential . % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural.....
t1 % Forested% Ieared /Logged % Other: ( )
22. Bankfiill w3dtfi:7 23. Bank height (frgm bed to top of bank)
24.'Channel slope down center of stream. Flat (0. to 2%). Gentle (2 to 4%) VModerate (4 to 10%) _ Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity:. Straight Occasional bends.. Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel . '
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on .page 2)_ 'Begin by deteffiining the most-appropriate ecoregion based on .
location, terrain, vegetation, `stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored.usmg the; same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the .range shown for the ecoregion.' Page 3 provides a brief description of how to :review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet . Scores should reflect an overall assessment of -the stream reach..under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0. in the scoring box and provide an explanati on in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in.the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream maybe divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and-100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (firom reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Dateff/z /11
This channel evaluation fo ev
ended to used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
•,athering the data require Uni
te tates Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
5r0- (e
. STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
y. S-- t to
\tif2t`7?L`I`h` 1" `F?=-iA\lJ ?7eQ.`MwL^"? M-
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
F
01 M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
-'rovide. the following information for'. the stream reach under assessment:
Alialoop
1. Applicant's name:- T p A, I" Z .Evaluator's name:_ _ t (l , n ? r., r I X461-af
3. Date of evaluation:_ 1 Z ?( t? r 4. Time of evaluation: 1;' /6
5. Name of stream: S `? ?4 p 6. Riverbasin: Cl?'??Q,t?J6 a
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order. 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: ) I ?. S r 10. County
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefenin decimal degrees. 12.: Subdivision name`(if any).
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method•location determined (circle): GPS o no
h t Ortho (Aerial)•Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landma& and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: 11111-0. rat +n? i e, a r-3- ` irr ,r i
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special wateryiiay classifications lmown Secti on -10 Tidal Waters. Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource4Waters _Nutnent Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream o f the evaluation point? YES O? If yes, estimate the water surface area:
r.
' 9 Does channel appear on. USGS giiad.map? NO 20 Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?SE NO.
21 ?Comrn -
. Estimated watershed land
LLL% vse ° o o
/o R. Industrial
esidentlal ercial
. /o o este
/ For d..: d :/ og °/U Other
22. Bankfull width
ry 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): '? +0 5
24.'Ghannel slope down center of stream Flat (,0 to 2%).. Gentle 2 to 400)
( Moderate 4 0.10%
. . . ( ) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel simiosity:• Straight +.! Occasional bends Frequenf:meander Very sinuous... Braided.chapnpl
Instructions for completion of woiksM1heet (located on page 2) Begin by doterrrnn,ng the most appropriate- ecoregion based on,
.
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every Characteristic ,& i be ;scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic unthin the range shown .for. ahe.'ecoregl(n. Page. ,-3 provid6s,a`brief_descn on of how o,review the
characteristics identified in-the worksheet Scores should .reflect an overall assessment of the stream:reach under evaluationL-L
..if a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site. or weather conditions; enter 0 in the.scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section.- Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under. review (e.g., the -stream flows from apasture
-
into a forest), the-stream.may be divided into smaller reaches,.that display More continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):. . S. Comments:
;.
Evaluator's Signature Dater j z l,,. r
This channel -evaluation o is tended be used only as a guide to assist landowners and a-nvii nmental professionals in
athering the data requi d by the UnL States Army Corps of Engineers to make i preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the. completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
sF c belmi Srr
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r?
17-?
USACE AID#

DWQ
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSH?XT.
5. Name of stream: ??-
7. Approximate drainage. area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:-- o b
'
11. Site coordinatesPf known): prefer in .decimal degrees.
Latitude (e)L 34.8723121
Provide the-following infor anon for the stream reach under assessment:
41
1. Applicant's name: _b1?ot Gtr. 2. Evaluator's name:_.
3. Date of evaluation: Time-'Of evaluation:
6. River basin:. 1,', am
8. Stream order:
10: County: f?l 1-•40i9od.-I
'12. Subdivision'name (if any):
Longitude (ex -77.55661.,.
Method location deterinined-(circfe): T bet ' Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIs Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and laridmarks'and attach map identifying•stream(s) location):
'14. Proposed channel work (if any): • •
15. Recent weather conditions: '
16. Site conditions at time of visit
17.Tdentify any special watery classifications known: ' -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential FisheriesHabitat
_Trout'Waters Outstanding Resource Waters. _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters . 1?Vafer Supply Watershed (I_?
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the. evaluation point? . YES :-'If yes, estimate the Water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? LO NO. 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Surve
y7 . NO
.' 21. Estimated watershed-)and use: .. _%Residential _
% Commercial . _% Iridustnal D
777
-.Agricultural ,.
Forested % Cleared /Logged . _% Other
22. Banletall width: -. ' '"--' ,?" ? `:. ----'---------_-._
23Bank height (fi om bed to top of bank): -? 0 3'
24. Channel.slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 20%.) N, ntle (2. to 4%). Moderate (4 to 10%). -Steep (>100/.) '
25. Channel sinuosity: ZStraight Occasional bends Frequent meander, ----
Verysinuous braided channel
Instructions for• completion, of worksheet (located on page 2) Begin by -deternrining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation,-stream classification, etc: Every, characteristic must. be scored. using the same ecore_gion. tlssign points
to each characteristic within the range shown- for the "region Page. 3. provides a • brief description of how to rev64'
e
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect-an overall assessment of the"siream reach under evaluation.. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanati on in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the-character of a stream under review (a.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range be each
tween 0 -and 100, with a scorekof 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 -Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date Z pS
This channel evaluation form is tended. to be used only as a guide to assist landowners-and a vironmental professionals in
gathering the data required. by the United States Army' Corps of Engineers to•make a preliminary assessment.of stream
,quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply-a'•
articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26

SIRE 4 QUALITY ASSESSME WORKSHEET
l
2
Those characteristics are not assesse
5h'?,
USACE AID#
DWQ #.
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following inf rm/a?io?for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: -4 dl W GLfe,? 2. Evaluator's name: ? ??rt
3. Date of evaluation:' 05? oi?i os-- 4.. Time of evaluation
5. Name of stream: S1t'am* F 6. River basin:
-
7. Approximate drainage area: `.8. Stream order.
9.-Length of reach evaluated: q o 10. County. M ny^',/1
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex 775566] 1):
Method location, detemiined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Pboto/GIS .:Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: (1 1' a A_
16. Site conditions of time of visit: 1- or,
17. Identify any. special waterway classifications. known: 'Section 10 Tidal Waters; ' Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters ' Nutrient Sensitive Waters •__watq Supply watershed. (I IV)
18: Is there a pond or lake located, --stream of the evaluati on point? YES NO if yes, estimate the water surface area
?9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO . 20. Does channel. appear on USDA Soil- Survey? YES., NO .
21. Estimated wabe_ ed hand use: % Residential % Comrriercial Industri
al
0 Agricultural
Forested . Q Cleared /Logged % Other ( j
Ix
22. Bankfull.w dth: 23, a* height (from bed to tvp ofbank)
7777
24.'ChannelslcPe. down center of stream: Flat 0 to Gentle .. a l (0 t (2 to 4%) Moderate.{4 to.10%) _Steep (>10
25. Channel sinuosity: traight -Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous .. B.iaided channel . -
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2); Begin -by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, 'etc. Every.characteristic must be scored using the same :ecoregion.. Assign points
to each characteristic within' the range shown. for .the ecoiegion. -Page 3. provides a brief. descr?phon of how to review the
characteristics identified in.the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to:site or weather conditions, enter. 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e:g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and. a separate form used to'evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of. 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 2'i Comments: 5 l r.f?._ rib- t? `or, n
Evaluator's Signature
1??C Date- Ctf
I This channel evaluation form is intended to b.ersed only, is a guide to assist landowners and enviroymental professionals in
athering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary' assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the. completion of this form is subject to USAGE-approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement.- Form subject to cbaage - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
s ? r=
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORK'SHEET'
Provide the following information for the stream: reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's nameyyy-t 2 Evaluator's name:v
3. Date of evaluation: s f S? j a? 1.4. Time of evaluation
$= Name of stream:
6. River basin:- ?'rtt1? Jet
7. Approximate drain a .area:-- a 4
to .8. Stream order:. '
----------------
9. Len
:: n G
gth of reach .evaluated: n
fo:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12-Sub
diy.sion 'name (if any):
Latitude (c)L'34.9723 12): Longitude (ex. 77 556611):
Method location determined (circle): T%4&eet . Ortho (Aerial) Phot%.GIS 'Other GIs .:Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby rgads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location
14. Proposed channel work (if any);
15. Recent weather conditions:,
16. Site--conditions at time of visit:- tN
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ". Section. 10 =Tidal Waters . -'-Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trouf Waters -,Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply'Watershed
.18.1s-there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ;YES Ifyes, estimate the water surface area.__-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO:. ..20.-Does channel appear on USDA Sots Survey? ; NO .
• 21. Estimated watershed land use: " %o Residential . -• % Commercial % Industrial a
Agricultural
_%'Forested
Cleared/ Lqggqd..,:.. % .:._Other (-
22. Bankfull",width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center'of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _?Gentle (2 to.4%) Moderate 4 to 10% °
_ (.... ) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straightcoasional bends -Frequent meander Ve smuous
l3' -Braided channel .
Instructions for. completion of worksheet.,09.cate0 on page 2) Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream. classtfcafion, Every charactenstic;'must be scored using the same ecoregibn, Assign points
to each characteristic within the .range shown for the ecoregi.on.. Page 3 provides a brief description= of -how to review.,the
characteristics identified in -the worksbeet:' Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of: the stream reach under evaluation. If.a
characteristic cannot be evaluated.ciue to site or weather eondrtions,• enter 0 in the scoring-box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into, smaller. reaches that display more continuity, and aseparate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and .100, with a score of 100 representing a-stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
------------
Evaluator's Signature
Date
This channel evaluation for$i is intended to be used onl as a - ?at ?Qi ?.?
gathering the data required by the United -States Army Corps ofeEto assist ngineersato make a preliminary a sesme tesof stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
*articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHERT
1-aJ '-uaI 1K+W11JUV, UIG LUL GJJ6SSGU IL UUGJL U biLI CGIIIS.
. USACE Ap# DWQ # Site-# (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• .rsv
Provide the following information for the streamy ach under assessment:
1.'Applicant's name: 041 2. Evaluator's name:. ?f S
t.
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Timed evaluation:
5. Name of stream: S 1 6..River basin: C, kA-
7. Approximate drainage area: 1Mr? 8. Stream.order
9. Length of reach evaluated:. r '10.. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12..Subdivision name. if an
Latitude (est. 34.8723I2): Longitude •(ex -7T55661-1):'
.Method location determined .(circle) .,,Sheet Ortho (Aerial)-Phofo/GIS ...Other GIS• _: Other`
13. Location-of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads andlandmarks and. attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):. rl o -??, 1 w.? r t \ '
'15. Recent weather conditions:
• 16. Site condition's at time of visit:- n ov rnd
17. Identify any special.waterway classifications known: _Section.10 : .Tidal Waters ... -__Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters .Outstanding Resource Waters ._ _Nut -1?
riept Sensitive Waters'... Water Supply Watershed
?
IS. is. there a pond or lake- located upstream of the evaluation pomt7 YES . If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS. quad map? YES 20; Does channel appear on USDA $oil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _1c Residenlaal °!o Commecctal I% Industrial _ 04
cultural
Forested % Cleared /Logged _ e Other f - Y
22. Bankfull width•
Pik 23, Bank height (from bed to top .ofbank):-? {
24. Channel.slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 0 .20 Gentle (2 to 4%} Moderate 4 to lA%
-Steep (?10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: - Straight -_L_Q sion8l bends e, meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet .(located on Page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc.: Every characteristic must be. scored'usjng the same ecoregion. Assign -poiirts
to each characteristic within the. range shown :for the. .ecoreglon.. Page 3 provides a brief- description...of..how to review `the .
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores shouldreflect an overallassessment of: the stream reach under oval uatiori.a.
characteristic cannot be'evaluated•due to site or weather conditions; enter 0 in.'the scoring:box:and provide.an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the chmacter of a stream under review (e.g., tlie-stream flows .from a. pasture
into a forest),. the stream may be divided-into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between.0 and 100, with a score- of 100 representing a stream -of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 'Comments: ?f Gip ,r, ?.,
Evaluator's Signature Date__
This cbannef evaluation form is' mended to be used only. as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make' a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion' of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply 11 -
• pairdcular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03: To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM OTTAT TFV A ??F.C,CMT.NT WnrruCU?rm

16. Site conditions bit-time Of visit:- Ae- m-4, /
17.1dentify any special waterway.classiticatioris known:.: Section 10
. Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries labitat
-Trout Waters _Outskanding Resource Waters _2•Futrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed
aI
18. Is there pond or lake located upstream of the eval>ation point? YES >. )f yes, estimate the water:surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES; 20 Does ,channel , appear on USDA S YES
oil Serve 7
• 21. Estimated watershed land.use: Residential %o Commercial
/o Agricultural
Forested % Cleared / Logged. Citber
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to-J" of bank) t t'?• {? j' `
24. Channel?slope.down center of stream Flat (919, 2°/fl) Pentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep ??ipo?)
25. Channel sinuosity: t/5traight . Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for. completion of worksheet (located on page 2) ._Begm by determining the most appropri
ate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream ,classification, etc Every characteristic must be score. using.the Barrie. eco on.:,Assign points
to .each characteristic within the. range shown for the ecoreglon. Page,3 provides a brief description of how ;to review. the
characteristics identified in themoiksheet. `S cores'?hould efldet.an overall assessment of the stream reach:under;evaluation,; If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated'due to site or'weather.conditions, enter U nlthe sconng box and proyide an explanation in'the
comment-section.. Where there are obvious changes in the'eharacter of a stream under review_(e.g,, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided_into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total core assigned-io a strum reach.must range between 0-and 100, with a-score of.] 00 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Z I Comments: Src
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form ' intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envir mnental professionals in
gathering the data required y the United States Army Corps of Engineers to .make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement, Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
"e
0
2

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I USACE AID# DW .
Q# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM..QUALIT.Y.ASSESSIWN.T WORKSHEET,
Provide the following information for.the stream reach 'under assessment:
1. Applicant's name ?1 nr t? 2. Evaluator's name:?lh+r
3. Date of evaluation: 1 ,?v l .01' 4. Time of evaluation.
5. Name of stream: I K 6. River basin t^.d ?t4 ks-
7. Approximate drainage area 8. Stream order.
9. Length of reach evaluated:- ] („ p e 10. County: Ivt n ?(
,.
11. Site coordinates (if knownprefer.in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name if any).:
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Longitude (ex.-,77.5.5.6,61 1)
Mt thod location determined (circle) GPS ,Topo Sheet Ortho (AenalyPhoto/GIS Other GIS °.Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location)
14. Proposed channel work if any): 15. Recent.weather conditions:
16. Site conditionsAttune of visit
17. Identify any specia] waterway classifications known -Section 10 a] Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout,W_aters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _ Water Supply Watershed
18. Is there_a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? ..YES l? If yes, estimate the.water surface area rn
ah'
19. Does channel appear on USG"S,quad map? NO 20 Does channel aPPear on USDA Soil Survey? NO .
21. Estimated watershed land use %Residential % Commercial
Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested %. Cleared /Logged _%o Other
22. Baiilcfuil wadth, ;
23 Bank beight (from bed?to top of bank)
24. Channel lope down center ofstream -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) ? Moderate (4 to IO%a) Steep (>10%)
•25. Channel sinuosity Straight LL_L06chsional bends uent meander
peg -Very sinuous _Brnided channel
Instructions for com pletion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin. determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on'
cation, terrain, yegetatlon, stream classifeafion, etc..Every characten
location, shc must be scored usiug`the same bcoreglon :Assi o
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 e
provides a brief description of how ;to re p th
characteristics identified in the wgjtc heet " Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation.. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter :0 in the scoring 'box and provide, an explanation in .the
comment section .Where there are obvious changes in th
e character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flo from
ws a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate. each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of.100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. p
Total Score (from reverse) ?CJ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used odly as a guide to assist landownDate
ers a en'ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x26.
STREAM-QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
•
auv aava wJVJJ,V4111 W4Jyal J111i414J.
1?
USACE AIDE! DW 1
(^?r -+ ? Site #-r (indicate on attached map)
M REAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSBEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach-under assessment-
1. Applicant's name: Q?` `?wea? -eau t\ 2. Evaluator's name'
3. Date of evaluation: ?\ Q5 4. Time of evaluation. q .t?h
5. Name of stream; r?? T 6. River basn:C?
7. Approximate drainage area: Stream' order.-,
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1? ?JS 10 County.. .
11. Site coordinates (if laiown): prefer in decimal degrees. 12 54bdivisron name if anY)
o:
,t
Latitude (rx. 34.877312) `? ( •.
Longitude (ex 77556611) ?ro ?? Z ??
Method location determined (circle)t' GPS Topo Sheet Ortho.(Aeiial) Photo)GIS Other ©IS .: Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks anti attach map identifying stream(s) location):
AIN
O T? ds C r? > tzt?1.( 41f?je {'x.41 fitd+foYa t)?? ^( L 5?? P.
14: Proposed channel work (if any)?:,?
77,7
15. Recent weather conditions; Al
?,.
16. Site conditions at time of visit ?\SKvs?e
y
17- Identify. any special waterway classifications ]mown `Section l0 _`Tidai.Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout W aters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive 'vN
yaters Water Supply Watershed -777
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluatiov pomf? ?'ES NO If yes, a timate the water surface area
19. Does channel, appear on USGS quad map? YES, O 20. Does channel appvear on.USDA Soil Survey? , NO.
21. Estimated watersbed land use:. % Resident#al %:Commeioial o/ Agn
Industna] _ ° cultural
;. `.% Forested % Cleared'/Logged % Other ( I
22. BanlifrilI width. b 23 Bank eight.(from bed.to! ofbank
:. Pp )
77
2
4. Channel- slope down censer of stream -Flat (0 to 2%) _LLGentle (2 to 4%) l oderate (4 to 10°i°) =Steep (>.10^/) ..
25. Channel sinuosity Straight ?asiona] bends Frequent meai2der . eery sinuous Braided channel .
Instructions for completion. of worksheet (located on :page 2) Eegm by determining the most appropriate ecoreg?on based on
location, terrain,•vegetation -stream classification etc Every charac erratic*rnustbe sca
.r *in file same ecore on. `Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown°,for the: ecore on. Pa a `3
Bi g provide$ a.:brief description -oflow to'review the .
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores. should _reflect.an overall assessment of the stre?ni leach under evaluation. 'If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or -weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and, ; rovide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e,g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
't'otal Sc re (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature _>?`"`''"?"' Date
-?
This channel eval '
dt?ga¢f6" form is intended to be-used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
• gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream .
quality. The total •score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACCE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-576-8441 x 26.
ST REAM QUALITY ASSESSNENT WORKSHUT
L---j
•
•
0
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream- Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ?? l l DS 35° Project:' dal Latitude: ) pt
Evaluator n . ,. Site: Longitude: - N151,
Total Points: Other
StieamIsatieastinterin&ent County:
1(? 19 or perennial ff Z 30 e.g. Quad Alsme. ?K????pt4
A. veomor holo (Subtotal= . (D _
Ola7iltate , ;` '_rion'' ;
1g. Continuous bed-and bank p •
1 3
2. Sinuosity 0. ?• 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate. sorting 0 2 -
5. Active/relic floodplaln - 3
1 2 3
6. -Depositional bars or benches
1 2 3
7. Braided channel D 1 2 3
B. Recent alluvial deposits p 2 3
9 a Natural levees - 1 2 3
10. Headcrits . 0 A 3
11. Grade controls 0 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on e)isbnc
USGS or•NRCS map or other documented Noe Yes= 3
evidence.
a
Man-maflP Nirchnc orn nn4 -io.l• om ,r :..........:......:- --_.._

14.: Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2

15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 3
Water in channel - d or growing season D (D 2 3
16.. L-eaflitter 1.5 1 .5 p
17. Sediment on plants or debris D 1

18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
D D 1.5
1

19.'Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? .
No = D 1.5
Yes 1.
C. l3iolr)rrv . Miihfnf"aI = -:?.C %
2D°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1

22 Crayfish
0
1 0
5
1
23. Bivalves 1 2 .
3
24. Fish D 0.5 1 5
1
25. Amphibians 0 D.5 1 .
1
5
26. Macrobenthos (note diverstty and abundance) ® 0.5 1 .
1
5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton p 1 2 .

28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0.5
1 3
5
1
2B .Wetland plants in strEambed
• FAG -0 , FA CW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 .SAV = 2. .
D Other= 0
items 2D and 71 fnrrnc nn fh, --
.
Notes: (use back side of this form for addltlonal notes.) Sketch:
SIT ?? ? a k' - 4 ? a a CAL5 11
USACE AID#
DWQ 4 Site # (indicate on attached map)
• M
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSlMNT WORKSHE E'T'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
.Lltt.:
1. Applicant's name:-t-(A Ll, IJ?XJ 2. Evaluator's name:_Q??Z OA,,,-h
v
3. Date of evaluation_ q I `?l C 4. Time of evalm'tiioon:
5. Name of stream:- S.1 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order.
4. Length of reach evaluated: •,A- r5c)yl 1 1D. County; 1 p
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.672312): 10 ?V U" Longitude (ex.-77.556611): e?J2? Zb
Method location determined (circle): GPS U opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/Gff Other GIS -Other
13. Location of reach upnd,e.,r, evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
t%lACJ? Ann ( h4 J r-\ .nee r
14. Proposed channel work (if any
15. Recent weather conditions: ,OI
I 6_ Site conditions at time of visit:- N1n o h aA . Div r n r d 'Arl n n d s r A1Y?Y"1 fi
V _
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:' -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters- _Outstanding Resource.Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters. -Water Supply Watershed (I-M
1-8_ is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES A If yes, estimate the water surface area
•19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 1 0)
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential
G o °i° Forested
22. Bankfull width: L-- S
24. Channel slope down center of stream -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 40/,)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander
z.-
--Moderate (4 to 10%) _X _Steep (>10%)
_V.ery sinuous . -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored. using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and-provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach: The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature t itn?lXl?G? Date Q J 1 01 (DC-
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to malce a preliminary assessment of stream
?uniity. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (Y3E NO
_% Commercial _% industrial % Agricultural
n% Cleared / Logged •_% Other ( .
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):-- a r
r.
S'C'REAM QUALITY. ASSESSTEl` T WORKSBEET
•
•
. iucse caaracrensncs are nor assessea cn coasmi screams.
,, I
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream -Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ?' ?vl O Project QLAI Latitude: 3tije 33' !? 2?
Evaluator, Site: ,? T? Longitude
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least lnterrrifttent County' 1ff 2 19 or erennfal ff i 30 e.g.. Quad Name.
?j3 . , ?W?Oot
A. Geomnmhrilnnv flRnhtntal . I .? i)1Sf?TSt} ??l i'?I /i?a'tCrr 1^ :; ?Nlitii3'trriaii?:i:Ii iE;i IGFniiiim"

18. Continuous bed and bank
0 - .._..._
1 ..... ......... .............. ..... ............_....,,....
3
2 Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0.. 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 - 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 3
6. ' Depositional bars, or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 2 3
8. Decent alluvial deposits D 2 3
9e Natural isvees CCZ) i 2 3
10. HeacimAs D 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or dm4ageway . 0 0:5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order.channel on e)ds5na
USGS or NRCS map or.other documented

evidence:
e..
No0
Yes=3
•
mmrnwuo uLLwJ=a aHq IDYL rni=u, bt= uiswssiuiu n1 manual
R 'Hvriminnv lSiih+n•I•at = 1
14. Groundwater flowldischarge 0. 1 3
15. Water in channel and >,48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season U ' 1 2
16. LeaBitter ;.....: 1:5 : ,° 0 5 D
17. Sediment on plants'or debris 0:. 0. 1 ' 1.5
18.Organle debris lines-or-piles (Wrack lines) - D 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximoiphic features) present? No=() Yes=
"
•C Rininnv Mivhfntal 1

20. Fibrous roots In`channel . 3 1 0
21°. Rooted plants In.ehannel 3 q 0
22 Crayfish 0 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 4.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphytAn 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
Items 20 and 21 focus on the nresence of uniend ninnts R FAC = 0.5; FACW = .7 OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = o
pm 90 fnn fePC nn the nmcnnnn of em.eB..........a.. ?._
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) CA,.?'l Sketch:

?,ov?x 0
f r
USACE AID4 (indicate on attached map)
nWQ # Site #
• „?.? STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEE '
.ah,.
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_ A P q k 2 Evaluator's name: so- + I
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: a a ,
5. Name of stream:. ' Cr, -S 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area;? R. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated 10. County: n
11. Site coordinates (if known) p-r7efer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): 2
Latitude (ex. 34.572312): 35° Longitude (ex. 77556611) Bill Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Oitho (Aerial) Photo/t3IS ..Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads-and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
?oCa?'c? Ot ?yp it. ©`hL?.}( IQQ.`lCp? ??V? G2h?TU b ?t Si f
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: I M n , n.A ( n. LtJI? f'k? j1 19
I6. Site conditions at time of visit .?it:?•???C???c
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 :. Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Wafers outstanding Resource.yJatets _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed
(I
IS. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? :.YES If yes, estimate the water svrfact.
area
• 19. Does channel appear on USGS :quad map? YES '. I `20. Does cbanDO appear onUSDA Soil. Survey?: .
21. Estimated watershed land use % Residential % Coimrercial % Industrial _"/a.Agiicnltural
j Doio Forested lpared) L ogge8 Rio Other.(
22. Bankfitll width:
23, Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
24. Channel slope down center of stream: .Flat (0 to 2%). Gentle (v to 4%) Moderate,(4 to l0°in) Steep (>.10%}
25. Channel sinuosity: _ Straight. L_,/Q.ccasianal bends Frequent meander Very
sinuous ;-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2) Begin by de.tetminmg the most. appropriate ecoregion .based :on'
location, terrain, vegetation, stream ,classification, etc. Every ebaracimistic.inust be•scored iising:the same ecoragion. Assign.points ;• `
to each characteristic within the -range shown. for'.the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief; description of how..to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall'assessment of the stream reach: under evaluation. `If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather'conditions, enter 0 in-.the scoring box and provide all explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stre am flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total more assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100. representing a streartr of the
highest quality.
')iota[ S ore (from reverse): Comments: • ?. e 'c'ep ??
Evaluator's Signatiire_.? Date. 9I JcS'
This channel evaluation form is intended to beuaed only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
. gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACEE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigntion ratio or requirement Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-976-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUJA,M ASSESSMENT WOW KSBEET
mr
a I. E
•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream-Identification Form; Version M
Date: I ` I ?S Project FCLU 0', p Latitude: '35aJ2 2`
? D h_ r
Evaluator. J„ . _ Site: G _ S Lbngitude: - V 51 Ip?3 3
Total Points: J Other
stream is at least Jnteimittent County:
if.: 19 or perennial if e 30 e.g. Quad Name:
Geomo hold . (Subtotal = _1 )

1a. Continuous bed and bank i A'bs °'•
.... _. ............:?
0 ' i' 411 ak I:
.:........_.. ........rar,_
1 _ tier,; to ;;
... -,
i_:::: .... ire..
3
2. Sinuosity p• 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Sol) texture or stream substrate sorting . D 3
5. Active/relic floodpiain p 2 3
6. ' Depositional bars or benches D 2 3
7. Braided channel . D 1 3
B. Recent alluvial deposits 0. 2 3
9a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts . D 1 3
11. Grade controls b 0.5 d 1.5 .
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 [ 5
13: Second or greater order channel on eAstinn
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
- No = ®
Yes = 3
ma,rwuuc wiuIes are nut raieu; see amcussions in manual
B.'Hvdrolonv 'ffiifhtntal = "I .? 1
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and >48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or
rowing season p 1
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sedirnerrt on plants or debris D 0.5 1.5
1 B. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redo)dmorphic features) present? No-= D : Yes =(1.5)
C. Biology (Subtotal = .r?'S
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 t)
21°. Rooted plants in channel' 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrdbenthos (note diversity end abundance) 0 0.5 ff) 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton (f) 1 2 T -
2B. Iron DAdiring bacteria/fungus. 0 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC =-0.5; FACW .OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other= D
hems <u arra cl mcus on me presence at upland plants, RPM 29 focuses on the presence of aquafirr or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
r
9
0
I ],
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project:
Latitude: Jl) o J 2 1. a I f
L
,- - ; J r
Evaluator. CN 1 ?? Site: C L S Longitude:
7 rJ
Total Points: . ` Other
Stream Is at least intermittent ,, II County:
It z 19 or eennMl ff a 30 1? L4 e.g. Quad Name: ?Vxl?A. G@omDrr)hnlnnv MIYhtntal ? ` t n ? . ?96icvriii ?5a lz" i'.!thYr[c31c?; ?i:7 iF!?lLi?rf'n"'::4i E!ri; -- +c+u' ':' ' :: •;:

18. Continuous bed and bank ........ .........,_ ........:::.
2 Sinuosity 0 2 .3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soli texture or stream 'substrate sorting D :. 2 3
S. Acdve/relic floodplain 17 1 2 3
6. ' Deposi#ional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel D 1 2 3
B. Recent apuvial deposits
9 " Natural levees 0:
D 2
2 3
3
1 D. Headcuts 0 Q '2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 .1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway D 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
I NA
No
Yes = 3-
--_....?__ _..., ....... .......... ........... ???. ..w...?a.wu u? wm way
• - B.'H drolo Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/discharge D 1 Q 3
15. Water in channel and >48 Inns since rain,- or
Water in channel - d or grDWnq season p 1
3
16. Leatlitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) D 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C_ Rininnv f-qvIhtnfaf = f r 1
. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel' 3 2 0
22 Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians D 0.5 10 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) D 0.5 . 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphytDn p 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. D 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed ?FAC 5; FACW =VU` OBL =1.5 5AV = 2 0; Other = 0
.- - ---- -- -- - -._ r.--_••-- _• ,•r••••••• r•••••••,. n.:.?, c.? wwaoca un uiC N?eSep[? W agllaTlC Dr Wellan0 PIar125.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
0
0
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project•1 Site:
Applicant / Owner:
investigator_5dXU
1
Do normal circumstances exist on-the site? Yes K No
Is the slte significantly -disturbed (Atypical-situation)? Yes Ne_
'Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No x
(explain on reverse If needed)
VEGETATION
-Date: Q t? ??S
County: h?u ,P 0
State: qtr
Community ID:-
Transect•ID:
Plot ID
,unces Stratum lndi or Uominarif f'iarit.?'?pecfes -- g
Tratum Tnd'icator•
4A 11.
-?_ ?Gin1 12.
--_`L 13-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding•FAC-). __ X3"10
Remarks:
?t1 n ?/J "n?-,. ` t r?P rn( B'h 1%A cJ?4?wi? rlm k.'?
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Strearn, Lake, or Tide.-Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology indicators
Primary Indicators:
Y, Inundated
?C Saturated in Upper 12"
_ fZ Water Marks
Drtft Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
_Y Drainage Patterns-in Wetlands
-Depth of Surface Water.
. Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in pit: _V oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Lsaves
Depth to Saturated.Soil: _ Local-Soll Survey Data
(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ other (Explain in Remarks)
. Remarks: -
Avm CAA
SOILS

•
0
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): "Ur?"I t)rainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup):_N c Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth ' Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle • Texture, Concretions,
inches . Horizon (Munseli Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundande/Contrast Structure etc.
C? ( n i (.Oy
Hydric Boil indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in 'Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sutfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed.On. Local Hydric Soils List
V Reducing Conditions -Listed. on National Hydric Soils List
?c Gleyed or.Low-Chroma-Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

??ii `rvYLJ Lc CRtYNIVHI t'UIN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?'
Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?' Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland?. -Yes \C No •
f?" \'?'AIIA
9

DATA FORM
ROUTINE.WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project./ Site: C Gy`
Date:
Applicant I Owner: County: "hn• brL e p:
Investigator: Stater
Do rionrral circumstances- exist on the site? Yes ? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly-disturbed (Atypical. situation)? Yes No Transect•ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No_ c Plot ID: L -i+1 i
(explain on reverse if needed) ''
VEGETATION
"?o_mmarit'Pr?rrEBuecies ?{iafam -Indica of Dominant P a t•Snecies -Stratum Tnif_ icator
1. ? 'T frU - 9.-
PifiC U.. 1.0.
4 ?12.
5. P_?r ?K ?ry?tti? ?_ _ ??°? L 13.
14. '
7 15
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,-FACW, or FAC excluding. FAC- . 5
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- 7l r3 (in,)
Depth to Saturated.Soil: 7 L) (in.)
Remarks:
SOILS
Wetland Hydrology In- cricators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated in tipper 12"
- . Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns -in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
- FAC-Neutral Test
- Ofher (Explain in Remarks)
F?'? ( 2? ?tn l??( b(? t? CMt?'?rn y,,O y??
?-\ -4
Map Unit Name a 1\\ \c
(Series and Phase); 51?11h1 Drainage Class:
_?t
Taxonomy (Subgroup): lc-
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Desariotion-
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
C) L]
V
Hydric 'Soll Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
- Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
- Gleyed or. Low-Chromi'a -Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic tontent 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)

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? . Yes No y,
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes" No y_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a. Wetland?. -Yes • - Nom
?04 b? `std \ C. V-,

0
r.
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project.l Site:
Applicant! Owner:
Investigator: :?- _\
Do riorrrral circumstances exist on-the site?
Is-the site signifcantly•disturbed A ical•situation)? Yes_L No
'is the area a potential problem area? rp ??-
(explain on reverse if needed) Yes Mo--- t?
VEGETATION
Date:_?? a D_
County: ?lS?ir?iit 1
State: N?-- - '
Community ID:/(
Transect .ID: I
Plot ID:____ g -
-?ommarit?t???ies - ??.{?m .-Tdica__r ' .Dominant PCatit.?cies
/? Stratum 'ind'icator
•3.1?ufDihoe. r,?Et>^^Ue.?..ri c? ?.`?T. 1'l. .
4.Qy<?rrrlS dL?Lhr bi EIXI _ i f"il)? 1Z.
5.?Dra?u ltAow trat"_ S
g I 13.
7 ca,?)k 14.
. 8 \ 1 S .___
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding'.FAC-), i (7 t? °I v
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Recorded. Data (Describe in Rernarks):
Stream; Lake, or Tide.Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
-Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _? b ?n•)
Depth to Saturated.Soil: 3
Remarks:
•
SOILS
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12"
- Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Pattems•in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels In Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test '
Other (Explain in Remarks)
W QK_0j'i.

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase); T -
C) Drainage
Class:
.
.
Taxonomy (Subgroup)_Ms
' ya?_AA `\'&JN\S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle- Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon . (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist AbundanaelContrast Structure, etc.

! ?a i'a D t V1 C A'lL Uam

Hydric 'Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic. Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils '
5ulfdic Odor
Organic Streaking.in Sandy Solis
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local.Hydric'Soils List
.
+/ Reducing Conditions Listed on National
Gieyed or Low-C?.. roma•Colors Other emr?C•$DiiS List
- - ^„ (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks_
vwvlf

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
? No Wittii
e
n a W
-_
tland?. Yes No
Hydric Solis Present? Yes Y_ No -
Remarks:
?A? ???• ?1 V4.??L.?~ f ? l ?f :.r'l ??t.`f l•??> ?. ?? ?+?F- 2Yrr'?'
?e

0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 CO-E Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project) Site:
Applicant! Owner:
investigator:_2a_4!
Do normal circumstances exist on-the site? Yes X No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical. situation)? Yes No ?
'is the area a potential-problem area? yes No
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
-Date: a-1 b:
County tJA au r ;
State: 14 G
Community ID: }-E
Transect •ID: I
Plot ID:. a -`, ?(A
I3nmmarrt Piarif5-necies 7,M dica orSTratum di
9.
2.`V_CJ .3 LEA,
.PgGlj 11.
4•Mn??nni;a iviltc lg S 12.
5.(,;v?o a 4 trt ?u1i?, ?
t 0Y)L 13.
fi. 14.
8. 1.fi. `-----
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC exciuding•FAG-).

HYDROLOGY.
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream,. L•ake,'orTide Gauge
-
Aerial Photographs '
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
"Depth of Surface Water. (?)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: i rul.)
Depth to Saturated.Soil: } (.p ( ,)
Remarks:
i - W ? i. ,
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks '
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposlts
- Drainage Patterns -in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
ic, -r\6-fl
SOILS

•
E Remarks: q

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase);
Drainage Class:?c??
Taxonomy (Subgroup): W: UA\XNN?.kl ? Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth * Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, eta.

Hydric "Soil 1lndicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
Histfc Epipedan High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
_ Suff dic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aqulb Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric'Solls List .
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric.Soils List
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma•Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)

rrc i LfAvv uC 1 CKIVIINA I ILIN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ?C Is the Sampling Point.
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes" No ?_ Wlthin a Wetland?. 'Yes No_
Hydric Solis Present? Yes No
Remarks.:
ea,? ?s t\?c W??.?1ave?

.0

•
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street -
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 15, 2007

Ms. Amanda D. Jones
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps 'of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Jones:
Subject: Site Assessment for the Proposed Construction of Three Lakes at the Grandview Peaks
Subdivision located on Joe Branch Road, southeast of Dysartsville, McDowell County,
• North Carolina (Action ID 2007-2007359)
This is the report of the .U.S.. Fish acid Wildlife Service. and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Public Notice of an Individual Permit Application (IPA)
submitted by Fall Creek Land Company, represented by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,
Inc. Information for this report is based on a review of the Corps' Public Notice and the IPA
submitted by MACTEC. This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental
Protection Act; and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description - According to the information provided, Fall Creek Land Company is
proposing to constrict three earthen dams for the creation of three lakes (6.125 acres, 25.191
acres, and 9.661 acres in size) within a 1,830-acre residential development known as Grandview
Peaks. The proposed purpose for the lakes is to provide water supply points for fire suppression,
open-water recreational opportunities, and water for an optional irrigation system for
homeowners. The project site is primarily mountainous and wooded, with areas of early
successional forest from previous clear-cutting activities. The headwaters of Hoppers Creek,
Weaver Branch, Shoal Creek, Kelly Branch, South Muddy Creek, and Big Camp Creek are on
the site. The site contains about 2.16 acres of wetlands and,about 54,392 linear feet (If) of
stream channel. To construct the lakes, the applicant is proposing to impact about 8,0231f of
stream channel and about 0.63 acre of wetlands.. Of the impacts to on-site stream channels,
986 1f are rated as being of "poor" quality, 2,026 if are rated as "fair" quality, 4,611 if are rated
• as "good" quality, and 4001f are rated as "excellent' 'quality.' ' There are no other proposed
impacts to wetlands or stream channels associated with road crossings, utility line installations,
and/or lot fill.
Federally Listed Species - Based on the information provided in the Habitat Assessment and
Endangered Species Review, we agree that no listed species or their habitats occur on the site
and that the proposed project will not affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - We oppose the construction of in-line structures such as the
proposed lakes because they significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The
conversion of a free-flowing stream to. a lake results in the loss of natural stream functions, alters
the hydrology, and affects native ecosystem processes within and downstream of the reservoir
site. The majority of native aquatic species are adapted to stream conditions (flowing, highly
oxygenated water.and coarse sand, gravel, and rocky bottoms). The impoundments created by
the construction of dams eliminate spawning and foraging habitat. Water depth increases, flow
decreases, and silt accumulates on the bottom. Impoundments not only destroy riverine habitat
• within the impounded portion of the stream but also alter the quality and stability of the upstream
and downstream reaches by adversely affecting water flow regimes, velocities, temperature,
chemistry, and nutrient cycles. The effects of impoundments result in changes in fish and
macromvertebrate communities, often favoring nonindigenous species; species that require clean
gravel and sand substrates are lost. In addition, dams result in the fragmentation and isolation of
populations of species, acting as effective barriers to the natural upstream and downstream
expansion or recruitment of fish species. This reduction -in range and isolation of populations
greatly increases the vulnerability of a species to extirpation. It reduces a species' ability to
respond to changes (natural or manmade) within its environment and to recover front impacts
(large or repeated small-scale impacts) to its numbers that a species with widely dispersed, .
interconnected healthy populations would likely be able to overcome. Although the habitat will
remain in an aquatic state, the fauna and ecosystem functions associated with streams are not
alike and cannot be replaced with associated fauna and functions from a reservoir.
Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines prohibit.the filling of wetlands or streams for nonwater-dependent
activities when practicable alternatives exist. We do not believe the on-line amenity lakes are
water-dependent activities because practicable alternatives exist (i.e., construction of off-line
lakes, use of nearby Lake Lure and Lake James, etc.) that would avoid impacts to aquatic
resources.
• 'The quality of on-site stream channels was scored using the Corps, Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet.
2
• Purpose and Need - We do not believe the "Purpose and Need" statement in the IPA justifies
the aquatic impacts associated with this project. Section 2 (Page 1) of the IPA states the
following:
The most significant issue of the proposed impoundment is to create three lakes
within the Grandview Peaks Subdivision. These lakes are to be constructed in
order to provide water supply points for fire suppression, provide open water
recreational opportunity, fulfill the need for an aesthetically-pleasing and
functional environment in order to develop the desired improvements to the
proposed development (residences, dry hydrants, boat houses and docks, fishing,
swimming, and boating), and provide water to an optional irrigation system. The
creation of the proposed impoundments is essential to the success of the proposed
development.
Though fire safety is important for any community, fire suppression is not to be considered when
evaluating the purpose or need of a project. The importance of fire safety should have been
evaluated when plans were being developed for the community, and the chance that the lake
project may not be permitted (if the amenity lakes were considered at the time of project
planning) should also have been considered. The applicant also states that the lakes could be
used for aerial extraction to combat forest fires; however, no evidence was included in the
application to demonstrate the need for open-water areas for this purpose.
• We do not believe that the stated need for the lakes to provide recreational opportunities should
be used to evaluate the purpose and need for the lakes. While reviewing the advertising web site
for Grandview Peaks (http://www.fallereek-land.conVare.a.ht7nl), we noticed that a large portion
of the lots within the development. have already been sold or are under contract. We also found
the following statements:
The natural beauty of the area can be enjoyed year-round malting it an
outdoorsman's paradise. Lake Lure and Lake James are nearby lakes where you
can enjoy swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, and much more. The nearby Green
River is ideal for canoeing and is state stocked, providing excellent fishing.
Golf is plentiful in the area. Cleghorn Plantation, Silver Creek Plantation,
Meadow Brook, and Fairfield Mountains, are a few of the premier public courses.
Within an hour's drive we have a dozen trout streams, and two major lakes.
Some of the best hiking in the east including the Daniel Boone Trail (which
traverses over Grandfather Mountain), the Appalachian Trail, and Linville Gorge
(one of only three federal wilderness areas east of the Rocky Mountains). Just to
our east is the South Mountain State Park, North Carolina's largest state park,
with over thirty thousand acres open to the public. Hiking, mountain biking,
fishing, swimming, and horseback riding are just a few things the park offers. To
our north there is excellent skiing at Sugar Mountain and Beech Mountain.
0
• According to the web site listed above, numerous open-water and other recreational
opportunities exist within a short distance of the development. The web site contradicts the IPA
with regard to the need for the proposed lakes for recreation and an aesthetically pleasing and
functioning environment. The web site further states that the development offers "a wide variety
of home sites available offering beautiful mature hardwoods, small streams, seclusion, and
breathtaking mountain views," but the proposed lakes are not mentioned anywhere on the web
site. For these reasons, we do not believe that the creation of the impoundments is essential to
the success of the development; therefore, the creation of the impoundments should not be
permitted.
Mitigation - We commend the applicant for minimizing the aquatic impacts of the project by
using spanning structures at all stream crossings and by installing all utilities in road
rights-of-way. However, as proposed, we do not believe the mitigation plan will adequately
compensate for the impacts this project will have on aquatic resources. The applicant is
proposing to mitigate the 986 if of impacts to "poor" quality streams by preserving 9861f of
on-site stream channel; mitigation for the 2,026 if of impacts to "fair" quality streams will be the
preservation of 3,039 if of "good" and "excellent' 'quality stream channels; mitigation for the
4,611 if of impacts to "good" quality streams will be the preservation of 9,222 if of "good"
stream channels and 1,900 if of on-site stream enhancement; and mitigation for the 4001f of
impacts to "excellent" quality streams will consist of purchasing about 400 credits from the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). Proposed mitigation for the
0.63 acre or wetland impacts will be consist of purchasing 0.75 acre of wetland credits from the
• NCEEP.
According to the mitigation plan listed above, a total of 7,6231f of impacts will be mitigated
through the preservation of about 15,147 if of on-site stream channels. The "Stream Mitigation
Guidelines" (Guidelines) endorsed by the Corps require the use of a mitigation activity multiplier
of 2.5 to 5.0 to calculate the amount of preservation mitigation that will be required for project
impacts. Using the lowest mitigation activity multiplier of 2.5, we calculated about 19,0581f
(7,6231f [total impacts to be mitigated through preservation] times 2.5) of stream channel that
will need to be preserved in order to adequately mitigate the impacts of this project. As
proposed, the applicant is preserving only about 15,000 If of stream channel as mitigation for the
impacts of this project.
The proposed purchase of 400 if of stream credits and 0.75 acre of wetland credits from the
NCEEP does not adequately compensate for the 4001f of "excellent" stream channel impacts and
the 0.63 acre of wetland impacts. The application states that mitigation for impacts to
"excellent" quality stream channel will be calculated using a ratio of 3:1. Using this ratio, a
purchase of about 1,200 if of stream credits will be needed to adequately compensate for the
impacts to the "excellent" quality stream channel. Also, we generally recommend that
mitigation for all impacts to wetland areas be calculated using a 2:1 ratio. Therefore, 1.2 acres of
wetland mitigation credits must be purchased to adequately mitigate the 0.63 acre of wetland
impacts.
We do not believe the alternatives analysis presented with the IPA is complete nor does it justify
• the need for the on-site, on-line lake option. Also, because the purpose and need for the lake as
4
• shown in the IPA (additional recreational opportunities, fire suppression, irrigation, etc.) is not
valid, we do not believe that the lake as proposed is a water-dependent activity. Because a
portion of the development is already constructed and lots are already selling and because the
recreational needs of the residents can be met with the resources currently available, we believe
the no-build alternative is the most practicable. Therefore, we recommend that any permits for
the construction of these impoundments be denied.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-06-200.
Sincerely,
i
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Kevin Barnett, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
• of Water Quality, 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Ms. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1349 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789

5.
? TRC
February 22, 2006
Mr. Joshua Ellinger
Project Scientist
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
2801 Yorkmont Road, Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
Re: Cultural Resource Literature Review for a 1,860-Acre Site in McDowell County, North
Carolina
Dear Mr. Ellinger:
On behalf of MACMC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), TRC has completed a background
literature review for proposed development of a 1,860-acre site in McDowell- County, North Carolina.
The tract is located south of SR 1802 and west of US 64, approximately 2.3 mi (3.75 km) southwest of
Dysartsville, North Carolina, and just north of the Rutherford County line (Figure 1).
For purposes of the literature review, the area examined included a one-mile radius around the project
tract. Research was conducted on February 8-11, 2006 at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
(OSA), the North Carolina State Archives, the North Carolina Collection at the University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill, and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Survey and
Planning Branch. The research included a review of all maps and site files at the OSA for archaeological
sites listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a review of
cemetery survey records at the North Carolina State Archives, and a review of maps, survey records and
architectural history books relating to McDowell County at the SHPO and UNC.
RESULTS
A review of site files and records at the OSA, SHPO, and Archives revealed that no archaeological sites,
historic structures or cemeteries lie within the proposed project area. However, four previously recorded
archaeological sites are located within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project area (Figure 1, Table 1).
Three of the sites were identified during archaeological surveys for the Second Broad River Watershed
study in 1974 and a second study in 1978 (Jurney and Downing 1974; Cooper and Chino 1978). Those
sites represent prehistoric lithic scatters (31MC106, 31MC108 and 31MC109), and are located well
outside the tract to the northeast.
The fourth site, 31MC163, is the historic Brackettown Cemetery, and abuts the southwestern comer of the
tract (Figure 1). The cemetery was identified during the McDowell County Archaeology Project in 1988-
1989, which was conducted by Ken Robinson of Warren Wilson College (OSA site form). In 1998, W.D.
Floyd (2006) surveyed the cemetery and identified at least 66 marked and 150 unmarked graves dating
from the late 1830s to at least 1995. The cemetery is divided into an African-American section and a
white section. According to Floyd (2006), the African-American section is well-maintained and contains
at least 48 marked graves and over 100 graves that are unmarked or marked with fieldstones; the marked
graves date from 1907 to 1995. Surnames in the African-American section include Hooper, Owens and
O'Neal. The white section (described as overgrown and neglected) contains at least 18 marked graves and
0

Table 1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the projec t area.
Site No. Description NRHP . Reference
31MC106 Non-diagnostic prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible Cooper & Climo 1978
31MC108 Non-diagnostic prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible Cooper & Climo 1978
31MC109 Non-diagnostic prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible Jurney & Downing 1974
31MC163 Brackettown Cemetery Not Eligible Robinson 1989
from 40 to 50 other graves; the marked graves date from 1839 to 1905. Surnames in the white section
include Brackett and Halyburton.
The North Carolina Cemetery Survey maps and files were consulted at the North Carolina State Archives.
Apart from the Brackettown cemetery, no cemeteries have- been recorded in or adjacent to the project
area. Similarly, the historic structure files at the SHPO Survey and Planning Branch show no recorded
historic structures in or within one mile of the proposed project area.
The 1904 Morganton quadrangle map (USGS 1905) was consulted to identify former structure or
settlement locations within or near the tract (Figures 2 and 3). The map show approximate locations for
selected houses, churches, cemeteries, and other buildings that existed as of that time, although it
probably does hot depict all buildings that were in the vicinity. The 1904 Morganton quadrangle depicts
the community of Demming, which was known locally as "Brackettown," in the approximate location of
the Brackettown cemetery at the southwest comer of the tract. In 1891, a post office was opened in a
Brackettown store by John J. Sprouse, and was named "Demining" after Henry Demming, the owner of
the Marion Bullion Company, which controlled the local gold mines (Stroupe et al 1996:2-287; Haney
2004:26). The post office was discontinued in 1914, when mail service was transferred to Vein Mountain.
• Due to the precision and scale of 'the 1904 map, it. is difficult to pinpoint the exact locations of structures
in the project area. However, the map seems to show at least one structure within the current project area;
that building was situated at the approximate location of Brackettown. The Brackettown community
apparently lay in the vicinity of the Brackettown Cemetery, and was centered due east of the cemetery
area in the small triangular area of three intersecting unimproved roads (Figure 1). The 1904 map shows
two structures at the junction of those roads.
The 1938 North Carolina State Highway map. (NCSHPWC) does not show any structures in the project
area; the same is true of the 1964 and 1993 USGS topographic maps (Glenwood and Dysartsville
quadrangles). The latter maps do depict a mine in the central portion of the tract, on the eastern portion of
Lookadoo Mountain (Figure 0. The nature of this mine is not clear, but according to Haney (2004:24),
the "Luckadoo" gold mine, located on Muddy Creek, had been a "bonanza" for earlier placer gold mining
with high hopes for vein mining. Ernest J. House and other investors with the Marion Bullion Company
purchased the mine in the late-nineteenth century intending to run deep mining operations, but were
thwarted by runoff laws that hampered their efforts. It is possible that the mine shown in the project area
is the mine that is discussed by Haney (2004:24). Depending on the nature and history of this mine, it and
any associated archaeological remains could be potentially eligible for the NR.HP.
By way of context, southeastern McDowell County has been known for its gold mining since at least the
1830s (Bannister, Cowan and Company 1869:40; Knapp and Glass 1999): This area of McDowell County
lies in what is known as the "South Mountain Belt" of gold mining (North Carolina State Board of
Agriculture 1896:83). Bannister, Cowan and Company (1869:40) reported that "the most extensive and
notable deposit [in the Piedmont section]... is found in the South Mountains on the head waters of the
First and Second Broad, and of Silver and Muddy Creeks." Brackettown in particular was known as a
gold mining "boomtown" during the nineteenth century (Jones 1970). A number of early twentieth-
century mining industry reports for North Carolina show that gold mining in McDowell County had
•
. continued until circa 1917 (Pratt 1908:19; Pratt and Berry 1911:11-15; Pratt and Berry 1919:23;.Drane
and Stuckey 1925; Bryson 1937:15, 27-28). The Brackettown community grew up on the lands owned by
the Brackett family, who began mining gold . in the 1840s, using slave labor in the mines (Fossett
1976:85). Gold mini-fig in the Brackettown area continued up until the Civil. War, when most surface
mining and minor subsurface mining had ceased in the area (Haney 2004:4). By the 1890s, McDowell
County experienced a revival in mining due to more advanced mining methods, but had ended by the
1910s (Haney 2004:4). Most recently; Haney (2004) reports that there has been renewed interest in gold
deposits in parts of McDowell County.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature search has identified no previously recorded archaeological sites or historic structures
within the proposed project tract. The absence of prehistoric archaeological sites is primarily a reflection
of the lack of previous investigations, however, and there.is moderate potential for prehistoric sites on
several parts of the-tract. Based on previous investigations in the North Carolina mountains, such sites are
most likely located on relatively level landforms (exhibiting 15% or less slope) and in proximity to
steams. Other specialized site types might also be present, however, including rock shelters.. Some such
sites could potentially be eligible for the NRHP, but it is extremely unlikely that they are present in
sufficient size or quantity to hinder development in the area.
There is moderate to high potential for historic period sites on the tract, especially in and near the former
town site of Demming (Brackettown), at the southwest corner of the tract. Other mining-related sites may.
also be present elsewhere on the tract, including at the mine location that is shown on the current USGS
map. Any such'sites-that retain subsurface integrity could potentially be eligible for the NRHP.
Finally, the Brackettown Cemetery (as along with any other cemeteries that may be present) is protected
by a variety of North Carolina State Statutes,"ncluding G.S. 14-148, 14-149, and 65-13 (see attachment).
Regardless of any permit issues that may arise, care should be taken to avoid disturbing this cemetery,
including any unmarked graves that might be present on the project tract and outside the marked cemetery
boundaries.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone], or via email at holson0tresolutions com, if you
have any questions or comments about this report.. We will be glad to assist your office with any
additional investigations that may be necessary for this project..
Sincerely,

Heather L. Olson, M.A., RPA
Archaeologist
0
W REFERENCES
Bannister, Cowan and Company
1869 The Resources Of North Carolina: Its Natural Wealth, Condition, And Advantages, as Existing in
1869, Presented to The Capitalists and People of The Central and Northern States. Bannister Cowan and
Company, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Bryson, Herman J.
1937 The Mining Industry in North Carolina from 1929 to 1936. North Carolina Department of
Conservation and Development, Raleigh.
Cooper, Peter P. 11, and James Climo, Jr.
1978 Archaeological Testing of Selected Sites in the Second Broad River Watershed, Rutherford and
McDowell Counties, North Carolina. Museum of Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury, North Carolina.
Report on file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Drane, Brent S., and Jasper L. Stuckey
1925 The Mining Industry in North Carolina from 1918 to 1923 (Inclusive). The North Carolina Geological
and Economic Survey, Raleigh.
Floyd, W.D. .
2006 Old Brackett Town Cemetery, McDowell County, NC. Electronic document, h2p://rfci,net/wdflovd/
BracTown.html accessed February 13, 2006.
Fossett,. Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial Commission
Heritage Committee, Marion, North Carolina.
Haney, James Lawton
2004 Gold: "Shining Dust" in the Cultural History of McDowell County, North Carolina: with a
Photographic Essay. Carson House Publications, Marion, North Carolina.
Johnston, Joanne S., editor
• 1992 McDowell County Heritage, North Carolina. McDowell County Heritage Book Committee,
Waynesville, North Carolina.
Jones, H.G.
1970 N.C. Had Own Gold Rush Early in 19'h Century. Henderson Daily Dispatch 28 Jan 1970. Electronic
document, http://lightning.prohosting.coTn/teylu/ncgoid/, accessed 9 February 2006.
Jurney, David H., Jr., and Caran M. Downing
1974 An Archeological Survey of the Upper Second Broad Watershed, McDowell and Rutherford Counties,
North Carolina: a Reconnaissance Survey of Archeological Sites in Areas to be Impounded through S. C.S.
Project Number 81. Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina. Report on file; North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Knapp, Richard H., and Brent D. Glass
1999 Gold Mining in North Carolina: A Bicentennial History. North Carolina. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
North Carolina State Board of Agriculture
1896 North Carolina and its Resources. M.I. & J,C. Stewart, Winston, North Carolina.
North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC)
1938 Map of McDowell County, North Carolina. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works
Commission, Raleigh.
Pratt, Joseph Hyde
1908 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1907. The North Carolina Geological and Economic
Survey, Raleigh.
Pratt, Joseph Hyde, and H.M. Berry
1911 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1908, 1909 and 1910. The North Carolina Geological
and Economic Survey, Raleigh.
1919 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1913-17, Inclusive. The North Carolina Geological and
Economic Survey, Raleigh.
Stroupe, Vernon S.,.Robert J. Stets, Ruth Y. Wetmore, and Tony L. Crumbley
1996 Post Offices and Postmasters of North Carolina: Colonial to LISPS. Volume II: Edgecombe through
Northampton. North Carolina Postal History Society, Charlotte.
• United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1904 Morganton, North Carolina. 1:125,000 scale.
•
0
p m o p L m v ca? m N In m w o > m i a) m m c c = >, m e >-
c M m e a m o L L L U t o. c a> ca a)' o c c° E m ?' '
a) 0 0 o c >,cn -0 0 E •0 'r 3- - '- m cc: ° 3 0 c* w o v 0 - a) IM ?Na? T? maai`¢?yami ocmimiaEpoaa) O Ec-ovc°yDmo >c)aU 0 CL EaicroE3?3roa)N?? npOVE L>Uy •b o z Ym CO U) Em?°?a?m?m >?o?
• o o o roc p o a c o o w ? m ul o >, m c ro Z3 a)
rmoo ocna)a) v?c: EoE"a)o Y -mL °o?ocaoL me
s
3 cvMm mm ?'°°?-? _¢a0, tm?? F- o = f° 0• C -a m Eror`nasamoo m m 0)
M N W L N c d- m O m 0 m ?- N C +- ri N E Z N id m m
7 > m «O"• L-. 3 = m 'O .x C ° •'- `o C. = Y L O N ,C C, = y N L y m In G ,r•. '0 O vOi
(Al c m a) ° 0t o m ??, ? -°°`m o ads W W aU,'c., m o 3 c 0.0 ° c m? a'
n o Lu C: ° o rnr V, m E°? m >,c a)S ca F-> c a aE.a.m c o c m.o -
^ `° ED m E 3 0 E C O ti` d N C L 0 ( D . 0 -) - M C o r ° (D 0 U c? .. U)
C L E In m U1 4 N y`' O` C (d m Z (n m N C° ro E N° N C ° i 7 N y
'A 9m O a" z • >; co
co G In f0 t c 0 0 m° m C7 ° a ° m Op n c p m O OTC J-- E CJ i E y° b N v .- a U '? o
E6 C M-0 O O a +- C D In r a t0 :O E • O L a3 N COL N Q w ` ca o V c0 U- m V N o In C n• m
U (: °) aUi c m aa3 > m E Y o c+ Ua m ¢ 0. C.) 0 0. p.N m O¢ N -= C. c
?NCpr?-°vE °«?c`a?mao T.am U? ooopDIS0 -•c°iro? ccaa? wm CD :3 r cv m c o m c wL p ca m M E c c ca o ca c W e ca F- c IS t) m to m+' ao m
mCL ,.,oE"a).L urn- -c?zE.+ N WU ocma>ouicco-0Q?cA? mo
C
);- O W Q E C L N c () p m a) N G 7 p a) C m ca y' +- C m m CA to
Lb oc ?`3L (Is o ?y-0 mL?oc CSQ >oN ro nNU) (13 c(D a)
Ca C. - p c ° 0 In c~ ? .0 m cma O
m n c° Y a ^ o> > c ?' m~ E o Q 0 U
E y 0 `D •O > U O O U, c O O .m0 'E a C N 0 M of Q O m L C y .? 3 a is ? N 0 0) Ini
'C
> 03 N 0) a) m N c 0... a) o a 4 0 T m m X= aa) 0 o Z Q O N 2 N U ?+ C` 3- l°n E t°n me ?'
0. E U ca. 2 L .? a •o n._ w- ca v- 'a 'O (0 m F- m 0) ? ? y- ? . U Z N .O . n - m 0 7 ¢ -6 E r
Nm.OCO L25 O- COACOC?`' O 0p'OOL0 ._d?yLt?r mmmm>, d
W G y' a N o' O G Co C +' ?+•. N +-' (p m U d C Fa-L aL-, O N
O ro C
i0 C >, a) m O L 2:, m ro ?, t> O CD L a) L -p .p n U- m
cm LC0?C0 ca ma'°?=ca wwW a3sMacm0CD oc?
w a is-'3?' vvm?m5Em -u0c? mv?MamcoaxiY?roc ?'EEmaci
H M > n? ca y m m Y? c a (D v? c a ca a: E° '`o • D `0 a.• E. m m
mm N• E mLU>,aimca vro o dE? om ox..c,. ocdom.`
W
c> W m, C a) n V -'o U ?. 3 m n U C N U O a) M m U 0 0 R! °
. W y T m m - >, U U 0 E N .0.. a) m w L C > am y . U CC •C m y m to o d O U n
?rnA c E" ?La¢ 0-0 m .0.0.0 o m o.? o•c N f!) m a L? m m m zin E
MI -r_
U o
tM b o c ca °I- o :n 4) °: m r c V) .«-a m E 3 3 -r a) ?s -,E E rov o i° ro
V CD O. m N Cm co ,6 n m o m-0 E >, O. C >., E p C 0 0 a It E •y°^_ p (/! C C N N O
W r'a a-.cn ??mmc-aa))(D ".y03 as ooC>??-•,oo3°vC o00
• -'T 0) N a r m C a) (0 E a ca ro •o ° m m C7 o c o
CC U) ,-y caEO .0-0.or°noE ?`•` E 'D m5m cvm?,°Ymc nm mho maa?c
°' C3, v
.0 -a a ro mm r.y? mm C ai r > >;o N qI=- = c ?A oa m ?w:°. ?a N
a m :3 L m a m ». 3 >,m o o` o 0) c r
vac+v m oE?Nm?nm o.rnmwoE came: o°a.0caa)C) ?w a)m0
??oo>.. oc?`oMVM oeomrot- dM•.=mcmomm°€r.m" woY?o.o
a0 I- L {0 . r 00- ? m m m atl •C r ?:.5] :CL •O 0 .Y• U GI i. ?. _ ° ,? -C
O •O
1 r to • m O r. O C C L d m m C: M-73 L O O T] `- ti N n m
(j r??Naro ?Gtn Z--OV u?ISwE ?ocmcNmN°=3 ? 0a
Q v?y'3a.to •y0cmL E?Mf Cto CD w 2: L E vi'ca'?momm°r>mN000 c.dC-4=
2 C7, pm?v C!mmmcE oa C7 aC)aoL C70> nXis .0 oOm?cE a@ca0) c
o w r ca m o- r T- o m E E E c m m G E N °, C7 o E o o._
m o f o ?. c m ca
a E: x» U ca 'CL!E E W ss'y "6 v m? c c m °
S.. aS L E d m E
G/ m N ^ CIS L
0= N 0 a 0 C N .?% C •Op a) m C > m .a L L r= O C ro C N' m N C 'O O
W c. CO C- " N.> m V 'O ?' ro M i 'O '? +• p a+ .". i. O C to O C m N O C a°) O
w ° w ro a) X o a?? m o CID o N m m ?Z cE m Tm ° m*- 0 3¢ ° f9 ro a> o
a) .L m N C 01 >> - a) ro 0 L L - j¢ O a E > 0 ro N U r cNtl m •G `p• U m
cis W =>+ N m C n m C .O CL D O p c0 ` U C .G m C CO r 'ro w a1 Q)
C.) 0 O C m fn ?=• 0) j m S CL C ro 7 U E Q) d L `O AS r m W E o 'C N m
>. >.? nv c m m0 N E In a C w >,0'O L 0 0 -- CO mtn a ma c
E > -C: ca 0- ID 0
o U ca fU m y ro L U C m m .0 U? 0 as C< C N E Cf >? - m° 'fl +N m >. Q m m -ty aL. j m
J 7
0 ?MIn uro?pomoca o>cv V1 "'cam>?Ca vca.a?EomE?E
m U L N> •p .w- m N U L 'O O ro c0 +' N co m C r (/) ro N w N E C m W t E CA m
U mw"' s? Goccu0.?LCOOa,r mac. w.Gm?mN?c Goma) ca NLtu CD V)
ro .. >, n •a ? c m E U E a? a) 0 0 U) In - 0 10
E ca ? m n &0 ? 0 2: c me c> -U *- jQ 2 2 °-c m m N n oir E,-`t ?+ c n E CO m co
U M a) L O G r O m m° 07 c a) G m N } 0, C m C G C C D U O 0)
m a -0 N N E>
Q C ca L M CL 'C N° N E C m ro N W m m .a) m E O a) O L c m G ca C C >• n
N m O' ° U C m° m ro W L m r. w m y .J n "'• +„ E U 7 'O N C O O M m- •.O N
2 °> a In Z h m r D U ? y O m co od Cr a O (5 O V C E m r m O) m r r m Ql m 0
ca E c >
C ca p C 0 m? c p U> z
W ro O E
CL 0 m = m m E ro m m ?) CO t- C O CD
CD
o mm a3 ° ?L m aa,° rn a o'CCO) (D 0 m o MU c CL EZ E» ° ro
~ •d M CL L U N L m B Q) E E0 "? = ca L N C° Y ?' ro N O O) C i-• c m` r n C n
?O O •C % L m O Y m a ca p C U O_ ca ?,,,, L +• N C ?C w m m C C M Q) 0 „L,,, M .N °
• Z U 4) C m N r p l0 O m m? N Eo -0 ro O f0 O '0 N cn m N m •C .c N m ym„ m L m
4c > 00 ? H m E maro at € o c L o C) o N c„ao m N E o t-b ro,. G o c
E m o o r L O m m rn a) ro¢ C O a co a ;° N O> N
3u LEo? ?m?Nm3amo°aCL cno r =Ir-o,°€mo?aai°omoI C) a
0 w 0 - Ca L c D. ? c E
a aU °-
2 cacca p Q) 0 a? m m Yr2 m m?
C]
•
•
tguiG i_ rrrojecL area ana previously recoraea cultural resources within a 1-mile radius.
•
0
r1
LJ
•
0

U
N
O
0.
O
b
0
U
O
N
X
O
t.
a
?o
i
n
d
n
s
4
• PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
GRANDVIEW PEAKS DEVELOPMENT FORMERLY
MCDOWELL COUNTY LADS PROJECT
NEBO, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared For:
Fall Creek Land Company
Post Office Box 638
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Prepared By:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
• 1725 Louisville Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37921
MACTEC Project 6229-05-2914
By:
LaDonna A. Rogers
Paul G. Avery, RPA - Principal Investigator
September 25, 2007
0 A
MACTEC
0
AMACTEC
engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
September 25, 2007
Mr. Todd Black
Fall Creek Land Company
P.O. Box 638
Hickory, NC 28603
Subject: Report of Phase T Archaeological Survey
Grandview Peaks Development Formerly McDowell
County Lakes Project
Nebo, North Carolina
MACTEC Project 6229-05-2914
Dear Mr. Black:
We are pleased to submit this report of our archaeological investigation for the above referenced
project. The purpose of our survey was to determine if significant cultural resources were located
within the proposed location for Lakes 2 and 3 in the Grandview Peaks Subdivision in McDowell
County, North Carolina. This report has been submitted to the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology for regulatory review. Their office has 30 days to review the report, at which time
they will issue a letter with any comments. We will notify you as soon as this letter is received.
• This report is intended for the use of Fall Creek Land Company subject to the terms and Conditions
agreed upon between MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., (MACTEC) and Fall Creek
Land Company. The contents should not be relied upon by any other party without the express
written consent of MACTEC: This report presents project information, which includes our
assessment procedures and our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Use of this report for
purposes beyond those reasonably intended by Fall Creek Land Company and MACTEC will be at
the sole risk of the user.
Mr. Black, we appreciate your selection of MACTEC for this project and we look forward to
assisting you with other work. If you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
LaDonna A. RogFrs B Patrick H. Garrow, RPA
Archaeologist WITH PERMISSION Principal Scientist
LAR/PHG:mly
Enclosure
•
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
1308-C Pollon Avenue • Asheville, NC 28806 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.mactec.com
•
0
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between May 21 and 25, 2007, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., (MACTEC)
carried out a Phase I archaeological survey on land proposed for the formation of two
lakes within the Grandview Peaks Subdivision in McDowell County, North Carolina
The construction of the two lakes will encompass approximately 35 acres of land, 0.6
acre of which are wetlands. Approximately 7,330 linear feet (or 2,234 meters) of stream
will be impacted. The project area is situated in the northwestern part of the subdivision,
which is located off Joe Branch Drive, southeast of Dysartsville in McDowell County,
North Carolina. This work was carried out by two of MACTEC's staff (LaDonna A.
Rogers and Neal R. Engel).
No previously-recorded archaeological resources were noted within the project area, and
no National Register of Historic Places-listed properties were present. However, one new
archaeological site (31MC340) was recorded as a result of this survey.
0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION ................... .................... 1
Project Description ..................................................................................................:1
11. GEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ------------------------------- - ---- d
III. CULTURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 7
Prehistoric Background ............................................................................................7
Paleoindian (10000-8000 BC) ........ .......................................................................7
Archaic (8000-1000 BC) ..........:................................................................................7
Woodland (1000 BC-AD 1000) ...............................................................................7
Mississippian (AD 1000-1540) ................................................................................8
Historic. Cherokee (AD 1540-1838) .........................................................................8
Historic Period (AD 1540 to Present) ....................................................................... 8
Previous Archaeological Investigations ...................................................................9
IV. METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 10
Field Methods ........................................................................................................10
• Lab Methods
V. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 13
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 16
VII. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDIX A: SHOVEL TEST DATA
•
APPENDIX B: STATE SITE FORM (31MC340)
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Project Area Map, area of Potential Effect consists of proposed lake boundaries........ 2
2. Vegetation along Stream `E' ............. _ _
...................................
3. Vegetation on slope along Stream E
. ...................................
4. Slope ................................ :..... 1
along Stream in Lake 3 ..................
5. Slope along S .
tream `E' in Lake 2 ..............
............................. 12
6. Shovel Tests Associated with """"""""""'
Lake 2'. ....................:............................ ..... 14
7. Shovel Tests Associated
with Lake 3 ........................ ..... 15
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Cowee series soils..........
2. Evard series soils............
3. Hayesville series soils. ."-'.'."'""""'-"'-"'
..................................................
4. Iotla series soils ................ ..............---.................---....._...... 5
• .......................•----•--..................................................... ...... 5

ii
I. INTRODUCTION
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) was contracted by Fall Creek
Land Company (FCLC) to conduct Phase I archaeological investigations at the proposed
locations of two new lakes within the Grandview Peaks Subdivision (Figure 1). The
construction of these lakes will involve the alteration of a series of streams in the
northwestern part of the property.
The goal of this survey was to locate and identify archaeological resources within the
project area and to evaluate the eligibility of any encountered sites for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The field survey began on May 21, 2007
and was completed on May 25, 2007. Mr. Paul G. Avery served as Principal Investigator
(Archaeologist in General Charge) and LaDonna A. Rogers served as Field Director
(Archaeologist in Direct Charge) for the project. MACTEC Principal review was
provided by Mr. Patrick H. Garrow. Ms. Rogers was assisted in the field by MACTEC
employee Neal R. Engel.
Our fieldwork was conducted in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800, as revised), and
the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. The survey and its resulting
technical report were executed according to the guidelines provided by the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA). Our scope of work was formulated in
• consultation with OSA, and included shovel testing at 30-meter intervals in areas with
less than 15% slope (including both the tops of ridges and along stream beds) and
pedestrian examination of all other areas. All project related materials will be
permanently curated by an OSA-approved facility.
Project Description
This project involves the construction of two lakes within the Grandview Peaks
subdivision. The APE consists of the area of the two proposed lakes in the northern part
of the subdivision. The construction of the two lakes will encompass approximately 35
acres of land, 0.6 acre of which are wetlands. Approximately 7,330 linear feet (or 2,234
meters) of stream will be impacted. The project area is situated in the northwestern part
of the subdivision, which is located off Joe Branch Drive, southeast of Dysartsville in
McDowell County, North Carolina, and is covered by mixed woods along the banks of
the creeks and on the tops of ridges. The project area was accessed by both paved and
dirt roads that have been constructed for use within the subdivision. The footprints of the
projuct areas (Lakes 2 and 3; see Figure 1) encompass unnamed tributaries of Hoppers
Creek and South Muddy Creek, steeply-sloped ravines and relatively level ridge tops.
•
1
0
i,jgurv ,.. rroject area map, area of Potential Effect consists of proposed lake boundaries.
H. GEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Grandview Peaks Subdivision is located in McDowell County, North Carolina,
which is located in the western part of the state and straddles the Piedmont. and Blue
Ridge Mountains physiographic. pr-ovinces. A large part of the county.,(nearly two-thirds)
falls within the Piedmont province, and this includes most of the area east of the Blue
Ridge Escarpment. The Blue Ridge province is characterized by rugged terrain while the
Piedmont is characterized by a. rolling topography that includes peaks, ridges, coves and
valleys (NCNHP 2005:1).
Elevation in the county ranges from approximately 329 meters (or 1,080 feet) along the
McDowell-Burke county line at the Catawba River to approximately 1,726 meters (or
5,665 feet) at Pinnacle near the southern limit of the Black Mountains.. Most. of
McDowell County is within the Catawba lZiver basin. McDowell County encompasses a
total of 283,000 'acres, and of this area 237,720 acres (84%) are considered to be forest
land. In 2004, only 4,800 acres of active harvested cropland were recorded, and this
accounted for less than two percent of the total landmass of the county (NGNHP 2005:1).
In 2005, an inventory of McDowell.County identified 35 `Significant Natural Heritage
Areas' within the county. The project area lies within the South. Mountains-Blue Ridge
Landscape Connection very close to the Lone Mountain Natural Area (NCNHP 2005:1-4).
• The project area includes a-variety of soils. The major soils found within the .project area
areahe Cowee, Evard, Hayesville, and lotla soil series: Cowee series soils are located on.
ridges and slopes ranging from 2 to 95 percent and are typically identified at elevations
ranging from 427 meters (or 1,400 feet) to 1,219 meters (or 4,000 feet). These soils are
moderately deep, well-drained, moderately permeable and. are of the fine-loamy
taxonomic class. The typical pedon is represented in Table 1 (USDA 2006).
Table 1. Cowee series soils.
Stratum Depth curbs Description
Oi 0-5 Organic material
A 5-18 Reddish brown avellsandy loam
Btl 18-38 Red gravelly sandy clay loam
Bt2 38-73 Red gravelly sandy clay loam
Cr 73-157 Multicolored hornblende gneiss
curbs = centimeters below surface
Prepared By/Date: DR 6/14/07
CheckedBy/Date: PHG6/15/07
The Evard series soils ate located along ridges and- on side slopes of the Blue Ridge
that range from 2 to 95 percent. They are typically found at elevations ranging from
427 meters (or 1,400 feet) to 1,219 meters (or 4,000 feet). These soils are very deep,
well-drained, moderately permeable and of the fine-loamy taxonomic class. The main
soil texture of the series is sandy loam, but the deeper soils are of saprolite
(decomposed rock). The typical pedon for the Evard series soils is represented in
Table 2 (USDA 2006).
• Table 2. Evard se ries soils.
Stratum Depth cmbs
A 0-5
E 5-13
Btl 13-23
Bt2 23-74
BC 74-94
C 1 . 94-124
C2 124-183
•
Description
Very dark grayish brown sandy loam
Brown fine sandy loam
Strong brown fine sandy loam
Red sandy clay loam
Red very fine sandy loam
Yellowish red loamy fine sand/saprolite
Reddish brown loamy fine sand/saprolite
Prepared By/Date: DR 6/14/07
Checked By/Date: PHG 6/15/07
The Hayesville series soils are very deep and well-drained soils that are located in areas
that vary from gently-sloping to very steep ridges with slopes that range from 2 to 60
percent. These soils are typically found at elevations ranging from 427 meters (or 1,400
feet) to 1,219 meters (or 4,000 feet) (USDA 2006). The typical pedon for the Hayesville
series soils is represented in Table 3.
Table 3.
series soils.
The Iotla series soils are very deep, somewhat poorly-drained and moderately permeable
soils found on nearly level (0 to 3 percent slope) flood plains in the southern Blue Ridge
Mountains (USDA 2006). This is the -least abundant soil type within the project area.
The typical pedon for the Iotla series soils is represented in Table 4.
Table 4. Iotla series soils.
Stratum De th curbs
AP 0-20
Bwl 20-48
Bw2 48-79
Dark
Bwg 79-119 Dark
Cg 119-135 Or
2Cg 135-170 l yrn-17;c

Description
Brown.loam
llowish brown sandy loam
Brown loam
-ayish brown sandy loam
ish brown loamy sand
brown very gravelly sand.
Prepared By/Date: DR 6/14/07
Checked By/Date: PHG 6/15/07
5
Prepared By/Date: DR 6/14/07
Checked By/Date: PHG 6/15/07
The vegetation covering the project area varies depending on elevation, but generally the
project area is forested. The dominant species include oak and pine with an understory
that includes flowering dogwoods, mountain laurel, flame azalea, and rhododendron
(USDA 2006).
The animal population consists of a wide variety of mammal species, including deer,
squirrel, raccoon, and rabbit. Additionally numerous reptiles, amphibians, and avian
species inhabit the project area. Very few animals were encountered in the project area
during the survey, and it is likely that this is due to the nearby construction of houses in
the subdivision.
•
•
6
•
This chapter presents the prehistoric and historic contexts of the project area. The
discussion will cover a chronology of five periods: Paleoindian (12000-8000 BC),
Archaic (8000-1000 BC), Woodland (1000 BC AD 1000), Mississippian (-AD 1000-
1540 and Historic (AD 1540=present).
III. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
Prehistoric Background
The prehistoric background of the project area can be divided into four general categories
that have unique cultural characteristics. These periods are the Paleoindian, Archaic,
Woodland, and Mississippian periods, and each of these will be briefly discussed below.
Paleoindian (--10000-8000 BC)
The earliest well-documented human occupation of southeastern North America occurred
during the Paleoindian period. Key diagnostic artifacts recovered from Paleoindian
contexts include fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile points. Since the vast majority
of artifacts dating to this period are recovered as surface finds, it has been difficult to
make inferences concerning social organization and subsistence during the Paleoindian
period. However, it is generally accepted that these populations were highly mobile with
small temporary settlements (Webb 2002:15).
Archaic (8000-1000 BC)
The identification of Archaic sites relies heavily on the typology created for projectile
points of this period. Generally, Archaic populations 'are described as foraging
populations that hunted, fished and made use of wild plant resources. The Archaic period
experienced an- increase in population and, as a result, an increase in recovered
archaeological remains is noted. The Archaic period is divided into three sub-periods
(i.e. Early, Middle, and Late). Early Archaic period (8000-6000 BC) projectile points
include Comer Notched and bifurcate-based types such as St. Albans, LeCroy, and
Kanawha points, which range in date from 6900 BC to 5800 BC. The Middle Archaic
period (6000-4000 BC) saw increasingly diversified subsistence patterns along with the
onset of stemmed rather than notched projectile points and an increase in the use of
ground stone tools. The Middle Archaic period is further subdivided in North Carolina,
and these subdivisions include Stanley (6000-5000 BC), Morrow Mountain I and II
(500074200 BC), and Guilford (4200-3500 BC) (Webb 2002:16).
Woodland (1000 BC-AD 1000)
The Woodland period is marked by the apparent widespread use of pottery. In addition
• to this, there is an increased • , importance placed on horticulture, an elaboration in
7
mortuary practices, and an increase in sedentism. The hunter-forager practice continues,
. but there is an increased emphasis placed on the cultivation of native plants during the
Woodland period. The Woodland period is divided into three sub-periods: Early
Woodland (1000-400 BC), Middle Woodland (400 BC-AD800), and Late Woodland (AD
800-1000). The Early Woodland period remained largely unchanged from the Late
Archaic period, but the Middle Woodland period saw the intensification of long-distance
trade with North Carolina groups participating in the Hopewell exchange network.
Diagnostic ceramics during the Middle Woodland period include the Pigeon series, which
is check-stamped, simple-stamped, plain, brushed, and complicated-stamped. There is
also the Connestee series pottery that is thin, sand-tempered, and exhibits simple-stamped
or brushed decoration. The Late Woodland period saw the establishment of sedentary
villages based on horticulture (specifically the production of maize) as well as the
development of complex tribal and chiefdom-level political systems. Unlike the
preceding periods, there is a lack in diagnostic material to identify this period precisely in
the archaeological record (Webb 2002:17).
Mississippian (AD 1000-1540)
The early part of the Mississippian period in western North Carolina is known as the
Pisgah phase (AD 1000-1450). Diagnostic artifacts of this period include small,
triangular projectile points and plain, complicated stamped, and check stamped ceramics.
Analysis of floral and faunal remains from Mississippian sites shows that wild plants and
• animals continued to be important food sources in spite of advances made in horticulture
(Webb 2002:16).
Historic Cherokee (AD 1540-1838)
The .Historic Cherokee period is defined by the first European contact during the mid 16th
century. In western North Carolina, this is known as the later Qualla phase (AD 1650-
1838), whereas the material culture of the early Qualla phase (AD 1450-1650) may
simply represent a continuation of material culture types of the earlier Pisgah phase.
Most early Qualla pottery is complicated stamped, while the later Qualla phase is
predominantly check stamped. The subsistence patterns during the Historic Cherokee
period included the cultivation of plants such as maize and beans, along with the
gathering of wild plants, hunting, and fishing. The later Qualla phase is also marked by
the appearance of European goods within archaeological contexts, along with the use of
Euro-American structure styles. During the 18th century, there was a general shift away
from nucleated settlements to a more dispersed settlement pattern, and this occurred at
the time of a large-scale influx of Europeans into the area (Webb 2002:20) (Webb
2002:19).
Historic Period (AD 1540 to Present)
• McDowell County was formed in 1842 from Rutherford and Burke counties and was
named for Colonel Joseph McDowell, who was an officer during the American
8
Revolutionary War (State Library of North Carolina 2007). A previous investigation of
the project area was carried out by TRC in February of 2006, and this investigation found
no recorded historic structures. This investigation explored the possibility of historic
structures or sites within a one-mile radius of the project area, and this identified
Brackettown Cemetery, which is near the southwest comer but outside the subdivision
boundaries. This cemetery was found to contain African-American and white graves.
Brackettown developed on lands owned by the Brackett family and was 'referred to as a
gold mining `Boomtown' during the 19th century. The Brackett family began gold
mining in the 1840s using slave labor in the mines. A variety of historic maps were
consulted. Only one structure was identified, and it was reportedly located near the town
of Brackettown. However, historic maps did reveal the location of a gold mine in the
central part of the project area at the eastern part of Lookadoo Mountain. Ernest J.
House, along with other investors of the Marion Bullion Company, purchased the on-site
mine during the late 19th century. They had intended'to run mining operations, but runoff
laws discouraged their efforts. The project area lies within the part of McDowell County
that is known as the `South Mountain Belt' of gold mining (Olson 2006).
Previous Archaeological Investigations
A cultural resource literature review for the proposed project area was carried out by
TRC in February of 2006.(Olson 2006). This review found that three prehistoric lithic
scatters (31 MC 106, 31 MC 108 and 31 MC 109) were identified during surveys that were
carried out as part of the Second Broad River Watershed study in 1974, with a second
study in 1978: However, these sites are located well outside the project area. An
additional site (31MC163) is the Brackettown Cemetery, which is located adjacent to the
southwestem boundary, but is outside of the project area. This cemetery was identified
through the McDowell County Archaeology Project that was carried out in 1988-1989
(Olson 2006).
The majority of the area proposed to be the sites of Lakes 2 and '3 was considered to have
moderate to low potential for archaeological sites due to slope. However, Archaic and
Woodland period sites have been known to occur in areas where streams are bordered by
wetlands and areas of high ground adjacent to the water courses (Avery 2006:14).
•
9
N. METHODS
Field Methods
Investigations in the field began with a driving and pedestrian tour'of the project area to
examine terrain and ground cover. .In general, the topography of the area varies
according to elevation. Areas near the drainages/streams included. wetland-type
vegetation such as cane and fern (Lynch 1997; Figure 2). The remainder of the project
area (i.e. areas at higher elevations) was found to be covered by mixed woods with
mountain laurel, flame azaleas, and rhododendron (Figure 3). Surface visibility was very
limited by fallen leaves, ferns and, in several instances, poison ivy. Shovel tests were
excavated in areas with less than 15% slope. When these areas were encountered,. they
occurred either alongside the streams, or on the tops of ridges. A great deal of the project
area had slopes greater than 15% (see Figures 4 and 5). Therefore, this limited the area in
which shovel tests could be excavated.
Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals along transects 30 meters apart (where
space allowed). This interval was reduced to 15 meters when artifacts were encountered.
Each shovel test was approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and excavated to sterile
subsoil by natural strata. Shovel test depths, soils, and recovered artifacts were recorded
on Shovel Test Forms designed by MACTEC. Soil colors and textures were assigned
using Munsell.color charts. All soils were screened through 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) wire.
hardware. cloth. Recovered artifacts were placed in paper bags marked with project
name, shovel test number, transect designation, excavator and date. Color photographs
were taken in areas representative of the terrain and ground cover.
Lab Methods
Only one artifact (a chert flake) was recovered through the survey carried out. on the
Grandview Peaks project area. This artifact is currently being 'curated at Knoxville's
facility and will be turned over to the state of North Carolina along with the project
records.
•
10
r-1
u

0
11
•
E
i
12
Figure 4. Slope along Stream's Lake' 3.
ngure 5. Slope along Stream `E' in Lake 2.
r1
LJ
V. RESULTS
As a result of the survey of the proposed locations of Lakes 2 and 3 within the Grandview
Peaks Subdivision, 79'shovel tests were excavated and an additional 12 were recorded, but
they were not excavated due to slope or disturbance (Appendix A). Only one shovel test
(or .1.26 %) produced cultural material. A total of 49 shovel tests were excavated during
the investigation of the proposed location of Lake 2. (Figure 6). One positive shovel test
(Transect 1 Shovel Test 4) was recorded, and this-shovel test produced one chert flake that
had no .diagnostic properties. In accordance with the state of North Carolina, this isolated
find was assigned a state site number (31MC340). The area in which the positive shovel
test was located was approximately. 100 meters off the road within a valley alongside
Stream. V. The chert flake was recovered from between 0 and 15 centimeters below
surface in clayey silt.. A total of 30 shovel tests were excavated during the investigation of
the proposed location of Lake 3 (Figure 7), but no positive shovel tests were recorded at
.
Lake 1.
In conclusion,' one archaeological site was identified through the Phase I,survey on the.
proposed sites of Lakes 2 and 3 at the Grandview Peaks Subdivision. However, 'since no
additional material was recovered through the delineation of the. positive shovel test, no
further archaeological investigations are recommended.
•
•
13
Figure 2. Lake 2.
0
L?

•
15
rigure i. anovet 1 ests Associated with Lake 3.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Phase I archaeological investigations were conducted between May 21 and 25, 2007, at
the proposed locations of Lakes 2 and 3 within the Grandview Peaks Subdivision. The
proposed project would involve the construction. of two lakes. within the subdivision for
recreation and water supply purposes. A total of 91 .shovel tests were excavated,
producing only one artifact. The location of this positive shovel test (31MC340) was
investigated, and no additional artifacts . were recovered. - Therefore, we do not
recommend any further testing at the proposed sites of the lakes.
•
16
•
VII. REFERENCES
Avery, Paul G.
2006 Phase l Archaeological Survey of The Proposed Location of the Advanced
Vehicle Research Center of North Carolina, Northampton County, North
Carolina, submitted to AVRNC by MACTEC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc.
Lynch, Karen M.
1997 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), Common Wetland Plants of North Carolina,
Report Number 97-01, August 1997
http://www.esb.enr.state.ne.us/Wetplant/Wetland-Plants.htm accessed on
12 June 2007.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Ptogram
2005 An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of McDowell County, North
Carolina, Executive Summary, November 2005.
www.ncnhp.org/Images/McDowellSummary7_14_06.pdf accessed on
05 June 2007.
Olson, Heather L.
. 2006 Cultural Resource Literature Review for a 1,860-Acre Site in McDowell
County, North Carolina, submitted by TRC to MACTEC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc.
State Library of North Carolina
2007 North Carolina County Development,
http://statelibrary.der.state.ne.us/NC/CNTYOUT/CNTYMAPS/COLJNT4
HTM#MCDOWELL accessed on 14 June 2007.
•
United States Department of Agriculture
2008 Soil Survey of McDowell County, North Carolina, Web Soil Survey 1.1;
National Cooperative Soil Survey. Online resource www.soils.usda.gov
accessed on 06 June 2007.
Webb, Paul A.
2002 Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the Ravensford
Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain
County, North Carolina, Volume I. Submitted by TRC Garrow Associates
Inc,, Submitted to Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
17
•
APPENDIX A
SHOVEL TEST DATA
•
n
LJ

•

Eli
n
E

o

O
E O
p. 'ck7
? v

•y O
? y
N ?
H
tui

A
p
N
d
00
`1

CF"+
t U
X
W
O b
?
N
LN

U
r_: z
U
w
p
z

w

z
?

z
;;

z

Ed
tu)

o

w

w

2 > >

>
w

' z 2 z z z z °'
z

E. b
m b b b

U u
U
U
V U
U
?j
cl,
a
U
U
•

_ 14D. 10 %D
M

O

O
M N
10
et
M
M
?D
M
M
?O
ct
.00
d-

L1?i
kD

'Itt

h
h
h O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v?
q
E

_.

d
00

O
M

a0
O h

O

O
?O

O
o0

?D
0o

o0
O?
M

te) O
~
O
~

O

6

h
i

O

o

O

O

00
M

O

b

O

j
i c.N
O

O

ch
N O
M

O?

N

O
b ,

M

0o

N

N
O
A

E
0
i

~

H

~

H

"y

H

Iy

Hy

H ?

'-?

co Hy H F--1
CA M h I'D h 00 ?h •- ? N M
u
u
m
W
L
N

0
•
•
U

O
3
?
O O O
O O O C
C
C O
b N N V
fl
y b b .
.
?' b b 'C7 ti

A >d ? >d a?
c c
Y X X b
W W W b
z
z z
U
Y.
W
0
z
d N
>

b
x : .
-t
?
0
0 b
0 w w to bo ? W b
0
z z z z z z z z z z z

w T T U U U T U U U T U U U cn

y
T
O
b
?,
J
N
JO
O
n
d
?
b
>
1
O
a?i a
>
h U
b
F i . J ty . D c
i
U Cn C
O co U v U M ° U
U)
9
I U3 U cn M .
a ry)
cn
00
U
U
U)
cn
00 et ?D *?) ?D sh ti' eh 'ch M

P
Ri
f"
? ?
]
W
O
O O O O O O O O O v1 tr1 O O O O O O O O O O O

n
.Q
E
C3\
M
o0
11
-
M
?-?
N w
O C)
00 C)
?D
h
?D
O
?o
S N O , .
,
O
O N N M , M 00 M M ?' 00 N 00 N
N 00 .-r O O N O O O e0 O M O Oo O 00

a?
A
E

I
F th V1. ?D t? N M to 00 U N

U

m
L
F
N
•
a
0
0
?
o
' o
?
N b
N
.7 .O
?
A L
U
X
W
O
z
> >

;;

U
to
bz
i, > >

m
w
z z
z a)
z
z
z v
z
4.) z ?
z
' U
. . z z z
U U U ? ? m Lj
r
m
W
c
d
of U c U U ° v o U o o - U
9
C/) vn CO U U vi j ?.
co co
v? Cl)
in
U
U
•

V2
N b 1.0
M
W

Irl
m
?p

"d-

rn
' ?"? O O O O O V'] V7
O
O
o S"

.
N
N
to p
N
O
Cl
O
O
O

O

O O
O
O
n
N
.C

v p

? . O

?
N

?'

N

m

h

?

M

O
?

h.

+')

O
a'

?

CY

?'1

0

N

O

1

O

00

o

?

?

N

? ry O O O N p N C ?p

`n

O

N C
00

'N b

O

O b .
-.
O M

fi N

r
p

C
a
i
A .
r ti

O
""' '
'
-'
•-?
c
a .-. „may ..?
, ...?

GO M N to c
r Yl N
m
N

u
w
N
e
w

`o
?
F r

m
•
•
0
d)
a
p,
0
? 0
N

- 0 0
? w

v ? 'b

k X
W W
0
z 0
z

> ? . d
> N N
>
>
>
ye O
D b
D

z
z z z z z z
z r
z z
z
D
z
?
?•
z
? cd ^? d d F ^' ^ F 0 d ?
.
? a ° Vj
, .
c
s? x t
v c
d
.a T N
a a
b
U
U c
U d
a
a
,
?n U'
r
C/)
, v, a n r U v? v,
rn
C-0
C/3
UD
"It zt 7k
L' ? ?i [?!' ?+ ?+ •?( ? ?i ? .?i L1?y [?!; [?"I! ??^J {? i ?f' ? c?.?±` ,!y,'/? ;,c',r/+? ?
l t? '?.
O O O O O O Vl O h [
^
p
? vl -1
O
O
O
' N [- N N Vl
n
h
.C

E

O
rq
r-

M

O
Cl
00

0

M
00

O
C-4

M

M

O

tri
%0
00

M

O

O

,

M

O
d ^' O N O O O DD O N O N O O N O N O C ? M' O O T O
d "
" d
A

H
CO M d' vl ?D [- 00 C O 'Ny N M
N

i+
u
a?
C
or
L oo O?
H
v-

R.
o
?
0 o

u v
A td
a
U
Y.
W
0
z

?
>
>
>
°'
°'
? 43 IL)
o
tio
tko
b4
'I'd > >
Z . z Z z z z
V
2
d.).
z

z

2
bo
0
to
4.)

a°)°
z z z

w
y fd ?.
_ cc
co DO Coo
co V.) U) w CIO
U)
co

\ b \O W J

n n
t-
h
4l
v'?
O
O
h.
?'

kf)
Rn I
r-
n
?
f n
r n
m
.O

.C

O

O

I? O

.'r e}

Ci

,a.

Oi O

O

W

Ci t-

00 ,

N 1i
O
fV

m

1

O0 .

2!

-

00
O. N O O N p rcn:l p O o0 O O0 p O ?p p
oo ? M
aj p O N
E
7
C3
C3

F m
? N ,
Nt
Yl \p
n
00
Ol
p
N
M

u
uUi
O
C
a
F
•

•
E
•
°

o
Cl) a

°
y
0 0

cd
A
W Y.
W
°
z o
z
> N U U >

'
b
b
?
W
fCl
Ld
t
N rr
ld
Ld
[d
b
0
O N o U NO . t 0 0 N? o t N N N U I
N N NQ y 00
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z z
ILI
fC
R1
lC
Q1
[C
ld
ft?
te
[11
te
Ld
ld
td
(d GCS
?
?

U
U
U
U
u
U
U r
'
U r
'
U U
U r
'
V r
,
U
U U r '
U [C
W
U U rIb`
U W rW?
° U
a a
Z,
a
a
a
a
c M

11 1, M !f 'd• 'cr ?' ?O {[?_y?}, 'd' V'1 ? yam,, (+/? ??//1
?? vl vl vl 1/' V '
V) ?P1 V? O y7 O O 1 l 7
Y O O Vl h V7 h O O

h
O .?.. [? T O h N O O O O .h un

N O

N ?D

N V7 cz>

"
h
'
N N

,?,?
O'
O
O M
O
O
O r„i
O
O
O N
O
O
O C
O N
O N ?
O .-? i
O N
O
II.
d
Q
E
w
L t"i
•F+
V7 ?O l? 00 O? O
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
M h
?O
u
a?
m
C
W
L
F
U
7
3
0
a?
a+
c
N
U
A
E
U
W
PERMANENT SITE NO'- ._______
ARCHAEOWGICAL SITE FORM III
Archaeology Branch, N.C. Division of Archives and History
100 E. Jones 5t., Raleigh, N'-',C, 27611
I. project sffa ? Grandview 1
3. site name
5. Date recorded 22 MAY 07
i. Project Warne Grandview Peaks Development
9, court/ McDowell
It. UTM cdotdinates:
Zone (circic) 16 17 18
2. Other site I
4, institutlarl_99
6. Pupecorder LaDonna A. Rogers
1d, U8U. quad Glenwood
Narthing f??/ 3 t 5; 9 j 5 j_ 7 j
Easting L4__/ 1jIj 1 r 6 j 9 j.
12. Direction, to Bits South on 226 from Marion or 140, continue on 226 through Dysartsville, turn right onto Landis Ln.,
then turn right onto Joe Branch Road, right into Grandview Peaks, right just inside the subdivision, and then the first 14 mil
13. Describe topography I n i situated in the bottom of a drainage. with a nearly Ievel surface that is surrounded by
sloping topogranhv.
• 14, describe' vegetation/uisibility The vegetation in the area consists of ferns and hardwoods.
15. We descriptlontifinendons 1 chert flake recovered from a shovel test during Phase I survey.
16. T®st excavattpngl yes no- No, size, plaeernen Once the on inal ositive shovel test was identified along the
transect, an additional 8 shovel tests were excavated around the positive to determine the boundaries of the site. 'A total
1 chert flake was recovered
tT. List artifacts
18. Culturaf components Unknown
16, Place artifacts storsd MACTEC Engineering & Consulting
20. Acc. d's
21. Resent mortiSt, Since no additional artifacts were recovered through shovel testing in the immedia
a ong t e emarnmg ranee 1y ttraY ttMr te area as well as
22. RecOmMende Iions for further work No further work is recommended
23. Qe9crlbe site eer1d11'lon Since the chert
flake was recovered from the first 15 em of silt and given its proximity to the creek,
it is unlikely that it was in situ.
Q4. National Register significance - allg._.,_,,.,, non-elig X unknow
2S. OwnadtenarrUlntnrmnnt
•
ATTACH PHOTOCOPY OF USGS QUAD MAP, SHOWING SIt WCATION
ARCHAEOLOGY 6RANON COPY (Isr)
RECCfiDER COPY (21?d)
4185
•
APPENDIX B
STATE SITE FORM
•
•
PERMANENT SITE No.___ _ ____
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM III
• Archaeology Branch, N.C, Division of Archives and History
100 E. Jones St., Raleigh, N.C. 27611
I. Project site #
2, Other she #
3. Site name d. Institution
5. Date recorded
6, PIlRerotder
7. Project name..
9. FRCH
9, County 10. U8615 quad
11. UTM cootdinates:
Zone (circle) 16 17 16 Nortning 1,1____x__
Easting I_L_. _ -J--_/___J.
12. Directions to site
13. Describe typography
• 14. Desludba vegetatfonkl6lbility
15. Site descriptiontllmenslons
16, Test excavaflony? yes_ no_ No. size. placement
IT List artifacts
18. Wwral components
19. Place artifacts stored
20. Acc. is
21. Researoh polsntial
22. Recommendations for turthar work
23, Describe site condition
24. National Register significance - elig._ non-elig- unknown
2S. Ow n,9 utena rtiN nforman
•
ATTACH PHOTOCOPY OF USGS QUAD MAP, SHOWING SITE WCATION
AROHAEOLOOY 8RANcH copy (1st1
RECOWER COPY (2r7rl)
4185
•
0
•

€ E
o f E-
o f
0 0
Z 0
V N
?0 m
M W m
r m
r m
r r
m n
N m
N O O
j
N
m m
' 0
V u"i
V
?0 O
V m
r M
a
m
C 0 0
r
m O
m O
V ^
N O
V O_
V O
M r.
O 0
R 0
V
7
LL U LL U LL U
v 7

F. r

r M

N m

N ?O

M r

m m

n m

N r

r

M m

M m

r D

r ?0

O m

M n

0 ?-

V) m

r M

n M

m r

0 M m

M m

Q _p U

F -- ?- N

u j m

O Q

r N

M '7

0 n 0

"?' 0
O
m
N
N
m
N
Z
S M N N N m v m V N cM j Z V N V n ?0 m n V N M j Z r r r M M r m r N r
H
V c 9 c .O c
D E E a E
gc
O Q? m
m n
o N
N V
r rn
N
r n
m m
m ?n
<f m
m v
r me
o ai N
r m
o r
p r
(p v
m m
n M
0 V
ry m
t? o
m m
o me
o a? r?
r m
m a
v m
(6 m
N m n
^ m
? O
(°p O
rn v
?
F -O ( V N N I m V u) V 7 H O M N V m r V v n 0 f b U r r N m n m
N
cn N
U)

N W
L c
M

N
m
-T

m
m
M
m
M
m
7
p W
L c
M
O
V
V
r
N
r
r
m
m

m W
L C
O
n
V
`-
M
n
R
m
m
L0
r

CO dO
O

O m
r ^
m m
r
r ^
N m
r m
r r
r N
N C
p

- O.
O

O N M
n 1?
n ?
r C
N
m
N M
N
m N M
N
O .
O O
M
M
V N
M M
r W
N N N
M O
" S

r
m

U ° m

U m
N p

~
Z
W

m
F
z
W

m U

Q
J

m

J «

Z c
0
i0
0
?0
0
?0
0
o
0
C)
0
LL'l
0
o
0
o
0
?0
0
LL'1
0
LL?
J «

Z c
O
N
O
0
O
0
O
m
O
m
O
m
o
m
O
m
O
N
O
m
O
0 «

Z c
^
m
0
"
0
C,
0
V1
0
V)
0
o
0
N
0
O
0
0
m
O
O
M
+
mE 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v +
2E
m 0
o
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
o
v q
0
v ?
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v C
0
v 9
0
v 9
0
v +
23E
m
o 0
o
v 0
o
v 0
o
v 0
o
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0
v 0
0 0
0
v
S
z z Z
m

'o?

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0
0

0 W

'o?

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0 m

'o?

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

n

?
EE o O O O o o o 0 0 0 ? EE O o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 EE 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
E
¢ V V V V V V V V V V O E
¢ v v v v v v v v v v v E
¢ V v v v v v v v v o o
m c

.O m m

i0

(O M

0 n

0 M

?0 r

M m

?
V
M
m
m
(O
n
r
(p
N c
-O O)
m
m
r
r
N
M
n
O)
?O
i O
m
N
n
V
m
M
'
r
n 0
N
O Olc
O
p
m
M
`
m
O
n
m
r
O
0
m
M
?p
M
M
,
N
M
n
r
m
Z9 O
F-.Z E M
O
O N
O N
o N
o ?0
o
o m
o V
0 -3
0 N
o O- O
rYZE Cl?
o
o N
o r
o N
o <
0 V
0 m
0 V
0 V
0 U0
o O-
r- YZE
o
0
0
r m
0 N
o
o
"?
p'
r N

N
_Q
0tQ
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
?°t?
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
°
tc
o
o
o
o
o
o

N

w
o
o
o
o
m
o
o

o

a
F aE
p 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v o
v 0
v 0
v o
v i-- E
p 6
v 0
v 0
v 6
v 0
v 0
v 0
v o
v o
v 0
v o
v O E
p o
V o
V o
V V
M - o
V 0
V a
6 6
V Ci 6
a a a
€E €E of
000

U o

V o

V o

V

N
I
(n
p 0
r
m o
r
V
v
m v M
n
N O
r
V o°0

U j
vi
Z

m
m
v
m
r 0

o
in
s{
n
N o
r
V r

m
m
n
m
i0 oo°

U?

m o

v 0

V
?n 0
r
V

m 0

V
o
r o

V o

V ?n

O
U U U
m m m

,eF- N
M N
M m
m N
? ?0
? o r m
M N
O m
n o
iO ,V
,p F ?0
N M
I?
M m
O ?
M m
O N
Qj N
O
(?V
m
?
V ?F-
V(.1j
1m ?
N ?[1
V m
O m
O

?
'ct
m
m
c0q
?N
0
O Z m ? N r M v o 0 M N 0 j Z 0 N m M V r M r M ] Z r N n M N - M - p m
F r- F
m m
c
°c
O
M
O
m
^
m
M
m m m
m ?c
R
Q
?
?n
?
m
m
N
V m m
Yp ?c
m
N
r
N
N
?p
iO
m
?T
r
N
a
i
F a m E ?0 V M (O
m O
D
M ai
m M
m e
-
?0 M .
-
V' r h O. m E R N t
l
(V ° n
m ui (M'1 M M F Q m E N M N r
)
? m ?
W
T
t c
Q

m

m

n

m

p

m

m

n

1+) W
T
L c

N

0

n

0

m

M

M

N W

L c

n

m

m

n

m

m

m

n

m

0
,[ O O ? m r M N N r V r W p O V m pi V ? N C g O V of N N N - ame n mr - M
o _ O O T O O
O m U R U m U
co
U V V
N F,
O m
« F-
W 0 F, m

J
Zc
+ 0

0
8 0

0
2 0

0
? 0
u7
0 D

0 ip

0 o
u'1
0 0
?
0 0
?
0 0
?
0 o

0
J
Z c
+ 0

0 0
t0
0 0
h
0 0

0 0
N
o 0

0 0
v)
0 0
t0
0 0
N
0 1

^ 0

o
Z c
+ o
N
o u70

0 0
u7
0 0 0
N 0 0
N 0

? o
h 0
N 0

T
SE
O
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
?E
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
0 o
0
0
RE
0
0
0 0
o 0
o

V 0
0

V 0
0

V
0

V 0
0

V 0
0

V 0
0

V

Z Z Z Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
W m W
Q oc m m 0 M ? Np 0 ? m m M o? o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 .; N o o p 0 ; ? am 0 rn m
~ E E
E m i0
o o r
0 in
0 M
0 M
0 N
0 v
0 0 E E o
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v 0
v o
v E E o
v o
v 7 o N
o 7 i
r
o o ry

¢ E
¢ E
Q o o v o v o 0
O

U) t d
p V Oc
?
N
NO
W
N
M
O
r
W
W
m r d
?
V OC
m m
N N
N m
? m
N ?((npp ?n
' .n
v M n
^ L aci
W D Oc
? N
N m
M
r v
V
? n
? m
V
Cl
J ~YZ E ? M M r r r r M M N ? p
t-Y
E C
J
0 o 0 0 0 O
o g
u
o w
o .
r m
o u
o E
~Y o o o M M
o p" - (p o o 'p
Z Z

W > > >
°
{p
O c o

?0 m

v v

(O

N

m

LL'1
o
Q
N
(p
m
M
'Q

r
°
fd 0 C
0
?0
0
?0
0
(O
0
?O
0
tO

M
0
LL?
0
Y]
0
10
0
10
0
4]
°

? L
m
o
m

M
o
m
r

m
W O a
E O m r O m m O r N
o
a O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0
p
n
I O O O m m m r O O (
0

J

F y

v

0

0

-

0

0

.
V

0

0

0

F
E
O

0
v

0
v
=

v

v
0

v
0
0

v
0

v
0

v
6

v
6

v

F
.
E o

0

0

M

Sri

x

0

0

0

0
d 0 00 V v

a
a
a i l l

IQ
IN m
O m
O m
C m
0 m
0 m
0 m
o m m
o m m
o m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
m m
0 m m
0 m
° m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
o m m
o m m
0
m u ;
m
N
A
N

NS

0

V Q Q

m m

m

N

m

N

O

V 0 0 m

W 0

N

N

O Q 00

O

'

p
r
?j
r "
r
N
C
m
N

m
r
"?
r
N
r
N
r
`
C
°D
N
?
'
r
O

" c

` O?
r
N
\ V
N
C
r
m m
? ? u? m (o ? ? m rn ?n .n (v 0 ? n m p rn ? ?
n ?n (o (o n ? m p' rn
•
C
•
E-
o E o f € E
,
° ° °
o
8
U?-
O 1
N w 0
? 0
? 0 1
m O O
? O
?
W o
o
U? o
O) r
N o
? o
? o r
N o
? o
.- o
'-
W o
o
U\ M
n
O N
m ,,., m
? o
?- o
m c
m o m
M
O

?d
?
V
V
V
V
V
V
?
(L
°
V
?
V
V
V
V
V
V
?
(L
d
.-
?
m
V
N
?
V
?
d U
LL `-
' a
U
LL U

W

DJ
-eH

`? m ? m M m rn m m ?? m ? ? m N 0) ? N .- r O) ?? ?O N m m
U? (°
V m
V M
V LL?
.- M
i0
Z m W ? r FZ ? O) ? ? N m ?O N m ?Z 6 m ? Y7 n v c M M V' ?O
?
O G
a O C
C7
. G
N E °'
E d
E
m e

O. a j
F- v

? v

m
n v

O
?- rn

•- r

m r

N
N

N M

N

N N

1?
.- i0

n m c

O Q j
F- r

m
m

r
.-'

ry v

N r

0 rn

M n

m m

N
'Q m

M
N CO

O)
m
p N
r

?
m

m
m
O
M
?n
O
me

n
-
m

7
y

7

?'
m
r
N
r

M
r
y
U) 0 y
U) 0 F. ya
U1 N ' N r
Q

O N
La G
M
m
M
I?
tD
O
M
B
CO N
a G
.--
N
?
CI
q
cq
m
m
V'
M
c N
L G
m
OI
OJ
V'
I?
M
m
m
r O O ° r m N ° N u] N M m N y O O O O m N O T A M O) M -M N O M N N r m
V) L V) L O
F H U
H
J N
C W
J N
'C N
'C
.-.
Zc O
u?? O
n O
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " . . . . . . . . . . .
+
.0 9 0
0 0
0 0
0
6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 +
g 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 +
:E 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
m v v v v v v v v v v ,
m v v v v v v v v v v v m v v v v v v v v v v v
z Z Z
A
Q G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 m
O G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 m
O
0
0
0
EE o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o E T F F F F 0 0 0 0 0 0
E r
Q d
c
0 G
O V '
N
VV
M

?

?
N
?
m
M
-
t m O
?O
N
?
m c
?? O)G
N
r
?
N
M
?
O
M
CND
my.
N
W ?G
nv
?
fNO
V
?
N
u0')
m
0
?
° d S E

~ Y

0

0

0

0 O

0 .

0

0 M

0

" i0

0 O

Z E
F-

° N

o ?

0 ?

0 N

0

" Y

o N

0
M
0

0 ?O

0
O
O
?- Y
E

o
N
0
'-
0
e-
0
?O
0

°
V
0
V
0
m
0
?
0

°
Z Y Z
y
2
r?
0
o
00
oo
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 y
_2
`
4rG
0
0
0
0
0
0

?
o
o
O
O
0
O
0
O
o
0 y
2
?°rG
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0

?yE
O
oo
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
?°y°E
o
o
o
°D
o o
O 0
O 0
O
o
o 0
o
o
°pE
~
O
o
o O
o O
o O
o O
o O
o O
o O
a o
O
°
L v v v v v v v v v v v L v v v v v v v v v v L v v v v v v v v v v v
-
a
a
a
E E
o°o °o? °o o o m o o °O M ?n O
°
°
M
m
°
c°
°
m
r- o°o
° r o 0
U ?n Nn o o rn o ,° n i° U rn
V °
O
v m
?
N .-
C.1j m
?
v ? 0 m m
V rn fO
M rn
V

ID dU 4,,U
W

2

?--.

Z m rn

N

?? ?

N

N m

Op

M

M OE

? C

M

M !q.

p

?O

.-

tO

?

N

O

N

N

F

Z
•
?

-
m

O1 v

?

m M

N CO

O ?

M

M
- m

O o?

?- N

M ?

'7 v_7

H v

N

o O

f

(")
Inh o
0)
tm`')
M

f0

`*

m

? r

?
Y ? ' m ? ? CN Z m o v v L6 vi c6

J .°
IV
d
L 0?
W C?c
O O 'y
mm
N 1?
?
N
m
V
p
N
n
c0
v
?
u]
I?
UO
N
N
O) v°
0 (D a
O O '
R
m
q
n
°
rn
N
r
M
Ol
LO
c0
cg
cq wm
(p c O c
y 'O

f0

m
O1
c0
0?
O

m
°"
r
°
M
to
m
M
O)
C°
N
r
.-
H ny E AN N V e' M v n y
O- E
y N ?- O) m - N r r M m ° ay E
F y m m
0
n
v
v
r
Cl)
LO
V N co
o
L
V
?
N

L T
L G
O>
M
n O

O
`-

tiMl

O?

?O
p
?t
O)
r
i 0
O
'-
01
M
C
L G
r
N
M
m
N
r
m
m
M
m
0
V
th
N
M
M
O

N

C T
L
G
M
m
m
0
•-
LL'J
M
n
M

N
O
N

m
n
0
m
0
O O N
n M ? UO ? N O O
O ? r N N .- M N O N V O 2O n Op '- N m 0) N N ?` ? N
L p
cn
cn U fn
V y

V1 L
U
U U U
0
° -
m
. Z c ...

N J
Z
+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Z
2E 00
oo 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 +
:?E 0
o 0
O 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 +
:?E 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
O m v v v v v v v v v v v m v v v v v v v v v v v m v v v v v v v v v v v
? Z Z Z
Q N
H a OO O O O O O O O O O oG O O O O O O O O O O O 'c--
o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
JE 66

v v o

v 0

v o

v 0

v 0

v 0

v 0

v 0

v o

v E

E

E
E

o
v

o
v

o
v

o
v

0
v

0
v

0
v

0
v

0
v

0
v

o
v

EE

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

O
E
Q
v
v v v v v v v v v v
LL
?G
MN
?n
i0
o
r
M
i
O)
n
M
n
v
v
L aci
M
J E o ? C ! U O O E 0 0 U
1 O t
0 O
o F-
E 7 M
Y Z o o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0

LLI

W
i0 O G ?
L O 0 0
O ?O
O O 0
?O ?
O 0
O LL
O 0
] ?
O 0
O
O 0
?
O 0
O LL
O 0
?
O 0
V) V
O 0
)
O
N O G
L 0
o u
0 0
7 i
0 0
° ?
0 0
n ?
0 0
°
0 0
0
0 0
0 ?
0 0
i
0 0
0 i
0 0
?
0 0
O
0
N O G ? 0
O 0
m t 0
0 0
LL'! t 0
0 ? 0
[1 ? 0
O i 0
0 t 0
0 ? 0
O t 0
0

J
a E
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
F°. y E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 L
Ff y E 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
d L v v v v v v v v v v v O v v v v v v v v v v v O v v v v v v v v v v v

?
a
a L
o_

a;
0 m m
°
°o m
°o m
o m
°o m
°o m
°o m
o m
°o m
° m
°o m
° m
°O m m
0° m
°o m
°o m
o° m
° m ,
o° ?
p m
° m
° m
° m
° m
° m
° m
° m
°
o m
°
o m
°
Q
?
Q

.
N N
-?
N
QI
N
N
N B
?
`
O
N
N
O
N
V
N
? r
C
N
- p
N
V
N
m d
N
?
N
?
N
h
Q N
?
N
N
N
?
N
O
N
V
N
?
N
?
N
? o
N
m y
O
? p
N
V o
N
) O o
N
) ( o
N
? o
N
LL] o
N
O ' o
N
7
N
? o
N
?
N o
N
m

?
'
° ?n
u> c
o c
o r=
? N
r
C
O
N
m o
?
'
?
rn
"? ?
n ?
N
n c
O
o ?
N .
o
-
n
N
n
C
m
N
w °
?
'
?
rn
`
?
? ?
n ? Ne
n c -
o c N.
o r --
? N
n ° C
?
,
N
m °
d.
?
i
rn
O ?
A L
U
v
0 C
O p
O O
o
?p V
C V
m ?
L
E T
0 n
0
`m
a o
OJ U
C
N ?.
u C
W P
v
3
IL
- -- -- - - - -- L
1
. _...-_.. _._.-
_
-- -....
eu!lwe0 UUON COI spepuels ialewe Bu!peaox3

L6S
SO'L
9Z'9
' 8419
9V9
179'9
' 099
8'91
L'0L
' SEGO
LEO'0
9£0'0
' 4S'L1
66'LL
LO'9L
' 1.'0
4'0
L'0
' 9
10'9
60'9
' L8'b
E'9
69'9 9'Z9
9199
969 9£00
00'0
40'O 69'LL
L6'L4
SZ'9l 1,'0
L'0
L'0 80OZ/9L/6
900Zl016
800Z/1Z/8
0
9
LL'9
' 69
9
Z6'9
' 9
Z9
E'9L
' 9E0
0
960'0
' 81.
6L
bZ'BL
' L
0
L'0
' LL
9
-` 2L'S'' -`
' BZ'4
0S'b 94
S'66 £000
LSO'0 46'Ll
6L'U L'0
l'0 90OZ/L/9
90OZ/4Z/L
Z
9
9
"
' 66
9
L6'9
' 9
99
9'49 SEO
0
LEO'0 LO
84
£S'LL
' 0
4
L'0
' L
9
E8'S 96'£'
ZS'4 l'E4
9'90 640'0
COL60 LB'LL
LOLL L'0
l'0 900Z/OllL
800Z/SZl9
Z6
S
L9'9
' 91
9
Zb'L
' Z:19
Z'9L
1 LEOO
9£0'0
' 48
LL
bZ'9L
' 4
0
4'0
' 174'9'`"
49'9
' LL'0
LO'S OS
£'ZS 640'0
£0O0 LZ'LL
L9'9L L'0
L 0 900Z/Zl/9
800Z/6Z/9
64
9
' E9
9
' 6
49
' £O
0 99
94
' L
0
' 94
9 91.'4 E'E4 Sb0'0 9991 L'0 9002/S ITS
Z
9 S
L9 Z
L9 6Z00 L
9L L
0 LZ'9 -96'£:." 9'00 Z00'0 Mt 4 t'0 80OZlL/S
I/ ow % Il w %
sluawwo0 Hd u86Rx0 penlossl0 Ll!nllOnpuoO emle edwel (w) H1d3O sluawwo0 Hd ue6,txO panlosS!(] LI!n!Ionpuo0 0° einlejedwal (w) H1d30
9 UORRIS 01101 9 uOIMS 01101 ale0
9E'9 9£'9 6'LL £Z0'0 49'EZ E'b
0'9 6£'9 6L CZO'O bVz b 64'9 L9'S ZL £Z0'0 Z'4Z 8'£
bb'9 9Z'9 9'LL EZO'0 BE'CZ E 9'9 409 8141 EZO'0 Eb'4Z E
wLZ=OS S0'9 61.'9 969L CZO'O Sb'4Z Z wL'Z=OS 49'9 9419 6'9L CE060 - Lb'bZ Z
60'9 ZZ'9 L'LL CZO'O Z9 '0Z L 89'9 £L'9 99L E'Z0'0 Z9'bZ l
E969 ZZ'9 9194 £Z0'0 49'177, 4'0 09'9 SL'9 E'9L EZO'0 9S'bZ L 90OZ/8 L/6
LO'9. `^--9z,z Z'Z£ 9Z0'0 9L•9Z b'b

' 1799
' 9L'9 99 SZO'O Z9'9Z b ZL'9 Z6'9 Z'OOL 4ZO'O ZZ'9Z E'E
w8
Z=Os 00
L ZS'8 9'60L CZO'O LZ'9Z £ LOL 80'8 ZOL EZO'0 SZ'9Z E
90'L
' S'B L'60L CZO'O
' 9E'9Z
' Z we'Z=QS 0Z'L L9'8 Oll EZO'0 b'9Z Z
80
4 ZL'B Zll CZO
O S4
9Z L SZ'L 9'9 8'044 EZO'0 bb'9Z t
90'L 9L'8 S'ZL1 EZO'O 99'92 L'0 9Z'L L9"B Z'ltl £ZO'0 6b'9Z L'0 90OZ/4/6
90'9 9L!O--S'- L'6 9ZO'0 L9'4Z Z'4
9£'9 ,29 t :: Z'EZ 9Z0'0 Z'SZ b 9E'9 ?CB'-F 91Z SZO'0 aV9Z 0
9L'9 w q b'9L bZO'O ZL'9Z E 6'9 Z6'S L'9L bZ0'0 98'92 E
wl'Z=OS 99'9 179'9 L'69 OZO'O 601Z Z w0'Z=OS b0'L L8'9 £'99 0200 BO'LZ Z
08'9 98'9 6'68 bZO'O L'LZ L 6014 98'9 £'69 0200 60'LZ L
48'9 66'9 S'L6 0Z0'0 ZL'LZ L'0 SL'L Z6'9 L'69 bZOO LO'LZ L'0 900ZILZ/9
80'9 417'0 Z'9 LEH ZL'EZ E'0
SZ'9 1790 9'L 9Z0'0 L6'4Z b 99'9 LS'b Z'BS OZO'O 0b'LZ 9'E
w6'L=OS 98'9 ll'9 9'48 0ZO'O Z9'8Z E 68'9 1.0'9 E61 4Z0'0 bSBZ £
66'9 LZ'L 8'L6 CZO'O Lb'6Z Z w6'L=OS 60'L Z'L L'L6 EZO'0 S'6Z Z
L ££'L 696 bZ0'0 69,,U- L EL'L SZ'L 17'86 £ZO'0 L9'6Z L
06'9 LE 'L 6'86 0ZO'O - 39:'6.Z L'0 0L'L £Z'L 096 EZO'0 L56Z L'0 2OOZ1L/9
12 9 ' LS[O 9'9 9Z0'0 L9'LZ Z'4
£SS E6 V',-', £Z SZO'O Z4'EZ 6 ":S .-.ZS; l'6L 9ZO'0 997Z b
L6'9 ZS '9 L'99 OZO'O 99'LZ E ££'9 L£'9 17'£9 7Z0'0 Lb'LZ E
w9'L=oS L'9 1VL 9'06 £ZO'O 9Z'9Z Z wS'L=OS 49'9 9Z'L 4'96 EZO'O LZ'9Z Z
2'9 £E'L L'L6 4Z0'0 L£'8Z L 179'9 6E'L 0'96 CZO'O 6£'9Z l
06'9 9£'L 6'L6 EZO'O S4'BZ L'0 Z6'9 L4'L 9'96 CZO'O 9E'9Z L'0 900Z/4Z/L
9'9 £0'i" ' 1'ZL SZO'0 99'0Z 9'4
99:9 LZ'£r 8£ SZOO 86'LZ 0 L93 00'£ 90E 9Z0'0 89'ZZ. b
9'9 £'9 E'L9 0ZO'O LS '9Z E 6Z'9 60'9 9L 4Z00 E'9Z E
99'9 bL'9 8'L9 bZO'O 61.'LZ Z 99'9 46'9 Z'06 4ZO'O E'LZ Z
wZ=oS 179'9 L6'9 006 EZO'O 6E'LZ L wZ=OS ZOL 96'9 Z'L6 6Z0'O 9£'LZ L
6419 E6'9 606 CZO'O 94'LZ L'0 89'9 ZO'L L'Z6 £ZO'0 £4'LZ L'0 800Z/OI/L
LE'S- 960 Z'OL 9Z0'0 L9'L4 911 EZ;S- 9 6'LL 9Z0'0 Lb'2L £'0
S£ S 96'£ - E'Ob 4Z0'0 ZB'OZ b 2979: UT ' 6'Zb t zo-o 69'OZ b
86:5 L99 L'£8 bZO'O 96'92 E LZ'9 £8'9 LB £ZO'0 Z6'SZ E
WO'Z=OS £L'9 08'9 Z'99 bZ0'O L9'9Z Z W9'Z=OS £E'9 £6'9 S'69 bZ0'0 L9'9Z Z
Z'9 E6'9 L'68 bZO'O LL'9Z L £9'9 L 17'06 4200 LL'9Z L
LZ'9 96'9 Z'06 bZ0'0 LB'9Z L'0 99'9 LO'L 8'06 bZ0'0 9L'9Z l'0 800Z/9Z/9
S'S L `' 9'0L SZO'O EL'9L 9'0 ZL S 98'4 6'OZ SZO'O 86'LL Z'6
99'.9 LO'E 1.'0£ 0Z0'0 pZ'6L b 499 L9'£'` 9'Z0 EZO'0 99'64 b
4419 L8'L L'L6 CZO'O 4b'bZ E LZ'9 S6'L L'56 EZO'O SZ'4Z E
9Z'9 ZO'L L'E6 EZO'O B'BZ _Z wS'Z=(]S Z9'9 ZO'L L'E6 EZO'0 9L'9Z Z
O'E=OS 9Z'9 L Z 06 £Z0'0 99'92 / 49'9 66'9 0'£6 EZO'0 L9'9Z L
9V9 00'L b'b6 CZO'O L9'9Z 4'0 ZL'9 96'9 Z'E6 CZO'O 99'8Z L'0 80OZIZ119
9L'9 ZZ',4 Z'ZL SZO'0 9E14 S 90 99'0 ." 9'9 SZO'0 Lztb S
, M'S LB'b 979 CZO'O 40'84 4 Z6'9-_; - 861, 909 CZO'O 00'9L b
wZ'E=OS EZ'9 b8'L 4'Z6 CZO'O l9'4Z E wZ'£=0S 6£'9 98'L 4'Z6 EZO'0 9'LZ E
0E'9 SO'B E'L6 ZZO'O EZ Z E9'9 L'8 B'L6 EZO.0 LO'EZ Z
E4'9 £Z'8 9'66 ZZO'O 20'EZ L 89'9 BL'9 6'86 ZZO'O BO£Z L
99'9 64'9 1.'66 £ZO'0 80'EZ 1.'0 176'9 LZ'9 Z'66 EZ0'0 60'EZ L'0 BOOZ/6Z/9
` 98'S-.:: ".' bB;L-- BL 9Z0'0 0'EL S
£17'9 09'9 b'LL CZO'O L'6L S'£ Wt,=(]S Z'9 991, 6'09 CZO'O l'9L 0
SZ'E=OS 6L'9 9Z'L 4'68 EZO'0 L9'OZ £ L9'9 9L'L 6'Z9 CZO'O L9'OZ E
LO 'L G0'L 9'99 CZO'O ZZ'LZ Z 09'9 90'L L'99 ZZ0'0 SZ'LZ Z
00'4 ZS 'L 6'L9 £Z0'0 b£'LZ. L 48'9 b91 Z'69 EZO'O 9£'2 L
4OL 4£'L 6'99 CZO'O 9b'LZ L'0 LL'L SL'L L6 EZO'0 8541 L'0 SONG 1/S
80'9 90 2I.L CZO'O Z9'ZL S £Z'9 442 6L 660'0 E6'Zl 617
44'9 890 Lb ZZO'O L'4L b 44'9 9L'b 4'04 ZZO'0 9'EL b
WC=OS ZL'9 EE'9 £'99 ZZO'O WIL £ wE=OS 9L'9 LE'9 17'69 ZZO'O L4'LL E
0L'9 LL'9 6'99 ZZO'0 09'21. Z 9L'9 ZZ'9 S'69 ZZO'0 99'8L Z
L'9 174'9 Z'99 ZZO'O L6'8L L £L'9 9Z'9 L'OL ZZO'O 96'24 L
217'9 S4'9 8'4L ZZO'O BL'6L 4'0 L'9 SL '9 £'Lb ZZO'O £0'64 L'0 BOOZ/1.19
I/ ow % I/ w
sluawwo0 Hd ue6Axo PanlosS!O AI!n!Ionpuo0 6A116 edwal (w) Hld3o sluawwo0 Hd ua66x0 panlosS!O AI!nponpuo0 0° ainlejedwal (w) Hld3o
0 uOpelS 01IN31 C uOIMS OUN31 ale(]
LL'9 999 0'ZL EZO'0 se 0z Z
w0'Z=OS 989 669 8'EL £ZO'0 Eb 6Z L
LO'L 969 9EL ZZO'O 9VOZ L'0 969 9L'E Z' H, Z£00 6L'9L L'0 KOM1.16
SZ'L 1.019 9'90L EZO'O 9l'9Z Z
w0'Z=OS 1.b'L Lb'B 690L CZO'O LEW L
99'L L0'9 L'BOL EZO'0 4E'9Z 1.'0 ZZ'9 :99! 6'64 9LO'O E'84 4'0 9000016
LZ'L 669 L'L6 bZO'O 80'LZ 9'L
w9'L=OS 8Z'L 969 Z18 0Z0'0 60'LZ L
4E'L lL L b'Z6 0ZO'O 60'LZ L'0 L -9£'0 8'E £6l'O LS'9l l'0 900Z/LZlB
176'9 BOL 6'96 CZO'O 0'6Z' E'Z
6014 901 4'96 EZO'O 90'6Z Z
ZL'L 90'L 6'96 £ZO'0 Z9:6Z l
9L'L
' 90'L l96 EZO'O L9 6Z 1'0 L9'9 9L0'O 9'L 9l1'0 9E'6l L'0 SOOZ/L18
98
9 999 1.6 CZO'O 8Z 8Z Z
W21=05 96*9 9L'L Z'96 EZO'0 LZ'BZ
L
ZL'L 06 CZO'O 4Z'9Z L'0 LB'5 9Z'L L'ZL 040'0 L'Ll L'0 900Z/bZ/L
wZ=OS L l6 £ZO'O - E'LZ Z
96'9 L'06 EZO'O LE'LZ
M 96'9 Z'L6 £ZO'O L4'LZ L'0 £LO'O £CLl L'0 90OZ/Ol/L
w8'Z=OS 99'9 9'£2 0ZO'O 9L'SZ £
6'9 Z'69 bZO'O 99'92 Z
90'L 4'1.6 0ZO'O 99'92 4

' 9L'L
' 4'Z6
' EZO'O bL'9Z L'0 99:9 ".92`.0 E'6 LLO'0 L£'9L L'0 900Z/SZ/9
LL
9 99
9 b
Z6 CZO'O 99'9Z 91
L8'9 96'9 L'£6 CZO'O 99'9Z 1.
w9 'L=OS L'L 90'L
' L'b6 EZO'O
' 62'8Z L'0 98'8 E80 68 80'0 £0144 t'0 BOOZ/Zl/9
59 1
L 48 EZO
O 40-OZ CT
wZ'£=0S 99'9 CB'L 9'68 EZ0'0 917'2
E
9L'L EO'2 L'L6 EZO'0 STU Z
4E'L 918 8'96. EZO'0 LO EZ L
SL'L
' 8418
' 6'86
' ZZO'O
' LO'EZ
' L'0
' £9'9
6914
E'L1
290'0
L914
L'0
800Z/6Z/9
9
Co 6E
E
-:• E 4E 9Z0 6
L
b4 9L
b
L£'9 92'9 Z'69 EZ0'0 LZ'9L 4
17'9 W L £'Z8 CZO'O 8L'OZ E
9'9 9Z'L L-48 CZO'O EZ'LZ Z
WE=OS L9'9 S4'L 17'09 EZO'0 LE'LZ L

WE=(]S LL'9
E9'9 8L'L
917'9 6119
9'69 CZO'O
ZZO'O LS'LZ
EZ'L4 V' D
E LZ'9 b9'L L:BI Z90'0 9L'4L l'0 BOOZ/SL/S
Z9'9 LZ'9 9'69 ZZO'O 178'84 Z
LC'9 E'9 VOL ZZO'O 92'94 L
o uunS°EL £'9 £17'9
1/w 91L
% ZZO'O L8'9L l10 ZL'9 Z8'L
/w L'Ll
% 690'0 09'ZL L'0 900Z/ll9
sluawwo0 Hd u96AXO panloss!O Ll!n!Ionpuo0
I O0
emle?adwal (w) H1d3O sluewwoo Hd ue8 (x
0 Penloss!O
61!n!lOnpuoO
o° amleedwal
(w) Hld3o
Z uoAelS O11N31 L uopeaS 01101 oleo
sMOOJq 8Me-1 `4 a;(S s4(nsaa;uawainseayy p(aij

eu! we0 OON Jo/ spiepuels jalaweied 6wp990x3
L4'L 6Z'L 1'69 690'0 WU 1'0 1741 94'L 4'46 690'0 b0't4Z L'0 900%/91/6
9£'L Z£'LL L£L LSO'O 6£'9Z 1'0 14'L ZO'9 17701 L90'0 91'9% l'0 900Z/4/6
6Z'L 9'9 £'49 690'0 L8'9Z 1'0 9'L 96'9 9'06 90'0 9Z'LZ 1'0 BOOZ/218
L4'L LL'L L'46 L90'0 zl:v L'0 99'L 4E'L 66 190'0 96'6Z 1'0 90OZ/1/9
4'L L E'£6 MOT L4'9Z 1'0 ES'L Z17'L L'66 190'0 69'8Z 1'O BOOZ14Z1L
LTL Z9'9 99 Z90'0 90'LZ 1'0 6L'L £0'L 9'16 90'0 E'LZ 1'0 SOOZ/OL/L
Z1'L 8L'9 1'L8 L90'O 917'92 1'O LE'L 4L'L 6'66 90'0 99'92 L'0 9002/5%/9
£Z'L 65'9 88 690'0 LL'8Z 1'0 E9'L 9L'L 9'96 990'0 6Z 1'0 900Z/ZL19
LL'L 94'8 ZOL 850'0 BO'EZ l'0 891 We 9'101 LSO'0 LZ'EZ 1'0 900216Z/9
weLZ:OL 9E'L L8'L E'69 90'0 bE'OZ L'0 wEMN 991 LO'9 Z'Z6 650'0 84'0Z 1'0 800%/91/9
BO'L 4S'L 90'0 99'61 4'0 90'L 69'9 1'LL 690'0 90'61 L'0 900%1/9
1/6w % I/ w ' %
sluawwo0 Hd u96Rxo panlOSS!0 /a!nponpuo0 0o ain1wedwal (w) H1d30 sluawwo0 Hd uabAx0 panlosS!o /1!nponpuo0 0o amlejadwal (w) H1d30
9 uolms 01101 9 uo11e1S 01101 alea
86'9 66'9 Z'ZL 890'0 997Z L'Z L6'9 68'9 E'OL 690'0 EE'ZZ £
wVL=OS 56'9 9L'9 4'69 650'0 96'ZZ Z wl'1=0S 46'9 49'9 9'99 690'0 90'EZ Z
L6'9 C9 9'69 690'0 9'£Z L L6'9 81'9 Vol 690'0 69'£Z L
ZO'L 8L'9 Z'LL 890'0 LC'bZ CO ZO'L 46'9 4'ZL 690'0 96'£2 L'0 90OZ/906
49'9 bZ'Q` CZ 690'0 ZO'£Z b 9'9 " ZO £'Z 990'0 E92Z S'E
LO'L L8'17 9'09 690'0 17L'4Z E 89'9 6£'0%' 4'E ZLO'O 667Z E
w4' 1=0S 9Z'L Sff8 4'901 990'0 80'92 Z w4' 1=0S 1'L 69'5 B'L9 690'0 L9'4Z Z
EZ'L 4'9 Z'90L 960'0 L'9Z L 9Z'L SE'9 Z'90L 990'0 99'92 1
ZL'L L£'9 POLL 690'0 b9'LZ L'0 LZ'L 4Z'8 9'601 890'0 99'LZ 1'0 9002/4/6
L'9 9Z'0 E'E L60'0 L6'EZ L'£
LL'9 9E'0!;' < 1'4 110'0 9"4Z E 99'9 Eb'0 9 4L0'0 49'172 £
W L' =OS S£'L 94'9 9'98 690'0 E8'9Z Z 44'L 60'9 9'8L 950'0 9L'9Z Z
94'L 4Z'L 9'E6 690'0 EZ'LZ L w1'1=09 ML LZ'L L'£6 690'0 EZ'LZ L
9£'L 91'L Z'E6 690'0 69'LZ 1'0 ZZ'L LZ'L 8'46 690'0 LS'LZ L'0 BOOZ/1Z/9
69'9 Ce'01 9'E 80'0 LE'9Z E
6E'L 94'9 L'ZL Z90'0 WE Z 9011 E'9 E8 290'0 ZH'8Z Z
w9'L=OS 9111 L6'L 1'90L 190'0 69';6Z" L Lug. 1=(]S LCL 481 . £'904 Z90'0 L8'6Z l
91 1791 8'901 %90'0 M;F 1'O 9'L 9L'L 9'904 190'0 40'0£ L'0 90OZ/L/9
91'9 91'O`- Z'Z LeO'O UTZ E 64'9 9Z.'O 6'Z 960'0 17Z'£Z £
ZO'L ZO'L CL6 490'0 L9'LZ Z 9L'9 Z9'9 E'9L £90'0 94'LZ Z
w£'L=OS 99'1 9L'L 5£OL Z90'0 Z9'8Z L w9'L=OS 917'1 ZL'L 8'ZOL Z90'0 L£'9Z L
94'L ZB'L B'£OL %90'0 99'2Z l'0 £'L L'L 5001 Z90'0 Z17'8Z 1'0 BOOZ/4Z/L
699 81'0 £'Z 90'0 L6'2 E 99'9 9Z40':% L'Z 80'0 90'ZZ E
917'L 9'9 L'ZL L90'0 417'9Z Z 69'9 50'4 L'LS £90'0 SZ'SZ Z
wl=OS 1'9 LCL 4'001 490'0 14'LZ 1 wl=OS 68'L 17L'L 6'001 490'0 ll'LZ L
99'L 991 £'OOL L90'0 L8'LZ 1'0 9'L E9'L E'OOL 490'0 68'LZ L'0 20OZIOL/L
L4'9 92'4 L'Z9 990'0 L9'EZ 4'Z Z£'9 9610 Z'11 6L0'0 88'OZ £
601 ZL'L E'06 90'0 89'92 Z LO'L 9L'L 016 490'0 1992 Z
WE'L=OS LZ'L Z4'L 1'96 90'0 LE'9Z L wE'1=0S 1£'L S'L 17'96 90'0 417'9Z 1
EL'L 94'L 96 90'0 69'92 1'0 17L'L L91 ' 17'L6 90'0 S9'9Z 1'0 90OZ/9Z/9
24'9 174'1 b'9L LO'O $'OZ W8'Z EE'9 94'0 ' 8'4 910'0 8£'61 E
Mg 81'9 0'91 90'0 Z£'9Z Z 9L'9 £L'9 L'98 90'0 170'9Z Z
wL=OS LL'L Z9'L 61bOL 8900 L6'9Z L wZ'1=0S 88'L LO-9 £'904 990'0 Z6-9Z L
991 6'L 4'901 990'0 b0'6Z " 1'0 £E'L 99'1 Z'90L 890'0 9Z'6Z L'0 900Z/n/9
LL'9 94'1 2'9L 690'0 1'81 £ 99'9 L1'L L'Z1 8900 LB'LL E
17L'L EL'L L'ES 890'0 6C2 Z 81'L 8L'L Z'48 990'0 9'2 Z
wZ'1=0S E'L ZO'9 4'96 890'0 9L'ZZ L wZl=0S 9E'L 64'9 0'86 L90'0 LL'ZZ l
17E'L 90'8 86 L90'0 SE'EZ L'0 44'L 60'8 816 890'0 LZ'EZ 1'0 90OZ/6Z/9
En 11;0:""'' L ZLE'0 99'91 0'17
9L'9 12'9 E19 490'0 SZ'8l 6'E Z9'9 ZZ'0 L'Z 980'0 90'44 4
6'9 9L'9 Z'9L 90'0 40'OZ E 09'9 1E'E' 419E 590'0 19'11 E
86'9 17Z'L Z'Z9 90'0 b0'OZ Z LO'L 9L'9 LL 90'0 Z6'6L Z
wL=OS L'L ZL'L 9'99 690'0 17S'OZ l wL=OS Zb'L ZB'L 8'68 690'0 9'0Z L
£Z'L E6'L E' 46 90'0 99'0Z 1'0 we04: L 4 E9'L 88'1 L'06 690'0 L9'0Z L'0 90OZ/9 L/9
9L'L 41'4 Z'617 990'0 EE'91 87 91'L £0'9 6'Z9 90'0 5'S4 9'Z
Z4'L 61'9 1'99 90'0 19'91 Z 84'L 85'9 VOL 690'0 59'94 Z
wl=OS 4911 49'9 1'EL 890'0 90'61 L wl=OS . 491 81'9 9L 990'0 88'81 L
9'L 499 6'2L 690'0 9E'OZ 9'L 48'9 6'LL 890'0 Z6'6L L'0 900Z/U9
I/ w % If w
sluaww00 Hd ua6Ax0 pan!oss!a Allnllonpuo0 0. ainlejedwal (w) H1d30 sluawwo0 Hd ua6Lx0 panloss!a Llinllonpuo
0
0o amleuadwal
(w) H1d30
4 u011e1S OI1N3'1 E u011e1S OUNTI alea
96'9 Z9'9 619 690'0 99'EZ E'Z
10'L 69-S Z'69 690'0 L9'EZ Z
wl'L=OS 90'L Z9'9 L'1L 690'0 L8'EZ L
91'L 96'9 1'EL 690'0 80'4Z 1'0 88'9 SE'8 E'Z6 490'0 6£'9L L'0 90OZ/906
9'9 61'0 1'Z 980'0 EZ 4'E
49'9 4Z'0 9'Z 1710'0 90'EZ E
w91=0S 40'L 9Z'4 6'L9 690'0 ZB'4Z Z
8Z'L 91'8 E'EOL L900 9'92 t
E'L £E'8 9'LOL 890'0 E'LZ L'0 09'9 99'6 8'011 690'0 LE'OZ 1'O 90OZ/17/6
Z9'9 19!0;%>a< L'8 LLO'0 98'17Z £
ML 9Z'9 L'LL 690'0 L1'LZ Z
wVI=0S 917'L 601 976 690'0 LE'LZ L
6E'L
' ££'L 0'96
' 690'0 94'LZ 1'O 98'9 £E'9 9'96 640'0 9L'OZ 1'0 200ZIld/9
9
9 S
S 90'0 LL'9Z E
LE'9 6Z'L 4109 90'0 99'9Z Z
wS'1=0S 69'L S4'L 6'LOL 90'0 49'6Z" L
l9'L
' LE'L
' 9'96
' 90'0
' Z070E L'0
' Z6'9 99'1 E6 L40'O 4'£Z l'0 9002/1/8
61
9 69
0 17
L ZLO
0 911Z 6
Z
EO'L 91'9 9'6L 490'0 £E'LZ Z
wE'1=0S 917'L ZL'L E170L Z90'0 L9'8Z 1
94'L
95'9 EL'L
017'0 - 4'404
9'4 290'0
L90'0 91'172
90'ZZ 1'0
£ L9'9 LE'9 0'66 Z50'0 SE'ZZ L'0 900Z/17Z/L
901 ZC4 L'£9 490'0 SE'SZ Z
wl=OS 9L'L L9'L 86 1900 LO'LZ t
9CL
99'9 8L'L
EL'S 6104
9'LL 490'0
290'0 9L'LZ
Z0'9Z L'0
L'Z 9L'9 Z£'9 £'96 £50'0 96'LZ L'0 90OZ/OL/L
9011 LL'L E76 90'0 8E'9Z Z
w4' 1=0S LZ'L L9'L 9'96 90'0 9'9Z l
4E'L
L9'9

' L
CO'
L 4'86
Tot 90'0
610'0 99'9Z
69'61 1'0
E
46'9
L9'L
1'46
640'0
68'ZZ
1'0
900219%/9
L
9 L'L 9'99 90'0 E9'9Z Z
wl=OS 891
E9'1
16'9 90'8
1018
UT L'90L
L'BOl
Z'9E 890'0
890'0
990'0 46'92
SZ'6Z.
91'6L 1
1'0
L'Z
L1'L
£1'L
9'29
550'0
L4'SZ
L'0
800%/Zl/9
4Z'L ZZ'L 9'4B 690'0 99'LZ Z
wZ'L=OS 99'1
9111
6l'L 4Z'8
9£'8
60'1 9'98
9'LOl
9'LB 190'0
LS0'0
690'0 EL'ZZ
52'EZ
8410% L
1'0
6'l
991
178'6
Zll
£90'0
86'61
VO
800%/6Z/5
1't=OS ££'L L6 'L Z6 690'0 179'0Z l
wegZal Z9'L
ZE'L 6L'L
L9'9 6'69
9'ZL 690'0
690'0 69'OZ
E9'L 4 l'0
Z w 94 Z1
LE'L
Sb'6
9'68
£90'0
lE'9l
L'0
800%/51/5
wl=OS 9z 'L L'9 B'EL 890'0 64'8L l
BO'L L9'9 £'9L 990'0 £0'OZ L'0 ' ' '

I/ w

% 96
9 L4
6

I/ Ow L401 Z90
0 661
1

L'0

BOOZJU9
sluawwo0 Hd ua6/x0 pan!ossla Ll!A!lonpuo0 0o amlejedwal (w) H1d30 Sluawwo d
H
u96(xp pan!oss!a
q!n!l0npuo0
0. amle,adwal
(w) H1d30

Z uollelS 011N31 1 uo11e1S 01101 e
le0
a>Iel Z ein;on-}S pe4sjejeM'Z al!S slInsab;uawainseaw PIMA

•
.pact
Credits
Todd Black
The Fall Creek Land Company
1340 Westgate Center Dr.
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Project: Grandview Peaks
1•-
sFcosystem
k..
PROGRAM
November 3, 2009
Expiration of Acceptance: August 3, 2010
County: McDowell
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also :comply with all other state, federal or local
government Hermits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed>activity including SL 2009-337• An Act to Promote
Compensatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks.
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the hermit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Catawba 03050101 0 0 695 0.25 0 0 0 0
Catawba 03050101 0 0 1,390 0.50 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
Wil m D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Scott Jones, USACE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, NCDWQ- Asheville
Rebekah, Newton, agent
File
... Prot" 0" fta&

MA
CCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net