20070494 Ver 1_401 Application_20070307

~,
0 7 0 49 4
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
1 S 1 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Natural Resources
Kestoration & Conservation
March 16, 2007
ATTN: Ms. Loretta Beckwith, Regulatory Project Manager
P,~;Y~~±rNT
RECEIVED
D ~~~4
1:/
MgRZ s? D
D0~
0~~srrc~wA~~.~r~
~a~H
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide 27 Authorization for the Implementation of the
Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Haywood County
Please find enclosed with this letter the following items:
1) Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Form (6 copies to DWQ);
2) Conservation easement plat (6 copies to DWQ);
3) Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan (6 copies to DWQ), including Categorical Exclusion and
4) Restoration Plan Approval Letter from NCEEP (6 copies to DWQ);
5) Letter from SHPO (6 copies to DWQ);
6) Wetland Data Forms (6 copies to DWQ)
Proiect Purpose and Description
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information concerning the Morgan Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (SITE). The owner/applicant, Restoration Systems, LLC
(RS), is proposing stream and wetland restoration at the Site to assist the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling its mitigation goals in the French Broad
River Basin Cataloging Unit 06010106. The SITE is located approximately 10 miles north of
Waynesville in Haywood County within the USGS Hydrological Unit 06010106020040 (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 04-03-OS) of the French Broad River
Basin (Figures 1, 5). The SITE is characterized by active pastureland, old fields, forest fringes
and residential sites. Under existing conditions, SITE streams (main stem of Morgan Creek, and
3 unnamed tributaries) are characterized as highly degraded, incised, eroding channels readily
accessible by livestock. Agricultural practices and cattle usage constitute major point sources of
pollution and on-going sedimentation/erosion. Additional stream impacts include bank collapse
and erosion, changes in stream power, sediment transport and loss of characteristic riffle/pool
complex morphology. Site floodplains and historical wetlands have been impacted by
deforestation, vegetation maintenance, stream channelization, soil compaction by livestock, and
groundwater draw-down from stream channel downcutting. Land use within the upstream
watershed is currently characterized by relatively undisturbed forest, although residential
development planning is on-going. Less than five percent of the upstream watershed is
composed of impervious surfaces.
Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

.~
Ms. Loretta Beckwith, USACE
March 16, 2007
Page 2
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions in the on-site, upstream, and downstream
segments of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream
channels; 4) reestablishment of historic wetland functions; 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream, and 6) restoration of aquatic habitat to support a
more diverse aquatic community. The proposed restoration plan is expected to restore
approximately 5,160 stream mitigation units (SMUs) of SITE tributaries primarily through
Rosgen Priority I restoration methodologies, and approximately 4.2 wetland mitigation units
(WMUs) of riparian wetlands (Figures 5).
Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Portions of four degraded perennial stream channels (main stem of Morgan Creek and 3
unnamed tributaries) will be impacted in order to accomplish restoration goals. Implementation
of stream restoration methodologies and execution of stream restoration designs will involve
constructing new channels adjacent to existing channels, followed by diversion of natural stream
flow into new channels. Recharging new channel with stream flow will occur only after new
channel is stabilized. Pump around methods are likely to be employed, where juxtaposition of
new and old channels require dewatering portions of the existing channel while new channel
construction is underway. Pump around protocols involve the use of hydraulic pump(s) to divert
stream flow to a lower section of existing stream during critical phases of channel construction.
Tahle 1 _ F,ffect of Rectnration nn Stream Lengths
REACH EXISTING CHANNEL
LENGTH (lf) POST-RESTORATION
CHANNEL LENGTH (lfj
1 (Morgan Creek) 3,064 3,470
2 (Tributary 1) 385 1,009
3 (Tributary 2) 270 350
4 (Tributary 3) 310 331
Each of the old, existing stream channels will be backfilled following activation of newly
constructed channels. Backfilling of old channels will provide microtopograhpic variability to
facilitate restoration of wetlands in the floodplain of the newly established creek channels.
Grading of the floodplain will be accomplished in areas where past alluvial events and spoil
deposition from stream channelization activities resulted in the placement of overburden in
portions of the floodplain, effectively burying hydric soils. Stream restoration design focuses on
establishing morphological attributes that will facilitate overbank flooding frequencies to sustain
wetland hydrology in adjacent wetland restoration areas (Figs. 4, 6).
In addition to anticipated stream impacts, implementation of stream restoration designs and
grading to reestablish floodplain elevations will unavoidably impact portions of very small
wetland pockets that are dispersed through the easement. Table 2 provides details of site
wetlands and anticipated impacts to them. Figure 6 shows the precise location of these wetlands.

~,
Ms. Loretta Beckwith, USACE
March 16, 2007
Page 3
Tahle 2. Anticipated Impacts to Site Wetlands
Wetland
Impact
Site Number
(indicate on
map)
Type of
Impact (Fill
or Cut)
Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located
within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance
to Nearest
Stream
(linear
feet) Area of
Impact

(acres)
1 Cut Forested N/A <1' 0.015
2 Cut Forested/Disturbed N/A <1' 0.097
2A Cut Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.198
3 Cut Herbaceous N/A <2' 0.023
4 Fill Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.014
5 Cut Herbaceous N/A 25' 0.019
6 Fill Herbaceous N/A <l' 0.008
6A Cut Herbaceous N/A 75' 0
7 Fill Herbaceous N/A 125' 0.096
7A Cut Herbaceous N/A <1' 0
8 Fill Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.056
9 Fill Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.017
10 Cut Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.070
11 Cut Herbaceous/Forested N/A <1' 0.050
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.663
Justifications for Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Each of the four degraded streams will be restored to greater functionality and these restoration
efforts will increase total stream length by approximately 1,131 linear feet. Furthermore,
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will result in the loss of approximately 0.66 acre of mostly
degraded, low quality wetlands, which are subject to cattle traffic, but the total efforts at the
SITE will result in the restoration of more than four acres (4.2 acres) of functional and protected
jurisdictional riparian wetlands.
Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated (January 29, 2007) county-by-county database of federally
listed species in North Carolina as posted by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at http://nc-
es.fws.~ov/es/count fy r.html, 10 federally protected species (endangered or threatened) are listed
for Haywood County. In addition, 36 species are posted with the federal status of FSC (Federal
Species of Concern). Table 2 lists the protected species and indicates if suitable habitat exists
within the SITE for each.

,_
Ms. Loretta Beckwith, USACE
March 16, 2007
Page 4
Note that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires federal actions to
consult with the FWS under Section 7 of the ESA should potential conflicts between the
proposed action and listed species (those protected by law) potentially exist. Species with the
status of FSC are not afforded protection under the ESA. These species are under consideration
for listing, but insufficient information is available to justify listing at this time.
Table 2. Federall Protected S ecies for Ha ood Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Suitable Biological
Habitat Conclusion
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T No No Effect
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) No No Effect
Carolina northern
flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus E No No Effect
Eastern puma Puma concolor cougar' E No No Effect
Gray bat Myotis gr'isescens E No No Effect
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E No No Effect
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E No No Effect
Spruce-fir moss spider MicNOhexura montivaga E No No Effect
Plants
Small whorled pogonia Isotr'ia medeoloides T Yes No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E No No Effect
*Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A) = a
species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are
not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed and no element
occurrences have been recorded closer than 1.5 miles from the SITE. The only species having
suitable habitat within the SITE is the small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).
Consequently, intense plant-by-plant surveys were conducted for the species throughout the
SITE easement and beyond on July 26, 2006. Although no suitable nesting habitat for either of
the listed bats occurs within the SITE, utilization of SITE streams by the bats could not be ruled
out until a determination was made about the presence of nesting or over-wintering sites in
proximity to the SITE. Surveys of adjacent forested tracts for potential nest sites were conducted
within a 500-foot wide area (measured laterally from the SITE easement). Parallel transect
surveys concentrated on looking for caves and shaggy-barked trees such as shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata) and butternut (Carya cordiformis). A phone conversation with Steve Fraley,
Western Aquatic Non-game Coordinator with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) confirmed that the downstream receiving waters (Fines Creek and the
Pigeon River) are not considered to be suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe,

r
Ms. Loretta Beckwith, USACE
March 16, 2007
Page 5
Biological Conclusions
• Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Walking, plant-by-plant surveys for small-whorled pogonia were conducted throughout the
entire easement of the SITE. Surveys concentrated on gross morphology rather than on
flowering apparatus. No plants occur within the SITE. Based on the results of the investigation
it is reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on small-whorled pogonia.
• Gray and Indiana bats Myotis gricescens and M. sodalis Endangered
Vigorous walking surveys were conducted on forested mountainsides outside the SITE easement.
Survey area comprised a 500-foot wide band of forest around all sides of the SITE. No caves
and no shaggy bark trees were located within the search area. Immature specimens of shagbark
hickory were discovered during the surveys, but bark character would not have supported
hibernacula. Based on these results, particularly since no suitable habitat occurs within the
SITE, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on either of the listed bats.
Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR
60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
RS submitted a letter to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in July 2006, requesting
a search be conducted of archival records for the SITE. SHPO responded on August 17, 2006
that no known recorded archaeological sites occur within the SITE; however, based on
topographic and hydrological characteristics of the SITE, the SHPO recommended a
comprehensive survey be conducted by experienced archaeologists. In response, RS engaged the
services of Legacy Research Associates, Inc. of Durham, an archaeological consulting firm. The
results of archival and field investigations at the SITE, and recommendations were compiled in a
report by Legacy (enclosed). Their report, issued on September 25, 2006, was sent to the SHPO.
On November 16, 2006, the SHPO issued a letter concurring with the Legacy report including its
findings that the site should not be recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historical Places and that no further archaeological investigation is needed
(enclosed). This documentation provides confirmation that the project is in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Trout Waters
A phone conversation with David McHenry of the NCWRC confirmed that Morgan Creek and
its tributaries at the SITE would not be considered suitable habitat for trout. A copy of this
application will be provided concurrently to the NCWRC to facilitate their timely comments to
the Section 404 application.

~e
Ms. Loretta Beckwith, USACE
March 16, 2007
Page 6
Your time and consideration in reviewing the enclosed material is greatly appreciated. Your
assistance in expediting your review and approval is respectfully requested to meet construction
and planting schedules. Should you have any questions about the project, please call me at 919-
755-9490. Thank you.
Sincerely,
M. Randall Turner, Ecowarrior Emeritus
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ (6 copies)
David McHenry, NCWRC
Enclosures

Natural Resources
Restoration & Conservation
May 25, 2006
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Section 401 Oversight
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
SUBJECT: Authorized Agent for Restoration Systems, LLC
Mrs. Karoly:
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
~ 7' ~ 494
Please accept our designation of Mr. M. Randall Turner, AKA Randy Turner, as the duly
authorized agent for Restoration Systems, LLC in all matters related to regulatory issues.
Mr. Turner has our permission to perform signatory duties on permit applications,
permits and other documents related specifically to Clean Water Act regulatory actions,
as well as regulatory actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the NCDENR such as
Isolated Wetland Permits, Riparian Buffer Certificates, etc. If you agree with this
designation, please forward this letter to your field offices.
Restoration Systems has made this same designation to Ken Jolly for all future federal
regulatory actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps. Thanks for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
~"l____
John Prey
;r, Vice- resident
cc: John Dorney, Program Development
Pitot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

r `;.: i.., L. N A. M
Mazch 12, 2007
Restoration Systems, LLC
Attn: Travis Hamrick
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27b04
Subject: Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
French Broad River Basin -Cataloging Unit 06010106
Haywood County
Contract # D46035-A
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
n 7 n 4 9 4
RFCE~~ED
On January 23, 2007 Restoration Systems, LLC submitted the subject Restoration Plan for the
Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Full Delivery Project. The plan proposes to restore a
3,Ob4 ft reach of Morgan Creek and three {3) unnamed tributaries to Morgan Creek (totaling
approximately 9b5 ft). An estimated 4.2 acres of Riparian Wetland will be restored and appropriate
vegetation will be planted along the riparian area of the project.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has completed its review of the restoration plan and
has no additional comments at this time. Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits and/or
certifications and complete the implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project
(Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with your 401/404 permit applications.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at [phone]
or email. at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Guy C. Pe ce
EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
cc: files
~~~
_ _ NKlR
North Carolina Etosysters Enaanfement Progra!r, b~2 Mai! 4ervite Center, r~a{ei~h, Ni 27a~r4-i65? ,' 41~-;~-~~7b ,' rr,=rw.t,;eep.r,e

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 0 7 ~ ~ 4 9 4
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing PAYMENT
RECEIVED
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^ N/A
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^ N/A
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the t~p/Aof page 2 for further details), check here:~~~
II. Applicant Information ~~ D
MAR 1 6 ZaQ7
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: John Pre er G~N->E • wAt~a c~uuALi~Y
v ~..~,...,,...~.....,..._._..,.,.
Mailing Address: _ Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490 Fax Number: 919-755-9492
E-mail Address: jpreyer(a~,restorationsystems.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: M. Randall Turner
Company Affiliation: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mailing Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax_Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: rand~(~restorationsystems.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 9

v ,
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): OSA8722-68-4970 and OSA8722-66-6784
4. Location
8.
County: Haywood Nearest Town: Waynesville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Waynesville
travel west on I-40 to exit 15; turn right on Fines Creek Road and travel +/- 3 miles;
turn left onto Kirkpatrick Road (just past Fines Creek School/Library); Morgan's
Creek is on right.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.6884 °N 82.9533 °W
6. Property size (acres): 10.24
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Fines Creek
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
River Basin: French Broad River Basin
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the
time of this application: Site is a narrowly defined, 10.25 acre easement, which is oriented
north-to- south along the eastern boundary of a narrow valley. Kirkpatrick Road (SR
1340), oriented north- to-south, lies lust to the west of the western boundary of the
easement. The land use within the easement and beyond is predominately agriculture,
Updated 1]/1/2005
Page 2 of 9

including hay production and cattle grazing. Stream scape is severely impacted by
cattle activity. A few residential sites are located adjacent to the project easement.
Relatively undisturbed woodland lies north and east of the site.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The primary
objectives of this restoration project are to reestablish historic natural stream and
wetland attributes. The existing stream reaches are highly degraded and historic
riparian wetlands have been lost to past and present land use practices. Targeted
stream reaches will be restored, using Rosgen Priority 1 methodologies, which will
reestablish hydraulic connectivity to the adjacent floodplain. Efforts will restore
aquatic habitats, stable riffle-pool complexes and appropriate geomorphic character
based on attributes found in reference systems. Planting of riparian buffers on both
sides of stream and installation of cattle exclusion fencing will reestablish functional
wildlife habitat, water quality buffering and will protect the stream from cattle
encroachment. Work proposed will include belt-width preparation and grading,
floodplain bench excavation, channel excavation, installation of in-stream structures,
and backfilling of the abandoned channel. Temporary pump-around methods will be
used since existing and proposed channels are so tightly juxtaposed in several locations.
Finally, following completion of channel work and floodplain grading activities, buffer
and wetland plantings will be established.
Equipment that will be utilized to implement the restoration plan may include, but is
not limited to track hoes, front end loader, tracked dump trucks, and bulldozers.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Restoration Systems is proposing stream and
wetland restoration at the Morgan Creek Restoration Site as a full delivery project to
assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in fulfilling its goals.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous permits have been obtained or requested for this project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional permit requests are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
Updated 11/1!2005
Page 3 of 9

It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Four stream reaches, including a
portion of Morl:an Creek and three unnamed tributaries to Mor>:an Creek will be
impacted as part of the project restoration efforts. Proposed impacts to these stream
reaches are: Reach 1 (3,064 lf); Reach 2 (385 lf); Reach 3 (270 lf) and Reach 4 (310 1f1.
Project site contains 14 small wetland area, remnants of a much lar;:er, multi-acre
wetland matrix. If combined, these small wetlands would occupy 1.286 acres of land
area. Of this area, the proposed project wilt unavoidably impact approximately 0.66
acre of wetland. It is important to point out that stream restoration will actually
increase stream length by 2,096 lf. Existing wetland pockets are mostly sites that are
heavily trodden by cattle. Project restoration efforts will provide functionality to more
than 4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (Fill
or Cut) 'T'ype of Wetland
(forested, herbaceous, etc.) In 100-year
Floodplain (y/n)? Distance to
Stream (lt) Area of Impact
(ac)
1 Cut Forested N/A <I' 0.015
2 Cut Forested/Disturbed N/A <1' 0.097
2A Cut Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.198
3 Cut Herbaceous N/A <2' 0.023
4 Fill Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.014
5 Cut Herbaceous N/A 25' 0.019
6 Fill Herbaceous NlA <1' 0.008
6A Cut Herbaceous N/A 75' 0
7 Fill Herbaceous N/A 125' 0.096
7A Cut Herbaceous N/A <I' 0
8 Fill Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.056
9 Fill Herbaceous N/A <1' 0.017
10 Cut Herbaceous N/A <I' 0.070
11 Cut Herbaceous/Forested N/A <1' 0.050
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.663
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 4 of 9

3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.286
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
Reach 1 Morgan Creek Fill Perennial 10 3064 0.703
Reach 2 Unnamed Trib Fill Perennial 6 385 0.053
Reach 3 Unnamed Trib Fill Perennial 5 270 0.031
Reach 4 Unnamed Trib Fill Perennial 4 310 0.028
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 4029 0.815
s. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc. N/A
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, Impact
(indicate on map) bay, ocean, etc.) (acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nrciect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.815
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.663
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.815
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 4029
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 9

Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Existing, degraded stream
channels will be restored using Rosen Priority 1 methods. Work will impact 4,029 If of
impaired stream reaches, including Moran Creek Mainstem and 3 unnamed tribs.
Resulting length of restored stream channels will increase to 5,160 lf. In addition stream
restoration will facilitate restoration of more than 4 acres of riparian wetlands, while 0.66
acre of wetland will be impacted.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:l/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
Updated ll/t/2005
Page 6 of 9

and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
N/A
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount ofbuffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/Iocal) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes (funds from FHWA); No federal lands
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
A CE document has been prepared per FHWA guidance (See Appendix F in Restoration Plan)
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No
See attached letter from the NCEEP.
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Suffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 9

1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers. N/A
* Impact Required
Zone , ,,,..,..o F o+, Multiplier ,~,,,~, ,, _
I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone I.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of.:.Property,'Rfparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. No impervious surface currently exists within
the Site and no impervious .surface will result from the restoration activities. A sediment
and erosion control plan approval will be obtained from the Division of Land Quality prior
to construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 9

Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control}.
N/A
/, d~-~/~i~~//!~~y' March 16, 2007
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 9

1/
07' •0484
~~~ et _
,~,r- _ ~,~~

'~ .--
~. -
-~`
~ "
~ ~ ~ Boa
;~; ~ :~ ~ ~ _ ~. ~
~,~
.. ~~. ~
~ ~ `~
~ ~ --
ty L. 4~~~. '~ =r~
a ;

~.
~
~,a
Grj-

~
M A D I

_ -'`
~
:~

.;
r ,~-- ,
~"'
~+ , any
`2tS}
p 4, ~.
/~
.. "~
4
._ ~
~
~ ~ n
. 1
~ ~
~ _ y

~ ~°
1 ~ ~
,~~
Q aTtti= ~
~
v ~ ~
J: ~ 1 ,~
ry I
^: ~ i
~
' _ i
.
'.. u
~ ~~ ~ I
4
dry N yn

•
/~r•l. SMffi(h8 ~ ~ IS t t'.. •-r =
Y1 i.~J~Fi ~+ Lim •+%~-
rl
+ i• ~~,
AL, r+:r.a ~~3E
~. 5835 ',., +
a•
! '
•~. ~- +
~ -
~ tiratJtre~~. , r 'Nt~c~C
L, , •,CSf~?r
~
laJnf~o~pa
~ s~ H A '~ ~ ~
Oi ~
~ ~ ~--~•': ~ -~
~
....., ~ ~ "
~,
. ~she~ille
t'~ ' i f I ,
r1r~'
~, w ~
I 1
r;w f
:NrtinJnn a..a~ a ~ ~ • • ~ ~ • • ~ _ • .. • _~
Project Number Map Title:
101 50.D I Figure I - Vicrnity Map
Protect Manager:
FKS
Morgan Creek Stream
~ Wetland Restoration Project
Scale: Haywood County. NC
NO SCALE
Dace: Source: NC DOT 2006
03/06/06 Travel Ma
Boil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ritlge Rd -Raleigh. NC 27614
(919) B465A00 • [phone]
Web Page'. www SantlEC com
..
0 7. 0 4 9 4

4+''.~r
+,. c• ~~
~.
'/112 .~ ^

~L ~
~~'£~t ,t
/,}~~' }
9' ~ a°C
sue. ti_yt.* f~~r
Reach 4
y ~~~ 7i~'~ '?c,. fry .~~~} ~~~~. ~i) ~ ..~~../~ ,,ttf~,--,:•
yr4 ; s ~~~ r ~ t+ !i.
'' ~It .` ,~ ..
"o' ,
it
~ f ~~~~ VA's _1 ~" .....
Project Number: Map Title:
101 50.D I F(gure 2 - USGS Map
Project Manager:
PK`J" Morgan Creek Stream
~ Wetland Restoration Project
Scale: Haywood County, NG
I ~~ = I ~ 000
Date: Source:
I /28/06 Fines Creek Quadrangle
t
~ t ~
e. ~e r
;F ~ ~ ~~ 4
5oi1 & Environmenta3 Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• 42aleigh, NC 27614
{919) 846.5900 • (919) 846-9x67
Weo Page www.SandEC.com

Project Number: Map Title:
I 0 150.D i F)gure 3 -Sods Map ~_ ~ ~~`) ~~' ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~
Project Manager:
PKS Morgan Creek Stream
Scale: ~ Wetland Restoration Project
I „ _ 500, Haywood County, NC
Date: Source:
2/ 16/07 Haywood County Soil Survey
Seil ~ Ensironmencal Consultants, P~
11010 Raven R dga Rd.* Ra3aigh, NC 27614
(919j 846.590Q • (919) 846-94ti7
Web Page: www.SandEC.cam

F'

Project Number:
10150.D1
Project Manager:
PKS
Scale:
I " = 500'
Date:
2/ 16/07
Map Title:
Figure 4 -Aerial Photo View
Morgan Creek Stream ~
Wetland Restoration Project
Haywood, NC
Source:
Fines Greek Quadrangle
Sail & Env imnrnental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.~ Raleigh, NC 27614
(919) 846-59D0 ~ {919) 846.9467
54+eb Pagan www.SandEC.com
.,
.<1 ~

1 ~ -fir ~. - '. ~ 4'• ti ~ ~ ..- L3. -]c'3 : °. tip. _ •„*. y _ .. het :. -s8
a

%" ~
Project Number: Map Title: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
I C I S~.D I Figure 5-Drainage Area `
Project Manager: fZeache5 I , 2, 3, ~ 4
PKJ Morgan Creek Stream ~ Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Scale: ~ Wetland ReStoratlOn PrO~eGt 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Rale4ph, NC 27514
" = I 50~' Haywood County, NC (Web Fage~~~uww.SandEC-com7
e
Date: Source:
I ~ ~28~D6 ~FineS Creek Quadra.~.,~~~.,

N
U
N
O
rn
0
3
CD
~_
n
O
N
c
<-r
N
D

m
N
c~
c`~
WETLAND I
0.085 ACRES
EXISTING
WATER LINE
WETLAND 2
0.255 ACRES
rn
-~
v Wetland Summary Table
O
Impacted
D Area Acreage
I O.O 15 ac.
.-~ 2 0.097
2A 0. 198
3 0.023
4 O.0 I ~~
5 0.0 I ~~
6 O.OOB ~
m 6A o
7 0.096
7A O
8 0.056
9 0.017
I 0 0.070
z I I 0.050
T;~ ~ , ._663_
(-Tl NOTES:
I . SITE DATA AS DETERMINED BY LIMITED ENGINEERING SURVEY
PERFORMED BY SPEC, AND SURVEYED BY K2 DESIGN GROUP, PA.
2. ALL LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
z
3. LOCATION OF PROPOSED CYIANNEL AND WETLANDS ARE
APPROXIMATE AND MAY BE ADJUSTED BY ENGINEER AT TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION.
4. STRUCTURE TYPE, NUMBER, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND MAY BE ADJUSTED BY ENGINEER AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
5. WETLAND BOUNDARIES DELINEATED AND LOCATED BY GPS BY SPEC
ON I I/2/06. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
-`~ PROPOSED ~ EXISTING
--•i ~ CONTOURS ~ ROADS
V,
' EXISTING RESTORED
i~, STREAM Cf1ANNEL '\'~ STREAM CHANNEL
a RESTORED
~~y LOG J-t100K (LJh) WETLANDS
_\
ROCK J-NOOK (RJt1) ~ ~ EXISTING
~~ WETLANDS
CROSS ROCK VANE <4 ,
R,t IMPACTED
(CRV} M`~ WETLANDS
Soil ~ Envlronmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] F'ax: [phone]
aww.SandEC.com
SCALE I " = 125'
125 6?_.5 0 125
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2'
-ro~ecc: Project No.:
MORGAN CREEK loiso.o
STREAM ~ WETLAND RESTORATION Prod. Mqr.: Dram
PKS R°
_ocat~on: Chem: NC ECOSYSTEM Scale:
1AYWOOD CO, NC ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM = 125'
sheet Title: Sheet No.:
TEMPORA2Y S~`~~EAAA AND WCTLAND

EXISTING
WETLAND 3 i . a CMP CULVERT
.~
REACH 2 0.046 ACRES
w ;
' WETLAND 4 ~t1 ~ * `p ~~.
~~~,~~, 0.0I 4 ACRES OT .• ~~ : ,.1, '
i ~
m 1 ~ ~3(
~N gC"~ .., - • ~ ~?~ /.:e 7iX~ '''A, `~___ WETLAND 6A
®~`~~. "~ cs, ~ AJ a ~ . ~ ~ ._. ... 0.058 ACRES
~~ ~ ~ d
`4" WETLAND 5
EXISTING _/~ ~ ~! fir, '~ d '!moo 'ti ;
CISTERN ~~ r , ~ y'l.r • 0.01 9 ACRES
5 '!i°"
PROPOSED ~ ~~''~ / y, WETLAND 6
CULVERTED 4... u~ 0.008 ACRES
~;, `
'~~
CROSSING ~`~ ~ ~ ""
\?: ;~ ~; REACH I
WETLAND 2A ~ ~
0.272 ACRES `1~ it+: PROPOSED
~I`~,~; ' LOW-WATER
~~'k-~~~ CROSSING
~ ~ r_
~~ ~ `"~
~` '~+'~` - PERMANENT
I'~ ~ CONSERVATION
j~;~!< EASEMENT
I ~
I _ 'O'~ u ~ °'~~ a
«; ~„- r
I 6 N ~~ -
~ ~ ~-~
S f d Q' `~-° ,o \_ WETLAND 7A
' ~~ ~ 9'" Z'' ~ 0.020 ACRES
DOT RIGHT OF WAY I ~ -., ~,
I` 1~
WETLAND 8 I~ ~'~ ~~ ~
0.06 I ACRES '~ "~ ~ ~ ' WETLAND 7
~a . , J ,:~ ,, 0.096 ACRES
REACH 3
O
A

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 7 0 4 9 4
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #1/WL 6 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: Haywood
Investigator: KM, DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WL 6
(If needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Festuca sp. Herb FACU 10.
3. Vernonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+~ 11.
Carex sp. Herb OBL 12.
5. Solidago sp Herb FAC 13.
6. Rubus sp. Shrub FAC 14.
7, 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 83%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 7 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in.)
Remarks:

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
PrOjeCt/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #1/WL 6 Plot ID: WL 6
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Poorl
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? X Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A p 10YR 4/2 Sand loam
2-12 A 10YR 6/1 Sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Lay er in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 6 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology, and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 4, 5, and 6A. All wetland areas were observed to be severely degraded by
human activities.

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #1/V1/L 7 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: Haywood
Investigator: KM, DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WL 7
(If needed, ex lain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Festuca sp. Herb FACU 10.
3. Vernonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+ 11.
Carex sp. Herb OBL 12.
5. Rosa multiflora Shrub UPL 13.
6. Rubus sp. Shrub FAC 14.
Polygonum
7. pennsylvanicum Herb FACW 15.
8. Solidago sp. Herb FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
ProjeCt/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #1/WL 7 Plot ID: WL 7
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: oorl
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes X No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 Ap 10YR 3/2 Sandy loam
8-12+ Btg 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/6 Few distinct Cla loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Laye r in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: More like Hemphill series (umbric endoaqualf) from texture standpoint but not umbric
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 7 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology, and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 7A, 8, and 9. All wetland areas were observed to be severely degraded by
human activities.

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #1NVL 11 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: Haywood
Investigator: KM, DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WL 11
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species .Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Solidago sp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Carex sp. Herb OBL 11.
Vernonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+ 12. _
Pol ygonum
5. pennsylvanicum Herb FACW 13.
6. Agrimonia parviflora Herb FAC 14.
7. Rubus sp. Shrub FAC 15.
8. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #1/WL 11 Plot ID: WL 11
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: oorl
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes X No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 Ap 10YR 3/2 Sand loam
10-14+ Btg 10YR 6/2 10 YR 5/6 Few distinct Cla loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Laye r in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: More like Hemphill series (umbric Endoaqualf) from texture standpoint but not umbric
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 11 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology, and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 3 and 10. All wetland areas were observed to be severely degraded by human
activities.

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjeCt/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #2/WL 1 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: Haywood
Investigator: KM, DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WL 1
(If needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC-
2. E/eocharis sp. Herb OBL 10. Carex sp. Herb OBL
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 11. Solidago sp. Herb FAC
Lindera benzoin Shrub FACW 12.
5. Rubus sp. Herb FAC 13.
6. Agrimonia parviflora Herb FAC 14.
7. Hamame/is virginiana Shrub FACU 15.
8. Rosa multiflora Shrub UPL 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 73%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
PrOject/Slte: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #2/WL 1 PIOt ID: WL 1
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Poorl
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? X Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A p 10YR 3/2 Sand loam
4-14+ A 10YR 6/2 Sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 1 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 2 and 2A. Wetlands 2 and 2A did however exhibit less woody vegetation than
that of Wetland 1. Wetlands 2 and 2A were also observed to be severely degraded by human activities.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pctcr B, 5audbcck, Administrator
Michael I'. Carley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
.August 17, 2006
pfiice ofArchives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Diroctor• '
Travis Hamrick v 0 7 0 4 8 4
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 I Iaynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh; NC 27604
Re: EEP Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, Haywood County, ER 06-2013
Dear Mr, Hamrick:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2006, concerning the above project,
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. T-Iowever, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based on
the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate
the significance o£ archaeological remains that maybe damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential
effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior eo the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms, should
be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any construction
activities.
A list Uf archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North. Carolina
is available at wy.~w.arch.dcr.state.tlc,tasl_c_t~K~sults.htt7~t, The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced
archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 0£ the National I Iistaric Preservation .Act and the 1~dvisoxy
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations far Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800,
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration, If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
i M
~~~~~~
~'eter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address xaepnouen~xx
A[ 1NI5'M'RATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-47631'133-8653
RG TORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccntor, Raleigh NC 27699-46 { 7 [phone]!71 S-4$01
SURVCY & P1.,ANN(NG 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]Y715-4801

DRAFT REPORT
Archaeological Survey
EEP Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration
Haywood County, North Carolina
ER 06-2013
Prepared for
Restoration Systems, LLC
1 1 O1 Haynes Street
Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
By
Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
600 Foster Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
September 25, 2006

Archaeological Survey EEP Morgan Creel<Stream and Wetland Restoration Haywood County, North Carolina
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Legacy Research Associates Inc. (Legacy) of Durham, North Carolina, has completed the archaeological
survey for the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration in
Haywood County, North Carolina (ER 06-201 3). This work was conducted for Restoration Systems, LLC, of
Raleigh, North Carolina.
The Morgan Creek project involves the restoration of 1.3 km (4,300 linear feet) of stream channels and 2
hectares (5 acres) of wetland restoration. The purpose of the archaeological survey was to locate,
document, and conduct National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligibility evaluation investigations for
archaeological resources that may be affected by the stream and wetland restoration project.
This work complies with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Archaeological
and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 1 1 593, and 36 CFR Parts 660-66 and 800 (as
appropriate). It meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation (Federal Register 48). All information submitted in this report is factual and sufficiently
complete to enable the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to perform the necessary
reviews.
Background Research
A review of state and local survey data was completed prior to the archaeological survey. This included
the files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and collections held at the North Carolina
State Library in Raleigh. Research identified five previously recorded archaeological sites within 1 .6 km (1
mi) of the project. None of the sites are located within the project boundaries.
Additionally, based on the topographic and hydrological situation, the North Carolina SHPO determined
there to be a high probability for the presence of prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites within the
project boundaries.
Field Investigations Results and Recommendations
Archaeological survey for the project was conducted by Legacy between September 1 1 and 1 3, 2006.
Deborah Joy served as project director and Jared Roberts served as field director; Rhonda Cranfill-Moran,
Johann Furbacher, Chris Pettyjohn, Andrea Prentis, and )ay Stevens assisted.
One archaeological isolated find (Isolated Find 1) was recorded within the project Area of Potential Effects
(APE) during the survey (Figure 1). This isolated find is dual component with two prehistoric lithics and
one historic whiteware fragment. This site is not recommended as being eligible for the NRHP, no further
archaeological work is needed.

Archaeological Survey EEP Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Haywood County, North Carolina

.~vi STA'tg4,
~~. AY .~y,~ rye
y~'WUL VI.I~.X
WAM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Stste Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael r. )yasley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
November 16, 2006
Travis Hamrick
u~; ,
,, p ~~~v~
NOV 1 `~ 200 ..;
Office ofArchives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Restoration Systems, LLC ~1(; «-.®.««...««.«4-~-••»
2101 Haynes Street, Suite 107 ,
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: GEP Morgan Creeeli Stream and Wetland Restoration, Haywood County, ER 06-2013
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
Thank you for your letter transmitting the archaeological survey report by Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
£or the above project. The report meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
During the course of the survey, one site was located within the project area. The xepoxt author has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recalnmendation since the project wall. not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you far your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill.-barley; environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracl~ing number.
Sincerely,
~~~.~`
etcr Sandbeck
cc: Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
Location Mailing Address Tclephonc/I+ax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N, Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Servico Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RTSTORATION S15 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27649.4617 (919}733.6547/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N, Blount Street, Raleigh, NC AG17 Mail 5ervicc Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919}733.6545/715-4801

0
0.45 ~`
ACRES
0.13 .~.-._ `~ J //
ACRES ~ @, ~ M /ff p
k ,_ ,r.."""..~,` ~ ~ S 5.81
' ~~ \ `' ACRES
/~"`~ ~~
~,.. ~~~
o.z~ ~ e.
ACRES ~ e ! U
\ Y 1~ ~. ~ ti
0
N
~~ ~ ~
1 `; ~" ~
1 ~ ~ ..~+
~~
1 ~ ~a
e
4.~~
TOTAL ACREAGE
= 10.24 ACRES ~'~ ~
;~ ~
EXCLUDING ALL
~~
R/W S, ACCESS !,
EASEMENTS, ETC. ' `-~
I I a~,
~ ~..
~:
I I i .
I l ~.
I I ~
3.58
I IACRES
fi
I I 7~
li l I
/ ~
~ ~\
f
\ ~
~ ,,~,,x.
MORGAN CREEK ~, ~ ,,,/
CONSERVATION EASEMENT I I/
SCHEMATIC ` `
-}-
V~
aY
z~
0
Q
0