20060922 Ver 2_Mitigation Plans_20061030

4 ~ ~'~
~n~.ron:
Peri~~~.
,~
~..
s~~ ",:
~. ,
L~ . 2~ ~.
~~-~~
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Q~~lq~~n~T
r t~~
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 RECEIVED
Attention: Cyndi Karoly ~ ~ p ~ - pq 2 ~
Reference: Request to Reactivate
Airport Road Retail Shopping Center
Buncombe County, NC
DWQ Project # 06-0922
Dear Ms. Karoly,
On behalf of the applicant, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, we would like
to respectfully request that the above reference permit application be reactivated.
Included herein is the additional information requested by your office in a letter dated
September 20, 2006. Four complete copies are included a one complete copy has been
sent to Kevin Barnett at the Asheville Field Office. Additionally, a new check for
$475.00 in included.
I hope that this addresses all your comments and concerns regarding this project
and we can proceed in a timely fashion. If you have any questions, please call me at
[phone]. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Respectfully,
.~
Laura Belanger
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
Cc: Tom Walker, USACOE
Kevin Barnett, NCDENR
Mike Ranks, Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
,,-„~
(j ~..I. ~ r! !
?~ir;~
ssw';; ~
~ tfpyQ~ ~w~~ ~. ~ .~t~~~i}~~~n~a~n~ur~
P0. Box 3744 Greenville, South Carolina 29608 [phone] Fax [phone]
P.O. Box 2346 Hendersonville, North Carolina 28793 Phone/Fax [phone]

..
~.
October 24, 2006
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Attention: Cyndi Karoly
Reference: Request to Reactivate
Airport Road Retail Shopping Center
Buncombe County, NC
DWQ Project # 06-0922
Dear Ms. Karoly,
va o~- ©q 22
t
~o~~EIVED
l p~~`°:~~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~ i~~ ~'1
U w~ ~~;
7 ' ,..~
0 ~~1J6
r1~~v~. w~f;;•y~
~TLAND~ p~rp S7C}R~~~~ ~~~~'~fi~GarVCk
This letter is intended to provide additional information requested by your office
in a letter dated September 20, 2006 regarding the project referenced above. We would
like to request that the permit review process be reactivated.
Avoidance and Minimization
No Development
The "No Development" scenario is not feasible in this area. Airport Road is a
rapidly growing commercial area in close proximity to the Asheville Regional Airport,
the Western Carolina Ag Center, I-26, and a number of `big-box" retailers such as
Lowe's and Target. The area between Hendersonville and Asheville is rapidly growing.
According to recently released estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, population in the
Asheville metro grew by 1.4 % over the last year, adding 5,465 new residents. Among
the four counties that make up the metro area, Henderson had the highest rate at 1.8 %.
The national average is 0.9 %. These factors contribute to the increasing demand for
retail services. The corridor in which this parcel is located has been specifically targeted
by the state for this kind of development. Infrastructure, such as the road widening of NC
280 and I-26, makes this area the logical location for the retail services demanded by the
growing population. The infrastructure provides the foundation for commercial
development and allows such development to remain consolidated in one area.
Under the No Development scenario, the project would not take place and the
proposed retail center would not be built. No impacts to Waters of the US would occur,

and consequently, no on site restoration would occur. Investments in property, design,
and time will be lost, along with the potential for approximately 350* new jobs. The
project would relocate to a new site that would possibly require upgrades to existing
infrastructure. The expansion of roads to handle traffic would then allow for additional
smaller developments to move in, creating a new commercial area else ware in the
region.
Reduction of On-Site Impacts
Every effort was made by the applicant to reduce on-site impacts to the maximum
extent possible. The current configuration of the Wal-Mart also lends itself to avoidance
and minimization as much as is practicable. Alternative site layouts were proposed
during the design phase. Included herein are copies of two alternative site layouts.
Alternative 1:
In the first alternative layout, the use of two retaining walls did allow for an
overall reduction of wetland impacts by a total of 0.37 acres, however, due to the
relocation of the stormwater detention basin, the alternate site layout also impacts 742
linear feet of stream. The stormwater management needs to be located at a lower
elevation than the developed area. Therefore, the logical locations for the ponds are at the
lowest points on the property. If the area behind the western retaining wall was utilized
for a detention pond, it would still be necessary for a second pond in order to meet the
detention requirements for the site. Storm drain would have to be punched through the
retaining wall and be routed to the proposed pond. In order to install the storm drain, a
fair amount of wetlands would still have to be impacted. Thus impacts would exist on
the stream as well as the western wetland area "D". The configuration of the ponds on
the alternative layout shows the least amount of impact possible.
Due to the required grading, the retaining wall near the western property
boundary would incur a significant increase in cost when compared to the northern
retaining wall. The overall cost of both retaining walls for the alternate site layout is
approximately $1.8 million dollars, while the cost of the northern retaining wall by itself
is $260,000. From a strictly economic standpoint, the $1.5 million (592% increase in
cost) is not viable for the scope of the project and represents a dramatic increase in
overall cost.
Alternative 2:
This alternative involves rotating the building so that the side is oriented toward
Airport Road and utilizing the out lots as satellite parking with a span over Wetland "E".
As you can see from the site plan, the re-orientation of the building and the spanning of
Wetland "E" does not allow for adequate parking or access to the front of the building.
Commercial centers are required by law to provide a certain number of handicapped
parking spaces with easy access to the front of the store for patrons with disabilities.
Additionally, the grading requirements for the site still exist, so retaining walls would be
necessary, along with the span for Wetland Area "E". This layout would not be feasible
due to the lack of adequate parking, lack of adequate access to the front of the store and

additional costs associated with abridge/span and the multiple retaining walls needed to
avoid impact to "Wetland Area E".
The proposed site layout does utilize one retaining wall for reduction of impact by
eliminating all impacts to stream 1. Additionally, overall impervious surface was
reduced from 18.5 acres to 17.6 acres, and outlots were reduced from a total of 3.3 acres
to 1.99 acres. Taking into account all of the above mentioned factors, it was determined
that the avoidance of 742 linear feet of stream impacts, reduction of overall impervious
surface and outlot acreage, and substantial reduction of costs associated with the
construction of the western retaining wall was preferred both ecologically and
economically.
Existing Desisn with Mitigation
The proposed project includes 1.41 acres of onsite created wetlands, 0.34 acres of
onsite wetland preservation, 1 acre of wetland mitigation from the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, 2.1 acres of onsite upland buffer preservation, and 500 linear feet
of onsite stream relocation and enhancement.
An onsite mitigation meeting took place October 11, 2006 with NCDENR,
USACE, FWS, and NCWRC. Based on discussions regarding the proposed mitigation
plan, we have revised the plan to eliminate the priority 2 stream restoration in favor of
stream enhancement and spot stabilization, due to the lack of buffer available. We have
also ensured that the outflow from the stormwater management ponds will flow into the
created wetland areas to add to the over hydrology of the area. A complete revised on-site
mitigation plan is included for your review.
All in all, the applicant has avoided and minimized impacts to Waters of the US to
the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives were considered thoroughly prior to
submitting the present design and relying on compensatory mitigation. I hope that this
addresses all your comments and concerns regarding this project and we can proceed in a
timely fashion. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone]. Thank you
for your assistance in this matter.
Respectfully,
Laura Belanger
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
Cc: Tom Walker, USACOE
Mike Ranks, Freeland and Kauffinan, Inc.

--1rLI- _~
PROPOSED ~ [- - 7 (~ ^ ~~ l L -- -_
RETAINING ~ ~ ~ ~ l
wALL 1 ~~ ~~ [Jo c~~
i
C~ ... SWM
POND
~~ OU TLO
\:::•::•:::~: I ~ _ ,~, t 1.21
~i ~I ~I \
L`,• ~ PROPOSED
f-, WAL-MART /
(_J C-195- SGR - OR
203,819 SF
I -~
/~~. ~.
L~
PROPOSED
RETAINING
I 1 WALL
Ilzf~
C --1 \
AIRPORT ROAD
(5-LANES)
(4-TRAVEL,
1-CENTER-TURN)
GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS SHEET NO.
ENVIRONMENTAL ';5 ,;5 2; ~ ~-~.~ `~"` AIRPORT ROAD
PERMITTING t inch = 25o feet Alternative Layout 1
CONSULTANTS INC. P°"°"'°'°B°°`"" oRAw-isv: me Wal Mart
~ C*O0"`~O• ~ 2seoe DATE: 2ooasoos Buncombe County
Pfans: (eeq rn 3W0
F« leer) z3s-szee EPC PROJECT NOIROSpcn00B USAGE PM:. OF 2

~~ ~~ ~~~~-_- AVALON pRIVE
U_ j J- _
(] [~ ~ [~ ~ ~ -~r~ ~r 1-tn
-----'-- n __'
~ ------------- ~s
1 ___------__
® ~
o..~a ...,~. 1
~~ ~ ~~
~•::~:~'o ~'~
~ :..~. E:~:.•::) ~~..
~::.~ . W ~ t:;;~::y
~_ _ _ i ~~~ ~:::
~' ....::....... ~'.1
~............1 /.'::
~ ~ \• :•:::::::.i .~ ... J
~: :'.1
~ ~':::~
~ \ .. ~1._
i \~• \::':::::
~ ~::': ::
.. .....
1 ~ ~:•::::..
~:~::.
--
`C' ::::::::::::.1
`` ~
i t% ~:::::::::.•:::
~ t•:::::::::::•.i
1 p ~ :.• :., .r
~ ~~~~ /
N
/ ~~ ~ ~ ~
C ~
--- ~
\~ ~ ~

ENVIRONMENTAL
PERMITTING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
1'S i 1i5 25)0
1 inch = 250 feet
Poet 08be Box 97M DRAWN BY: Ibb
onw~ls, sc 2eeoe DATE: 2ooa2ooe
Phons: (884) 2713010
Fax: [phone] EPC PROJECT NONR05pcn008
~~
.b ~
/~
~~
//
~//
;,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
_ ~,
,,
nV- / i
IIJI `\ ~
v /~
~ ~ n i~ ~~
r4w-"°--
---~ / i~
/ ,
i
/~ ~ i
/ ~
~, / /
~~ ~
~ ~~ /
' / /
/ /
~: /~
/ ~
i
~~~
~•~:~~
~. ..'~1
1:::; l
t'. .
~~ w
\~~~~ ~
i ~
i ~
;~ /~ i
i
~ ~
i ~
i / ~
/ i
i ~
i ~
' ~ ~ / /'/ i
i '
r~ ~ '
r~ ~ '
i
~ ~ AIRPORT ROAD
.,
~ s~
~,
;' ~ ,
,,
.~f , /
~~
;- , ~.
,,.
;: ~~
~~,
~,
~~ ~-
;a , •b~
~ / a.c g4?
REVISIONS
/ ~
/ ~
/ i
i
i
SHEET NO.
AIRPORT ROAD
Alternative Layout 2
Wal MaR
Buncombe County
USACE P/N:. OF 2

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
AIRPORT ROAD RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EPC PROJECT NO. MROSPCN008 q . , ,q R r r, , 7•-
i
~~~~EIVED
PREPARED FOR:
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUISNESS TRUST
PREPARED BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING CONSULTANTS
125 WEST STONE AVENUE (29609)
POST OFFICE BOX 3744
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29608
OCTOBER 2006
E~ (1 T ~ ~? 2006
iIVE; lA~?aS ~r?i, STC~~~4;~%.~,`~~ 6~,~JCH

The State of North Carolina's 401 Water Quality Certifications require that the Division
of Water Quality confirm that the project it is evaluating "does not result in cumulative
impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, which cause or will
cause a violation of downstream water quality standards".
The Division of Water Quality evaluates cumulative impacts based on the guidelines of
the "Draft Internal Policy, Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification
and Isolated Wetland Program. NC Division of Water Quality, October 3, 2002, Version
1.6". Based on these guidelines, DWQ's policy provides for three levels of analysis. For
projects involving only small amounts of added impervious surface or occurring in
heavily developed areas, a "Generic Description" of the project's possible cumulative
impacts will be required. If the project will involve a significant increase in impervious
surface (generally 20% or more), but is located near existing roads and development, a
"Qualitative Analysis" will be required. The highest level, the "Quantitative Analysis",
is required where a project is significant in size and likely to stimulate growth in the area.
DWQ's policy provides that it is applicable to private development projects, although it
recognizes that many of the projects are unlikely to cause cumulative impacts. DWQ
recognizes that private development projects are most likely cause cumulative impacts
when they are "1) relatively large, 2) involve commercial development, and 3) occur in
otherwise relatively undeveloped landscapes with an impact on regional growth
patterns".
For the Airport Road Retail Shopping Center project, DWQ has determined that a
qualitative analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the project would be
appropriate in terms of determining the effects on downstream water quality.
To determine potential cumulative impacts, this project was reviewed for any growth
stimulating effects that could potentially foster downstream impacts on water quality.
Factors taken into consideration include the project size, its nature, and its proximity to
the developed local landscape.
Project Description
The site is located on the west side of Airport Road north of the intersection with I-26 in
Arden, NC. The property is bounded by a mobile home park to the north, commercial
and residential properties to the west, commercial properties to the south, and Airport
Road to the east.
T'he proposed project would create a total of approximately 17.8 acres of impervious
surface on the 37.287+/- acre site. The overall project involves the construction of a
commercial retail shopping center. The shopping center will consist of a newly
constructed Wal-Mart store as well as other commercial structures. Additionally,
infrastructure (parking, access drives, stormwater detention, etc.) will be constructed to
service the new facilities as required by all applicable Federal, State and local ordinances
and regulation.

Extensive grading will be required on the site to bring it to an acceptable level with
Airport Road. The site has several wetlands, most of which have been highly disturbed
due to past site clearings and soil compaction due to heavy equipment. The proposed
development involves the filling of a total of 1.93 acres of wetlands.
Project Area Description
The project is located in Arden, North Carolina. Arden is located in south Buncombe
County along I-26, in between Hendersonville, NC and Asheville, NC. Arden, NC is
home of the Asheville Regional Airport, which is located approximately 1 mile from the
proposed project site. Arden is a rapidly growing area due to its proximity to both
Hendersonville and Asheville. Hendersonville and Asheville have solid positions as top
retirement destinations, repeatedly appearing on lists of top place from sources such as
Modern Maturity, AARP, RelocateAmerica.com and Barrons. Hendersonville is ranked
number five -- Asheville is number three and Brevard is number six -- in a just released
book by Warren Bland, Retire in Style, 60 Outstanding Places across the USA and
Canada. Additionally, Asheville was listed by Rolling Stones magazine as the "freak
capitol of the Untied States" and by National Geographic Adventure as a top 10
adventure town. The diverse nature of the azea has contributed to the growing
population.
Watershed Description
The project is located within the French Broad River Basin. The onsite streams are
unnamed tributaries of Lake Julian, which is classified as "C" waters. Class "C" waters
aze defined as "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life
including propagation and survival, and wildlife."
The current condition of Lake Julian is listed as "Fully Supporting" based on the 2000
French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Lake Julian is monitored by Carolina
Power and Light Company. Comparison of chemistry characteristics from data obtained
in 1992 and 1996 show that the lake has remained relatively unchanged. In addition, a
special study of trace elements preformed in 1995 showed that trace elements "were
comparable to background concentrations or slightly above background concentrations."
Project Induced Growth
The proposed project is not likely to induce adjacent development as much of the
surrounding area is already developed. The corridor in which this parcel is located has
been specifically targeted by the state for this kind of development. Infrastructure, such
as the road widening of NC 280 and I-26, makes this area the logical location for the
retail services demanded by the growing population. The infrastructure provides the
foundation for commercial development and allows such development to remain
consolidated in one area. This particular parcel is one of the last remaining undeveloped
parcels and is surrounded by other "big-box" developments.

Based on the developed nature of the surrounding area and the overall nature and purpose
of the project, it is not believed that the project will induce adjacent developments that
would have impacts on downstream water quality.
Summary
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust proposes to develop this project in accordance with
likely conditions in the 401 Water Quality Certification and the previously received 404
permit authorizations. The purpose of implementing these guidelines is to protect the
downstream water quality in the area of the project. Based on the projects proximity to I-
26, Airport Road, the Asheville Regional Airport, as well as the surrounding commercial
development, the applicant does not believe that any potential effects on growth will
occur due to the Airport Road Retail Shopping Center project.

ONSITE MITIGATION PLAN
AIRPORT ROAD RETAIL CENTER
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EPC PROJECT NO. MR05008 v a- o~- o a 2 2
USACE P/N: SAW-2006-32342-311 ~-~~~~~~~~~~~
PREPARED FOR:
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
2001 Southeast 10~' Street
Bentonville, AR 72712
PREPARED BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING CONSULTANTS
125 WEST STONE AVENUE
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29608
(864}271-3040
AUGUST 2006
REVISED OCTOBER 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
Impact Overview.
Mitigation Overview..
2 BASELINE INFORMATION OF PROJECT SITE.
3 UNIT 1 : Stream Relocation/Establishment Area.
4 UNIT 2 : Stream Enhancement Area.
5 UNIT 3 : Wetland Creation Areas.
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.
7 Monitoring and Success Criteria..
1
3
7
8
8
APPENDIX 1: Overview Figures and Pictures of Project Site. 10
APPENDIX 2: Level 2 Assessment of Existing Stream Channel. 11
APPENDIX 3: Reference Reach. 12
APPENDIX 4: Restoration Figures. 13
2

1. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Impact Overview
This plan is being submitted by the Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to mitigate for
proposed impacts associated with the construction of the Airport Road Retail Center.
The impacts that are being compensated for include 1.6 acres of wetlands and 504 linear
feet (0.321 acres) of stream/linear wetland.
Stream Mitigation Overview
• To compensate for the proposed stream impacts, this mitigation plan encompasses
a combination of stream relocation/establishment and stream enhancement
activities. A total of 5701inear feet of stream will be improved by the proposed
activities.
• All activities are proposed to take place onsite.
• The overall goals and purpose of the project are to reconnect and enhance
previously disturbed onsite waters.
^ Stream Relocation/Establishment Area (Unit 1): The linear system being
impacted enters the property through an existing pipe, the proposed
activities would extend the pipe and redirect the waters into an existing
ephemeral channel. Approximately, 1601inear feet of ephemeral channel
will be enhanced to accommodate the new flow.
Stream Enhancement Area (Unit 2): As shown in the mitigation overview
figures in Appendix 1, the Stream Relocation/Enhancement Reach flows
into an existing internuttent/perennial system. The existing stream contains
large amounts of solid waste and debris, as well as several areas of bank
failure. The proposed activities will enhance approximately 410 linear feet
of stream channel.
Wetland Mitigation Overview
• To compensate for the proposed wetlands impacts, the applicant proposes a
combination of onsite wetland creation activities as well as utilizing the EEP
program.
^ Wetland Creation Areas (UNIT 3): Two wetland creation areas are
proposed to offset the proposed impacts. As shown on figures in
Appendix 1, a total of 1.45 acres of wetlands are proposed to be created.
2. BASELINE INFORMATION OF PROJECT SITE
Eco-Region -The project is located in the French Broad River Basin (USGS Hydrologic
Unit: 06010105). The project area falls within the Blue Ridge EcoRegion. The Blue
Ridge extends from southern Pennsylvania to northern Georgia, varying from narrow

ridges to hilly plateaus to more massive mountainous areas with high peaks. The mostly
forested slopes, high-gradient, cool, clear streams, and rugged terrain occur on a mix of
igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary geology. Annual precipitation of over 80 inches
can occur on the well-exposed high peaks of the Great Smoky Mountains that reach over
6000 feet above mean sea level. The southern Blue Ridge is one of the richest centers of
biodiversity in the eastern U.S. It is one of the most floristically diverse ecoregions, and
includes Appalachian oak forests, northern hardwoods, and Southeastern spruce-fir
forests. Shrub, grass, and heath balds, hemlock, cove hardwoods, and oak-pine
communities are also significant.
Location- The Airport Road Property consists of approximately 37.287+/- acres and is
located on the west side of Airport Road north of the intersection with I-26 in Buncombe
County, North Carolina. The property is bounded by a mobile home park to the north,
commercial and residential properties to the west, commercial properties to the south, and
Airport Road to the east. A tributary of the French Broad River flows west along a
portion of the northern property boundary. Two small wetlands are adjacent to this
tributary. A linear wetland runs from Airport Road toward the center of the property,
terminating before creating a clear connection with either the tributary or its adjacent
wetlands. To the south and near the center of the property is a larger wetland (1.658
acres) which runs northwest to the property boundary where is connects to the first
tributary. A second u/n tributary of the French Broad River occurs in the southwest
corner of the property and has an associated wetland. The USGS HUC unit is 06010105.
A site location map is provided in the Appendix 1.
The majority of the site was previously harvested for timber. The site is significantly
disturbed with remnant logging debris and rutted out access roads. A protected species
habitat assessment was conducted to determine if habitat for protected species was
present on the property. No federally protected species were identified on the property.
Quantify Wetland Resources - A jurisdictional wetland delineation was conducted on
the property identifying wetlands and waterways. Wetlands, streams and isolated
wetlands comprise 2.59 acres of the property. The first u/n tributary originates on
property and runs east-west along the northern property boundary. The second u/n
tributary run northeast near the western property boundary and includes an associated
wetland. Two small wetland areas are located adjacent and south of the first tributary. A
linear wetland runs east-west from Airport Road towards the center of the property. This
wetland receives runoff from stormwater off Airport Road. A large wetland is located in
the center of the property and runs northwest to the northern portion of the western
property boundary.
Existing Hydrology- Hydrologic characteristics on the property are based on local
rainfall and overflow of the unnamed tributaries of the French Broad River located near
the northern boundary of the property. Stormwater run off from Airport Road enters the
site from a culvert near the center of the eastern property boundary.
4

Existing Vegetation- The majority of the property is considered disturbed by past land
use practices. Existing vegetation consisted primarily of early successional species.
Large areas of Smilax sp. and Juncus effuses were present as well as Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata) and rhododendron.
Existing Soils- The dominant soils within the project area are Tate-Urban Land Complex
and Fannin Loam. Prior site disturbance and soil compaction have resulted in gleyed or
low-chroma color hydric soils with a hue of SY 5/2 and SY 5/1. A USDA soils map is
included in Appendix 1.
Slopes on the property ranged from nearly level to 12%. Soils identified on the property
included the following:
3. UNIT 1: Stream Relocation/Establishment Area
• As shown in pictures included in Appendix 2, the existing ephemeral channel is to
be modified and stabilized to handle the flows redirected into the drainage by the
proposed pipe. We propose to utilize the same dimension pattern and profile
constraints to be utilized in the adjacent, downstream "Stream Enhancement
Area". The derivation of the proposed channel parameters is described below.
• Total stream channel relocated and enhanced: approximately 160 linear feet.
• The same bank protection and replanting proposed for the "Stream Enhancement
Area" will be applied to this reach.
4. UNIT 2: Stream Enhancement Area
LEVEL II STREAM ASSESSMENT
Data collected during the Level II stream survey included, but not limited to: thalweg,
edge of water, water surface, bankfull, top of low bank, width (channel, bankfull), depth
(mean, bankfull, max) and slope. All elevations were measured using a surveyor's rod
and level. Data collected during the analysis is presented in Appendix 2.

• DIMENSION
Stream dimension is measured by the cross section data. Key features along the cross
section are identified including top of bank, breaks in slope along the cross section,
bankfull, edge of water and the thalweg.
These measurements are used to determine and calculate the following stream
dimensions and ratios; bankfull cross sectional area, bankfull width, mean and max
bankfull depth, width/depth ratio, width of flood prone area, entrenchment ratio, and
bank height ratio. The width of flood prone area is the width measurement at an
elevation twice the maximum bankfull depth. The entrenchment ratio is the width of
the flood prone area divided by the bankfull width. The bank height ratio is the height
of the low bank divided by the maximum bankfull depth. These measurements help
determine the degree of vertical containment of the stream channel. Data Summary
sheets for the impaired reach are included in Appendix 2.
PROFILE
The stream channel profile is a description of the gradient and bed facets (riffles,
runs, pools and glides) and the spacing of these facets along the length of the stream.
Profile data is gathered by performing a longitudinal profile of the stream by
surveying the thalweg, edge of water, bankfull and top of low bank (when present) at
least a distance of twenty bankfull widths. Survey data was collected at the top of
each facet. A total of 410 linear feet of the unnamed tributary of the French Broad
River were assessed.
These measurements are used to determine and calculate the following stream
dimensions and ratios; average water surface slope, valley slope, facet slopes, pool to
pool spacing and pool length.
CHANNEL MATERIALS
The channel materials data was collected using the Wolman pebble count methods.
Channel Material Data Summary sheets are included in Appendix 2.
• DATA ANALYSIS
Once the field data was collected it was entered RiverMorph and formulas were
established to calculate the morphological parameters associated with dimension,
profile and channel materials. Estimates of bankfull discharge were determined based
on hydraulic geometry, channel roughness and slope using Manning's equation.
,Level II Assessment Summary of Unnamed Tributary of French Broad River
~.;~
Parameter Pro'ect Reach
Ros en Stream T e Fob
Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 0.0697
Bankfull Width ft. 5.62
Mean Bankfull De th ft. 0.4
6

Width/De th Ratio 14.05
Bankfull Areas . ft. 2.26
Entrenchment Ratio 1.39
Water Surface Sloe % 0.027
Sinuosi K A rox.1.2
D50 mm 5.89
Bankfull Dischar e cfs 7.9
** A more comprehensive list of stream variables is included in the reach comparison
sheets in Appendix 2.
REFERENCE REACH
As shown in figures included in Appendix 3, the chosen reference reach is located on
Little Grove Creek, approximately 51 miles from the project site. This particular
reference was selected because:
^ The valley type, slope and soils are similar to the project area.
^ Many years ago, this reach abandoned it's floodplain, widened and has since
established a bankfull bench and stable form.
^ The reach has been and will continued to be measured annually to monitor
stability.
BASELINE INFORMATION for Reference Reach
^ ECOREGION
"Tributary K Reference Reach" is located on Little Grove Creek in the Grove
Creek watershed of the Saluda River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit: 3,050,109).
The reference area falls within the Southern Lower Piedmont EcoRegion. A site
location map and infrared photo is provided in Appendix 3.
^ SOILS
The dominant soils within the project area are Cartecay sandy loam and Toccoa
sandy loam associations. A USDA soils map is included in Appendix 3.
VEGETATION
The forest along Little Grove Creek has been undisturbed for at least 2 decades.
The forests maintain a diverse assemblage of tree. Some tree species found in the
project area include white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), black
oak (Quercus veluntina), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), maple (Ater rubrum),
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hemlock (Tsuga sp.), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
• LEVEL II STREAM ASSESSMENT of Reference Reach
Similar to the project reach a Level II Assessment was performed, data collected
during the survey is summarized in Appendix 3.
7

!~ Levei II Assessment Summary o~ reference reach K on LittEe Grove Creek ':
Parameter Pro'ect Reach
Ros en Stream T e B4c - C4
Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 2.073
Bankfull Width ft. 17.9
Mean Bankfull De th ft. 1.74
Width/De th Ratio 10.31
Bankfull Areas . ft. 31.3
Entrenchment Ratio 3.62
Water Surface Sloe % 0.005
Sinuosi K A rox.1.6
D50 mm 1.75
Bankfull Dischar e cfs 154
** A more comprehensive list of stream variables is included in Appendix 3.
Data generated from the reference reach was utilized to create dimensionless ratios,
which were utilized a parameters for the stream restoration design.
4. RESTORATION PLAN
• Restoration figures are included in Appendix 4.
Work in the "Stream Enhancement Area" will involve the removal of all solid waste
debris within the existing channel. In addition, spot stabilization using hand tools and
Bio-D70 matting will occur in areas showing signs of bank failure. More extensive
bank sloping will not take place due to the proximity of the stream to the property
line.
o Dimension Adjustments - "Stream Relocation/Establishment Reach"
• Across section of the proposed channel is included in Appendix 4.
Summaries of the proposed channel dimensions are included in
Appendix 4.
• As shown in the Typical bank stabilization diagram included in
Appendix 4, Bio-D70 matting will be utilized to stabilize the banks
and the banks will be vegetated with a combination of herbs and
woody vegetation. A list of vegetation proposed to be planted can be
found in Appendix 4.
• In-stream structures (cross vanes) will be utilized to prevent down
cutting. They will be placed at the top and bottom of the "Stream
Relocation/Enhancement Reach.
• All of the structures are proposed to be made of rocks, wood or a
combination rock and wood.

Proposed Cliannel Parameters
Parameter Pro'ect Reach
Ros en Stream T e Bob - E4b
Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 0.0697
Bankfull Width ft. 4.4
Mean Bankfull De th ft. 0.51
Width/De th Ratio 8.58
Bankfull Areas . ft. 2.24
Entrenchment Ratio 3.62
Water Surface Sloe % 0.023
Sinuosi K A rox.1.3
Bankfull Dischar e cfs 7.84
** A more comprehensive list of stream variables is included in Appendix 4
5. UNIT 3: Wetland Creation Areas
As shown on figures in Appendix 1, the proposed creation areas are downhill from the
wetland areas proposed to be impacted and adjacent to an existing wetland. The success
of the wetland creation areas relies on providing appropriate hydrology, soils, and
vegetation.
Planned Hydrology- Due to the existing topography and stream channels that
cross the area, this portion of the property is inherently wet. Prior to previous
disturbance the existing wetlands were presumably much larger. The hydrology
provided to this area should be increased due to the proposed storm water
management and grade modifications. The hydrology will be further assisited by
minor grading that will result in lowered topography.
Planned Soils- The hydric soils (top 12" to 18") of the areas to be impacted will
be removed and stockpiled for use in the wetland creation areas. The wetland
creation areas will be initially excavated 12" to 18"below proposed grade, and
then backfilled with the stockpiled hydric soils. Preserving the naturally occurring
hydric soils containing the existing seed bank should promotes the establishment
of native hydrophytes and aid in containing necessary hydrology.
Planned Vegetation - It is assumed that the seed bank present within the
transplanted hydric soils will supply the needed herbs. Woody trees and shrubs
will be planted 8 ft. on center. At least 915 trees, shrubs and/or saplings will be
planted in the created forested wetland area. Planting schedules for each species
and plant category is dependent on dormancy period and expected germination
times. It is expected that most of the planting will occur during late fall or early
spring periods. Vegetation characteristics for each area will be designed to allow
the highest species diversity and greatest vegetation survival rates. Selected
species will be dependent on availability of transplants. The floristic composition
of the existing wetland areas was analyzed to aid in creating the list of species to
9

be planted. All selected species will be native to North Carolina and will be
obtained from local nurseries if possible. A vegetation list of species that may be
utilized is included in Appendix 4.
6. Mitigation Work Plan.
• All work will be done utilizing current Best Management Practices.
• All disturbed riparian areas will be replanted 8 to 12 ft on center with bare root or
containerized woody trees and shrubs. (Species List in Appendix 4).
Adaptive Management Clause:
• During construction minor changes to the proposed restoration may be made if
more logical or affective means to achieve the projected goals becomes apparent.
Construction Schedule
• All proposed restoration activities will begin once the final grades have been
acquired for the proposed project and adjacent slopes have been stabilized. The
restoration activities will be complete prior to the completion of the construction
of the proposed project.
7. Monitoring and Success Criteria
• 6 monitoring reports over 5 years (a 6-month and 5 annual) will be submitted to
the USACE for review.
Monitoring reports will include:
o Photographs taken from established photo locations that will depict all of
the restoration sites.
0 4 Permanent cross sections will be established along the enhanced
tributaries. Cross sections will be overlaid with previous reports to
determine if the streams dimension is changing.
o Survival rates of planted woody vegetation in both riparian and wetland
areas will be analyzed utilizing a stem count.
o Hydrology success will be monitored utilizing peizometers.
Success Criteria:
o Vegetation success on both stream buffer areas and within the created
wetland areas, will be qualified by 75% survival.
o Hydrology success within the created wetland areas will be achieved by
having soils saturation within 14 inches of the surface for 3 consecutive
weeks during the growing season. Hydrology will be regularly monitored
for level of saturation, using established piezometers.
• Contingency Plan:
If changes to the streams dimension, pattern or profile are deemed to be negative,
leading toward instability, changes to the stream may be made.
10

o Changes may include:
• Placement of in-stream structures to stabilize the stream.
• Modifying the streams dimension to establish a more appropriate
stream dimension.
• Stabilizing the stream banks with additional coir matting and
vegetation.
If the created wetland fails to meet hydrologic standards; the elevations within the
created wetland may be adjusted or adjustments may be made to redirect surface
flows through the created wetland areas. If the wetlands fail to meet vegetation
success the areas will be replanted with different species or hardier stock.
Party Responsible for Mitigation Activities: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust.
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust.
11

APPENDIX l: Overview Figures and Pictures of Project Site
10

~~~~~~ GRAPHIC SCALE
250 0 250 500 LOCATION MAP SHEET NO.
I I I I Figure 1
~~~~~
J~
1 inch = 500 feet Airport Road Retail Center
Of
$ j ~ ~ Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
DRAWN BYE Imh Appendix 1
(~~~p
(;~°
~Y~~v ~~~~~~~
`~' ~' n Past office Bax 3744
Greenville, SG 29608
271
P
3040 DATE: 08/08/2006 Buncombe County, NC
~
-
hone: (664)
Fax: [phone]
EPC PROJECT NO.: MROSjwd008
USACE PIN: OF
Nroperty ~3oundary REVISIONS

Property boundary
~~®~~ GRAPHIC SCALE
o
2
0
2
AERIAL PHOTO SHEET NO.
~
i
i i Figure 2
`~j~~
~~j~ 1 inch = 500 feet Airport Road Retail Center Of
~i `Nal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
Imh
DRAWN BY Appendix 1
~*~~~~~~°~
~" Po„ or~~e ea.3,aa
cn~,~~ne sczssofi :
DATE: 08/082006 Buncombe County, NC
~
v `~ a
Pnone: (86a) 27t-30x0
Paz: (864) 2959299

EPC PROJECT NO.: MR05008

USACE P/N: OF

Source: Buncombe County
GIS

~~~~~~~ GRAPHIC SCALE
2I0 i 2I0 i°
SOILS MAP SHEET NO.
-, Figrure 3
~~~~ 1 inch = 500 feet Airport Road Retail Center Of
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
DRAWN BY
Imh Appendix 1
~p i~
1
~~
~~~V ~l.~ ~~~~~
h Pos[OHice Bax 3744
Greenville, $C 296°8
Phone: (B64) 2713040 :
DATE: °6/°8/2006 Buncombe Counh~, NC
`7
~
Fax: [phone]
EPC PROJECTNO.:
USACE PAN: OF
Land Complex Fannin Loam 8-15~
2-15~ slopes slopes

Riparian Buffer
Avg width 100 feet
n nn
ENVIRONMENTAL
PERMITTING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
700 0 700 200
~ i i ~
1 inch = 200 feet
Posl OHlce Boz 3744 DRAWN BV: hpg
Greenville, SC 29608 DATE. py~p8~2pp8
Phune: [phone]
Fax: [phone] EPC PROJECT Nm1R05pcn008
"Stream Enhancement "Stream Relocation/Establishment Area"
Area"
_ _ ~ .. _ Annrox_ l f,(1 lin fPPY
Onsite Mitigation Overview
Airport Road Retail Center
Wal-Mart Real Estate
Buncombe County, NC
USACE P/N:.
SHEET NO.
Figure
of
OF
Created Wetland 1 Created Wetland 2
24,289 sq. ft. 36866 sq. ft.
0.56 acre 0.85 acre

- --
- --_._ -
vvvvv'-LTvvvvvvv ~vv~wv0`OVVQwvv`,vvv
._,
Q-vw,vvvvw~~vvvvvv~vvv~pvv`vovvw.`vvv-v--v~wv.,pv~v
vvv ~'~Q v v v v v ~~~r \
v, v v v R v v ~~0 v v vw v v v v v 4_, v v v ~Iv R
~,w v v v v ~~, v v v v ~`v~ O v 0 `~ v v v~ II, v D ~w ~~ v v v v v ~.~~' --z
___
vvv\q,vvvvv-~~vvvv~vvvv~ vvvvvvwvv4.v v_, ~%
~wvvv`"'~,,vvvvv~w~-~yvvvw;.v,,vvvv vvvv ~~w. ;
.,_ .,~
~.
~.~ v ~v v v v v ~ n®"' _ ate' ~~ / % ~ _ -/ _.
p ,.
v w v ~ ~ ~ srag.~~f~Etzk~_ / ~ ~~ - ,_
////
_^ ~.
t..._->~. - -
\-- --
..~-.. ,65 ,'
~~ _ __>
~ IPP
1 ~©~ -
o ,_, -
b .
N
\ -
\~. ~ - - .~
N.
_`
//
''\
- - -
'~r
z,bi,- ------ _ _ - - -
-s,. _ _____ ~ _ - _ _ ~`.,,--_ __~ -- ~ _~ -
Created Wetland 1 Created Wetland 2
24,289 sq. ft. 36866 sq. ft.
0.56 acre 0.85 acre
i~
~'
r'(j
N
N
~'
~~-
~~
- ws
Riparian Buffer
Avg width 100 feet
2.07 acres
!b
Y
f
/__-'
~A i.,
`.,1~~
......~
GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS SHEET NO.
ENVIRONMENTAL '~ ; ~ ~ Wetland Miti
ation Areas
g Figure 5
PERMITTING 1 inch = 80 feet Airport Road Retail Center of

CONSULTANTS
INC
~
~
e sc23
AT
NBY Wal-Mart Real Estate
Appendix 1
,
. O
een
W
9508 D
E
0&08/2005 Buncombe County, NC
Pnme: (554) 271-3oao
Fax: [phone]
EPC PROJECT NO.: MR05008
USACE P/N:.
OF
~ ~ l7
O ~'
`\~_ 1

"Stream Enhancement
Area" 410 lin. feet
"Stream Relocation/Establishment Area"
Approx. 160 lin. feet
'ipe
)iversion of flow frotn
xisting 30" RCP
ENVIRONMENTAL
PERMITTING
CONSULTANTS, INC
GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS
50 D ~ ,Oo
1 inch = 100 feet
Post Otficn eox 3744 DRAWN BY: kpg
Grnenwlln, SC 29608 DATE: 08/U8/2008
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] EPC PROJECT N01R05pcn008
Stream Mitigation Areas
Airport Road Retail Center
Wal-Mart Real Estate
Buncombe County
USACE P/N:.
SHEET NO.
Figure
of
Appendi 1
OF

Picture #4: View of exiting stream
to be enhanced.
Picture #6: View of lower end of
proposed enhancement reach.
Figure 8
of
Appendix 1
Picture #5: Additional View of
proposed enhancement area.

APPENDIX 2: Level 2 Assessment of Existing Stream Channel

RIVERNIORPH REACH SUMMARY
River Name: Unnamed tributary of French Broad River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Stream Type Valley Type D50(mm) Val Slope BKF Q(cfs) DA(sq mi)
F 4b VIII 5.89 0.031 7.9 0.0697
Dimension Summary
Variable
Floodprone Width (ft)
Riffle Area (Sq ft)
Max Riffle Depth (ft)
Mean Riffle Depth (ft)
Riffle Width (ft)
Pool Area (Sq ft)
Max Pool Depth (ft)
Mean Pool Depth (ft)
Pool Width (ft)
Pattern Summary
Variable
Min Avg Max
7.8 7.8 7.8
2.26 2.26 2.26
0.59 0.59 0.59
0.4 0.4 0.4
5.62 5.62 5.62
3.97 3.97 3.97
1.27 1.27 1.27
1.11 1.11 1.11
3.58 3.58 3.58
Min Avg Max
Sinuosity 1.2
Profile Summary
Data Based on the following:
Variable
S riffle (ft/ft)
Spool (ft/ft)
S run (ft/ft)
S glide (ft/ft)
P-P(ft)
P length (ft)
Dmax riffle (ft)
Dmax pool (ft)
Dmax run (ft)
Dmax glide (ft)
Low Bank Ht (ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Hydraulic Summary
Variable
Discharge (cfs)
Velocity (fps)
Hyd Radius (ft)
Bkf Shear (lb/ sq ft)
Mm Avg Max
0.02719 0.03611 0.04512
0.00386 0.00882 0.01345
0.00748 0.10578 0.37329
0.0092 0.01265 0.02074
19.22 30.64 35.75
5.88 11.67 16.26
0 0.59 0
1.27 1.27 1.27
0 0 0
0 0 0
1.59 4.41 6.1
0.027
Min Avg Max
7.9
4
0.38 0.38 0.38
0.72 0.72 0.72
Figure 1
of
Appendix 2

L
}.
.Q
~-+
L
U
(D
N
C
:_•
V/
~X
W
O
N
w=
O
^L
LL
~_
~-+
.~
Q
J
- ~
N
N X
~~«..
~ O ~
~ Q
ll.. Q
Q
~_
E
L
c
0
m
v
c
m

(~) uoi~enai3

N
M X
N
C
O
a
m
U
cQ
7
N
(Q

Y /
~T/~~
VJ
N N
0
C o
O~
+~
J
~+/~'~ Y
V/ C
v , ~Q
^, m
W
~_

W
X
A
N 3
C
.O
a
c
0
C7
(~j) UOI}BA813
~ ~ ~
c°v ~ ~ y
°' a
ii a
Q

V
c
c~
_~
O
N
~L
O
2

M~
W
r•~
v /
O
a
N ~
C y,
o x
~ ~
a~ 4
U
N
7
f6
7
ti
I
~'
o x
U C
C
7
Y
C
m
m

~;
x
N 3
C
O
a
c
O
C7
N
O
N
tI7
•~+
u
Q~
U
C
f6
_~
o C
O
N
.~
O

u~
0
N
d' X
7 O y
C) Q
~ Q
Q
(~}) uoi~ana13

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: unnamed tributary of French Broad River
Reach Name: Reach 1
sample Name: Riffle
survey Date: 08/08/06
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 6 6.00 6.00
0.062 - 0.125 6 6.00 12.00
0.125 - 0.25 12 12.00 24.00
0.25 - 0.50 12 12.00 36.00
0.50 - 1.0 14 14.00 50.00
1.0 - 2.0 10 10.00 60.00
2.0 - 4.0 6 6.00 66.00
4.0 - 5.7 8 8.00 74.00
5.7 - 8.0 0 0.00 74.00
8.0 - 11.3 8 8.00 82.00
11.3 - 16.0 2 2.00 84.00
16.0 - 22.6 0 0.00 84.00
22.6 - 32.0 0 0.00 84.00
32 - 45 10 10.00 94.00
45 - 64 6 6.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.17
D35 (mm) 0.48
D50 (mm) 1
D84 (mm) 16
D95 (mm) 48.17
D100 (mm) 64
Silt/Clay (%) 6
Sand (%) 54
Gravel (%) 40
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 100.
Figure 5
of
Appendix 2

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: unnamed tributary of French Broad River
Reach Name: Reach 1
sample Name: Reach
Survey Date: 08/08/06
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 3 2.97 2.97
0.062 - 0.125 3 2.97 5.94
0.125 - 0.25 12 11.88 17.82
0.25 - 0.50 11 10.89 28.71
0.50 - 1.0 5 4.95 33.66
1.0 - 2.0 5 4.95 38.61
2.0 - 4.0 5 4.95 43.56
4.0 - 5.7 10 9.90 53.47
5.7 - 8.0 6 5.94 59.41
8.0 - 11.3 5 4.95 64.36
11.3 - 16.0 8 7.92 72.28
16.0 - 22.6 9 8.91 81.19
22.6 - 32.0 7 6.93 88.12
32 - 45 5 4.95 93.07
45 - 64 7 6.93 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.23
D35 (mm) 1.27
D50 (mm) 5.1
D84 (mm) 26.41
D95 (mm) 50.29
D100 (mm) 64
Silt/Clay (%) 2.97
Sand (%) 35.64
Gravel (%) 61.39
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 101.
Figure 6
of
Appendix 2

APPENDIX 3: Reference Reach Figures and Pictures
12

r-1- _-.-~'~anton ~ '' ~
,;~:~' ~.~ Skyland-'~-_~ g t_ Project
;~, .. _~; ,,y Site
~, ~ `
~' ~`~~FisR.~,h'~: l etc h e r "•.,._ t
%1 215 ~V,a~xana~ ~ r' -•. -~,
Fares? 181 ~'~ ~+
~ ~ '- --~' ~ ~ ~~'' ~ ~-f~' a; t I r ,., i t c~ I ~.i
r t _;..
~ 278 f ~ '~ ~-~Balfou pin dale
r -~- r`.
Pis ah ~'
~;~ '~--_ ~ ~~•~, ack t.,',m~~l~._ ;>ato e`en.
r"s~ ~ ~ Fo rest ~ ', ~`~H e
~ • - ~.. . a ~r.
~ ~ ~ ~_~ -•
.t~~{•,,.Llr.l .l ra1ns~-lvan,i~,ti --`-'tT~yon. ~- ~4lumbuS `~,y
#~~-Rosmany_~_ 25 `*~ `, r f_ -: _ ~hesne+
_ ,
I ~„~-
" `
rshrers X14 ~ a i ;' -- - 4- :.
1~ 7Q ` ~ ~ fT
,- ~ v 414 ,, ~ ~
1° _ ~j; -'-'''"~/ i~,, .tut i I Is ~~'I ``~ ~' ~ ~ y
{ ~ ,! pp•- ~" -.--GreenvT I~_ ~ r' '•. Covirpen ., 51.3 miles
# ~-y-'~ X08 , --r'e- 1 ~ .~1 --~~ 'et11 '•~, ti (t` 1 ti.~ t 1 ~ -.--
.......~~~`~ f f ,, e '• ~ ~~ 2~0 '~, r' +~ , 'S,partant~ur
'•, __ ~'t _ ~.... 'Career=.--- _ ___
.- _
_...
-- ayl
T
Rtck~ns Be - '- L -
t 30 133 ~-- - -- re a r-. ,,~ . - ,.,-~t-- ~ `~-,,;~.__ .
S } ,~'- ~ I l:l'. N 115 ^•..~ . tr ,'f r' 1 K'-,' 1 ~Q
~.---- -- 163 ``~ 1' _ J ,i 153 .~ 1 _ 28@ f ~41~• ,
ilElrt-' ~ ! ~,{,. L erty I Sircipsonvllle~~ •. ~ rWoo ruff II _ -
f; ~~ Central ~` ~`: ~'',.~ - ~ E"~''' '~-r``•Fountairl ="~ ~ 8u
' ~ '~ ~ * _'~': -', t nn t Reference
+•-- C,I'e son 88 - ~ ,
VestmCnsfe r ...n. ~.;~ - _
1 Reach
---- ~ Anndrdtnn `'1 ~ _ 1 ,• ,r Site
ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS SHEET NO.
25,000 ~ 25.W0 5°,i°° Relative Location Map
Figure 1
PERMITTING 1 inch = 5o,0ofBet Airport Road Retail Center Of
CONSULTANTS I N C , Posl Oflice Box 3744 DRAWN BY: KPG Wal-Mart Real Estate Appendix 3
claa„~~ua,scz95ue DATE: 08/Ufl,20U6 Buncombe Count , NC
7 Phano: Idti4)271-3040 y
Fax. (fi54) 2359295 EPC PROJECT NO.: MR05008 USACE P/N:. OF

Reference
Reach Location
Source: Topo PelzerSE
,~N .
.~
.- " ..' "~
,~ _ ~:
~ ,,''
GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS SHEET NO.
ENVIRONMENTAL z;° i 2;° ;° Reference Reach Location
Figure 2
PERMITTING 1 inch = 500 feet Airport Road Retail Center o f
Posi Office BOx 3744 DRAWN BY: KPO Wal-Mart Real Estate
A
di
3
CONSULTANTS I N C Dfed11V1~~e S~ 29B°8 DATE
°0/°B/2°UB Buncombe County
NC ppen
x
.
7 Phone: (tl64) L7~-3°4°
Fan: ~864~ 235-9299 .
EPC PROJECT NO.: 0611fi ,
USACE PlN:.
OF

.:
._ -
` ~-'

~+,,° ~~
- , ,,,~ b
;~ ~,r,.
ail ~'`~ ~,+~'`

~ ~

,fie

~ •
~~
'
Reference
_ ~t Reach Location
~+

_

.z.. ~,
~~
~~;.u
~ * 'iry.

g~+-,
t..a~.', x y

x ~ y
' `

~~ ~ ~~._
1~._
y ..
~.
~~

GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS SHEET NO.
ENVIRONMENTAL '
° 2
°
'
°
i
i
i
i Aerial -Reference F2ea ch
Figure 3
PERMITTING ~ ~N~h = 20o feet Airport Road Retail Center of

N B~ Wal-Mart Real EstatE:
Appendix 3
CONSULTANTS
I N C P°o °"~d ~~fi
o~E B
C
,
. ~ 27170iU °W°~ uncombe
ounty, N~
Fex: [phone] EPC PROJECT NO.: 06716 USACE P/N:. OF

RIVERMORPH REACH SUMMARY
River Name: K ref
Reach Name: Reach 1
Stream Type Valley Type D50(mm) Val Slope BKF Q(cfs) DA(sq mi)
C 4 VIII 2.85 0.009 154 2.703
Dimension Summary
Variable Min Avg Max
Floodprone Width (ft) 64.94 65 65
Riffle Area (Sq ft} 31.3 31.3 31.3
Max Riffle Depth (ft) 2.46 2.46 2.46
Mean Riffle Depth (ft) 1.74 1.74 1.74
Riffle Width (ft) 17.94 17.94 17.94
Pool Area (Sq R) 25.97 25.97 25.97
Max Pool Depth (ft) 2.61 2.61 2.61
Mean Pooi Depth (ft) 1.46 1.46 1.46
Pool Width (ft) 17.75 17.75 17.75
Run Area (Sq ft) 18.31 18.31 18.31
Max Run Depth (ft) 1.6 1.6 1.6
Mean Run Depth (ft) 0.82 0.82 0.82
Run Width (ft) 22.46 22.46 22.46
Glide Area (Sq ft) 27.88 27.88 27.88
Max Glide Depth (ft) 2.26 2.26 2.26
Mean Glide Depth (ft) 1.41 1.41 1.41
Glide Width (ft) 19.73 19.73 19.73
Pattern Summary
Variable Min Av g Max
Sinuosity 1.6
Meander Wavelength (ft) 87 125 160
Radius of Curvature (ft) 26 29 42
Belt Width (ft) 37 47 67
Profile Summary
Variable Min Avg Max
S riffle (ft/ft) 0.01817 0 .02078 0.02272
S pool (ft/ft) 0 0 .00164 0.00379
S run (ft/ft) 0.02065 0.03398 0.04089
S glide (ft/ft) 0.00316 0 .00491 0.00757
P - P (ft) 28.48 63.45 97.11
P length (ft) 8.54 34.6 78.31
Dmax riffle (ft) 0 2.46 0
Dmax pool (ft) 2.61 2.61 2.61
Dmax run (ft) 1.6 1.6 1.6
Dmax glide (ft) 2.26 2.26 2.26
Low Bank Ht (ft) 4.71 5 5.36
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.00513
Hydraulic Summary
Variable Min Avg Max
Discharge (cfs) 154
Velocity (fps) 4.9
Hyd Radius (ft) 1.62 1.62 1.62
Bkf Shear (lb/ sq ft) 0.52 0.52 0.52
Figure 5
of
Appendix 3

ch
~ x
~~~
~ o y
~ a
iL a
Q
N
O
^L
LL
Y
LL
r
~/
U
C
L
Q~
Q~

(~}) uoi~enal3
~'
Q1
C
_o
f~
N
U
C
fC
N

N
C
~'
` o
o a
N U U
C
a° ~ ~
~
~
C ~

7 Y N
~ ~ c0
(~ OJ

^t
~\ .^1
Y^ ~~
if y
~L ~
a
~../
r
M
M
C
O
(6 ''
+•
~~~
N c
U
C
L
~F~
N~
I.L
x
3
M
ti x
~ ~ ~
7 O ~
ii a
Q

a~
U
C
fC
~_
f~
C
0
N
~L
(~}) uai~ena13

CJ
I
Y
S
~•
Y
.~
0
0
~~
a~ ~~
U w
C -~
~ ~
i °
N
C
a
d
0
C9
N
O
U
c
c
m
m

c
'o
d
m
U
`m
m

N
C7
M
oD X
~ O ~
ii a
Q

a~
U
C
co
_~
c
0
N
~L
O
2
ti
I
3
(~}) uoi~ena13
O

M
N ~ X
N C
o ~ ~ ~
p

N o a ~
D.

C
° U

~ U
~p
~ LL Q
Q
a
~ ~ ~
C
7
O Y

~ d

N
~
(7 m
~ ~
^i
n
Y .~
~~
~L
~--~
`~
~/
~~~n~
VJ ~
~ n
N~ w
L.L ~
^` G
W
U
^C
W
L
~+-
N

n
N
N
I
w
C
3
O
to
O
R
O

U
C
(C
~_
N C
0
N
.`
O
2
O
O
(}}) uoi~enal3

N
~
Uf
`
o a
N U
C U ~p
° ~ ~
a
~ ~
~
C N
7 Y
O ~ N
C7 m ~
~ ~
T
r
~\ '~
Y~~
~x
~L a
~~
N
C
O
Cn `~
~ ~~
w
rn~ x
V
U
C
N
L
L.1...

a~
U
C
(Q
w
~_
0
f~
c
0
N
~L
O
O ~
~ X
~ '~ C
~ ~ Q~
°-' a
'~ a
(~) uoi~ena13

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: K ref
Reach Name: Reach 1
sample Name: Reach
survey Date: 07/19/06
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062 7 6.67 6.67
0.062 - 0.125 2 1.90 8.57
0.125 - 0.25 4 3.81 12.38
0.25 - 0.50 12 11.43 23.81
0.50 - 1.0 12 11.43 35.24
1.0 - 2.0 10 9.52 44.76
2.0 - 4.0 13 12.38 57.14
4.0 - 5.7 3 2.86 60.00
5.7 - 8.0 6 5.71 65.71
8.0 - 11.3 8 7.62 73.33
11.3 - 16.0 4 3.81 77.14
16.0 - 22.6 11 10.48 87.62
22.6 - 32.0 10 9.52 97.14
32 - 45 3 2.86 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.33
D35 (mm) 0.99
D50 (mm) 2.85
D84 (mm) 20.32
D95 (mm) 29.89
D100 (mm) 45
Silt/Clay (%) 6.67
Sand (%) 38.09
Gravel (%) 55.24
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 105.
Figure 11
of
Appendix 3

:e

;e
13
dix 3

APPENDIX 4: Restoration Figures
13

RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: Unnamed tributary of French Broad River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Reference Reach: K ref; Reach 1 (C 4)
-Boundary Conditions-
Drainage Area: 0.0697 sq mi
Valley Slope: 0.031 ft/ft
Bankfull Discharge: 7.9 cfs
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 2.26 sq ft
Mean Depth Calculation Tolerance: 0.2 ft
--Sediment Data-
Riffle Bed Material tD: Riffle
Riffle Bed Material D84: 16 mm
Riffle Bed Material D50: 1 mm
Bar Sample ID:
Bar Sample Dmax: 30 mm
Bar Sample D50: 0.5 mm
---NCD Results-----------
-Alignment-
Meander Wavelength: 36.5 ft
Channel Length: 48.58 ft
Sinuosity: 1.33
Radius of Curvature: 7.13 ft
Bankfull Slope: 0.02329
Meander Belt Width: 14.4 ft
Meander Width Ratio: 3.27
Deflection Angle: .1 rad
-Riffle Cross Sectional Properties--
Width to Depth Ratio: 8.58
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.62
Floodprone Width: 15.93 ft
Bankfull Width: 4.4 ft
Bankfull Mean Depth: 0.51 ft
Bankfull Velocity: 3.5 ft/s
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius: 0.42 ft
Bankfull Shear Stress: 0.61 Ibs/sq ft
Required Roughness (n): 0.0364 ft^(1/6)
Entrainable Particle Size: 36.6 mm
-Rosgen Stream Classification-
Reference Reach : C 4
Proposed Reach : E 4b
Existing Reach : F 4b
-pediment Transport Competency-
Ratio -Riffle Slope /Bankfull Slope: 4.05
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar: 2.000
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (1): 0.0456
Required Mean Depth (1): 0.32 ft
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed: 30.000
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2): 0.0019
Required Mean Depth (2): 0.01 ft
Minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.32 ft
Figure 1
of
Appendix 4

v
N X
~ ~ d
a
ii a
Q
C
O
U
N
N
O
L
U
m
a~
0
a
0
L

M x
~ o ~
~ a
ii a
Q
C
O
U
N
N
O
U
0
0
m
0
a
0
/~L
L.L

~~. (70

~ i~ ~
~ ~
r1 ~
W C
N

.~.d II, .~
L .0
~ r
~
~
L -p ~
~
O ~
-~
~ ~ O
0 ''
•-
~
~~
N
._
i.~

•~--i
V J
i
i
~
MM
W

U
..

O
ti
,~
N
0
0
m
- I I I I I I - 29.00
~I
-28.00
II I -27.00
~~_ -
Y°
i I
~
-26.00
i :
~ I I
> ~=- I
I 11 (-25.00
I-
s:
~ ~ ~ 2a.oo
I = 23.00
III 22.00
III- 2t.oo
III 20.00
III- 19.00
I I 18.00
17.00
I (I t 6.00
-_ 15.00
I I I 14.00
I I- 13.00
I I I 12.00
I- 11.00
III 10.00
III- .oa
I I .00
III - 7.00
-III .oo
III- •oo
.~~
III - 3.00
I I I 2.00
_I I (- 1.00
0 of aD ~: ~c Sri a ri ni
Z ~ X
N _ ~
W ~ O N tL
W ~ Q 0
~ ~ Q
m
_ m ~ ~,
~ ~ w
0
D ~~a
C o ~ E
~ ~ ~ ~
m ~~m
'a
z
a
w
W ~~
J Z
Q
U = "'
fn m
n ; w ~
o~~
~ o
~~~~
~ ~~;~
~~~
a z~
{--i
w~E"'
~~
z~"~
o ~ ,~
x ~
zaz
w o

REVIS
Source: Rosgen, David L. 2001. ASCE Conference

ENVIRONMENTAL

PERMITTING GRAPHIC SCALE

i i i ___ _~
1 inch = feet
Typical Cross Vane Detail

Airport Road Retail Center
Wal-Mart Real Estate SHEET NO.

Figure 5
Of
4
di
PostOficeBox3744 ORAWNBY KPG
NC
ombe County
B x
A en
PP
INC
CONSULTANTS cree~~na,scz9soe pA~, oe~oe2oos ,
unc F
.
, Pfro~e: fe5a)27,•3040
Fax: [phone] EPC PROJECT NO.: USACE PIN: O
flow

TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN
RIPARIAN AREAS
Trees
Amelanchier canadensis Serviceberry
Caprinus caroliniana Ironwood
Cercis canadensis Redbud
Celtis lavie ata Su azberry
Corpus florida Do ood
Diopyrus vir iniana Persimmon
Fraxinus ensvlvanica Green Ash
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
uercus alba White Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Ouercus ni ra Water Oak
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokebe
Callica a Americana Berrybeauty
Cal canthus oridus Sweetshrub
Cephalanthus occidentalis . Button Bush
Chinonanthus vir inicus Frin a Tree
Cornus amomum Si Do ood
Itea vir inica Vir inia Sweet S ire
Lindera aestivale S icebush
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac
Sambuscus canadensis Elderberry
Yaccinium arboretum Sparkleberry
Yaccinium dentatum Arrow Wood
Yaccinium nudum Possum Haw
TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED
IN CREATED WETLAND AREAS
Trees
Betula ni a River Birch
Alnus serrulata Alder
Fraxinus en Ivanica Green Ash
uercus alba White Oak
uercus hellos Willow Oak
ercus ni ra Water Oak
*N ssa lvatica Black Gum
*Acer ne ndo Box elder
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata Ta Alder
*Salix ni a Black willow
Ce halanthus occidentalis Button Bush
Cornus amomum Si Do ood
Clethra alni olia Sweet Pe erbush
Viburnum dentatum Arrow Wood
* Found in existing wetlands
**Planting schedules for each species and plant category is dependent on dormancy period and expected germination times.
it is expected that most of the planting will occur during early spring or late fall periods. Vegetation chazacteristics for the
area will be designed to allow the highest species diversity and greatest vegetation survival rates. Selected species will be
dependent on availability of transplants. All selected species will be native to North Carolina and will be obtained from local
nurseries if possible. The following list includes a selection of species that may be used for the restoration project.
Figure fi
of
Appendix 4