20110645 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Addendum_20140707

EMMA ao�la��S
w�
�aE�lR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Michael Ellison, Director John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Ecosystem Enhancement Program Secretary
June 13, 2014 l
Todd Tugwell II !, iiJJ
Special Projects Manager -IRT Chair 7 c u
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers ,J NR
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road W� ter' :storm aun'
'' "�,' ► t3ranch
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: East Fork of the Pigeon River Wetlands — Design Bid Build Project
Mitigation Plan Addendum
French Broad River Basin — CU# 06010106
Haywood County
NCEEP Project # 94203
USACE Action ID# 2010 -01783
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests the IRTs review and approval of a mitigation
plan addendum for the East Fork of the Pigeon River Wetland Site in Haywood County. On
November 3, 2010, the USACE approved a Jurisdictional Determination on the project site.
The mitigation plan for the project was completed by Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc
(Currently AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.) in March 241 1.
The established mitigation goals for the Site were to enhance and protect existing wetlands and
wildlife habitat along the East Fork Pigeon River. Specifically, the target goal was the vegetative
enhancement of the existing wetland community on the site. The project objectives included:
• Enhance existing wetlands by removing identified invasive plant species through manual
and /or chemical methods and by planting native species within the site.
• Protecting the wetlands on the site with a permanent Conservation Easement.
The project did not require Clean Water Act Section 404 / Section 401 permits as no ground
disturbing activities within jurisdictional wetlands were anticipated or completed on the site.
Additionally, the project was instituted prior to July 28, 2010 and did not require a mandatory IRT
mitigation plan review.
The March 2011 mitigation plan reported potential mitigation assets on the site as follows:
1652 Mail SeRice Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Oppo tunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — blade in part by recycled paper

Fact Fork of the Pigeon River Wetlands — 2011 Mitigation Plan Assets
Wetland/Stream
Mitigation Type
Quantity
Feature
Perennial Stream
Stream Preservation
664 linear Feet
_ 5:1 A�_
_ 132 SMUs
East Fork of the
Pigeon River
Stream Preservation
1,411 linear feet
5:1 _
282 SMUs
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest -
Wetland
5.64 acres
2:1
2.8 WMUs
Planted
Enhancement
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest -
Wetland
0.02 acre
2:1
0.1 WMUs
Not Planted
Enhancement
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest —
Wetland Preservation
8.29
5.1
1.6 WMUs
Not Planted
TOTALS
414 SMUs &
4.5 WMUs
The control of nuisance plant species within the bottomland hardwood forest and shrub /groundstory
open areas on the Site entailed the treatment of the seven invasive nuisance plant species: Bamboo
(Phyllostachys sp.), common cattail (Typha latifolia), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese
knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), kudzu (Pueraria
montana), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
A majority of the invasive species were mapped in the 2011 mitigation plan; however Chinese
privet and multiflora rose were essentially scattered throughout the entire bottomland hardwood
forest. The control methods entailed the treatment of small -sized plants with foliar spray and larger
stems by hack and squirt. The chemical `aquatic glyphosate' was used for the herbicide
applications. The cut bamboo was placed in a slash pile and burned on the site. New shoots of
bamboo, which developed after the initial treatment, were treated with aquatic glyphosate. All
invasive control treatments and planting efforts were conducted by Habitat Assessment &
Restoration Professionals (HARP) (Charlotte, NC). The nuisance plant species were treated for two
growing seasons prior to the planting of the site. EEP postponed the planting of the site to allow for
an additional growing season of nuisance species control prior to planting. Additionally, EEP will
be completing follow up invasive treatments through the monitoring term.
The 2011 mitigation plan estimated an approximately 5.64 acre wetland planting area. Based on
2013 site conditions and the implemented invasive plant treatment areas, approximately 2.26 acres
of the total area of USACE jurisdictional wetlands on the site (13.95 acres) were planted in
December 2013. The wetland areas that were excluded from the planting operation encompassed:
(1) a deepwater wetland drainageway which occurred along the southern shoulder of Old Michael
Road and was determined to be an historic channel of the East Fork Pigeon River; (2) the stream
banks of East Fork Pigeon River (bankfull bench and spoil areas); and (3) the heavily forested
portions of the bottomland hardwood forest. Therefore, the planting operation primarily
encompassed the areas of the bottomland hardwood forest that were open and lacking an overstory
of trees or a dense shrub component. The planting of trees (seedlings) within these open areas will
essentially restore the hardwood overstory of the wetlands. Planted species and a planting map are
available in the attached Final Wetland Mitigation Report.

The 2011 Mitigation plan did not include any enhancement activities for the East Fork Pigeon River
or the unnamed perennial stream that occurs within the western portion of the Site. These surface
waters are essentially unimpaired and provide suitable habitat for fish and benthic macro -
invertebrates. The proposed stream preservation assets have a minimum 30 -foot buffer from edge
of bank on each side of the channel.
Due to the systemic biological habitat improvement to the 13.95 acre jurisdictional bottomland
hardwood forest wetlands, EEP is requesting the following revision to the project assets via this
mitigation plan addendum:
East Fork of
the Pigeon River Wetlands — 2014 Mitigation Plan Addendum
Assets
. Wetiand/Stream
Mitigation Type Quantity Ratio
Mitigation Units
Feature
Perennial Stream
Stream Preservation 664 linear Feet 5:1
132 SMUs
East Fork of the
Pigeon River
Stream Preservation
1,411 linear feet
5:1
282 SMUs
Bottom la nd
Hardwood Forest
Wetland
13.95 acres
3:1
4.65 WMUs
Rehabilitation
TOTALS
414 SMUs &
4.65 WMUs
EEP will monitor the site and will continue to treat invasive plant species until project closeout.
Additionally, EEP will photo document the site and will install three (3) vegetation plots per CVS-
EEP vegetation monitoring Level Two protocol. EEP will attempt the close the site with the
regulatory agencies after five (5) years of monitoring if the project has met the final vegetation
success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of monitoring year 5.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (828) 273 -1673 or
paul . wesner@ncdenr. gov.
Sincerely,
Paul Wiesner
Western Project Manager
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)273 -1673 Mobile
paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov

EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
217 West Jones Street; 3rd Floor
Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
FINAL WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT
March 5, 2014

Prepared by:
e
AMEC ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
MACTEC Project Number: 6470100214
Telephone Number: (919) 381 -9900
Facsimile Number:, (919) 381 -9901
Project Manager: Richard G. Marmon, PWS
Telephone Number: (919) 381 -1366

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1-0 BACKGROUND.. 1
20
BASELINE WETLAND CONDITIONS
..2
2 1
Jurisdictional Wetlands.
2
22
Hydrologic Characterization . .... . .........
2
23
Soil Characterization....
3
24
Topographic Characterization...... . .....
....... 4
25
Plant Community Characterization.
.4
26
Nuisance Plant Species Characterization..
5
30
IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION PLAN..
7
3 1
Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives
7
32
Nuisance Plant Species Control.
7
3:3
Wetland Planting Plan - ......
.8
34
Ground Level Site Photography . ....
...10
3 -5
Project Components . .......... . ......
10
40
MONITORING PLAN
12
50
SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.......
.....13
5.1
Legal Protection of Wetland Mitigation Area
13
5-2
Long Term Management Plan
13
60
REFERENCES ...
14
0

LIST'OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map; East Fork Pigeon River, Final Wetland Mitigation Report
Figure 2 Jurisdictional Surface Waters, East Fork Pigeon River, Final Wetland Mitigation Report
Figure 3a Nuisance Plants Initial Site Assessment — 2010, East Fork Pigeon River, Final Wetland
Mitigation Report
Figure 3b Nuisance Plants Follow -up Site Assessment — January 2014, East Fork Pigeon River,
Final Wetland Mitigation Report
Figure 4 Planting Plan and Species Composition — December 2013, East Fork Pigeon River, Final
Wetland Mitigation Report
Figure 5 Jurisdictional Surface Waters and 2013 Wetland Planting Areas, East Fork Pigeon River,
Final Wetland Mitigation Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Installed Plant Material (December 2013) for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands
Project, Wetland Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Table 2 Project Components for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland'
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Ground Level Site Photography
I
it

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470160214
Hayivood'Counry, North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
1.0 BACKGROUND
The East Fork Pigeon River project site (Site) is a 15 73 -acre parcel of land.that is located to the south of the
Town of Canton, in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1, in Appendix A) Figure 1 includes
directions to the Site, The Site is bordered on the west, north, and east sides by Old Michael Road, while
the southern boundary of the Site abuts forested wetlands (Figure 2, in Appendix A) The Site presently
consists of a bottomland hardwood forest, numerous shrub and groundstory openings, and -a small upland
stand of eastern white pine (Pinus strobug) Surface waters, include a perennial stream channel, which
occurs near the western project boundary, and the East Fork (of the) Pigeon River, which includes braided
channels and,overlaps the southern project boundary at multiple locations The Site is owned by Ms Helen
Coleman The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has obtained a Conservation
Easement for the Site. The Conservation Easement is Feld by the State of North Carolina and has been
recorded at the Haywood County Courthouse
The Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Site proposed wetland enhancement of a bottomland hardwood
forest which encompassed the floodplam of the East Fork Pigeon River. Nuisance plant species, have'
become established over time within the bottomland hardwood forest Ourisdictional wetlands) on site
The Wetland Mitigation Plan presented methods for the control of six (6) nuisance plant species The
Wetland Mitigation Plan also included a conceptual planting program to install desirable wetland plant
species within the jurisdictional wetland area The elements of the nuisance species control program and
the planting plan were approved by ,the, EEP prior to implementation. The wetland enhancement for the
Site was not proposed to off -set or mitigate for any particular project, however, the proposed
enhancement would provide a quantified amount of EEP wetland mitigation credit for various permitted
projects which occur within the same U S Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) The Site is located in the French Broad River Basin HUC 06010106 (DWQ 2010, USGS 2010)
This HUC is identified as a Targeted Local' Watershed (TLW) in EEP's 2009 French Broad River Basin
.Restoration Priority (RBRP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc (AMEC) has prepared this Final Wetland Mitigation Report
for EEP to facilitate the monitoring program that shall be implemented for the Site, as principally
including the assessment of survivorship, growth, and /or vitality of the installed plant material within the
jurisdictional wetlands and the extent, vitality, and /or recruitment of nuisance plant species

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 64701,00214
Hayti>>ood County North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
2.0 BASELINE WETLAND CONDITIONS
2.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The, 15.73 -acre Site is comprised of 13.95 acres of U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jurisdictional
wetlands, 0 82 acre of jurisdictional surface waters, and 0 96 acre of non jurisdictional uplands (Figure 2).
The Jurisdictional wetlands include a bottomland hardwood forest with shrub and groundstory openings_
The non - Jurisdictional uplands include an eastern white pine community, which occurs neawthe western
boundary of °the Site, and linear areas of the shoulder (berm) of Old Michael Road, which extend along
the western, northern, and eastern boundaries of the Site Jurisdictional surface waters include 1,4 1,11
linear feet (0 77 acre) of the East Fork Pigeon River and 664 linear feet (0 05 acre) of a perennial,
unnamed tributary to the East Fork Pigeon River The 0 05 -acre perennial stream channel occurs near the
western project boundary and flows to the south to a point of confluence with the East Fork Pigeon River
near the southwest corner of the Site. The East Fork Pigeon River enters the Site as a braided channel
system at a point along the southern project boundary and leaves the Site near the southwest corner of the
Site as a single thread channel system
AMEC professional wetland scientists delineated the landward limits of jurisdictional waters of the U S,
including streams and wetlands on the Site in April 2010 pursuant to the methods defined in the 1987
USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) Mr Tyler Cru ibley of the
USACE - Asheville Regulatory Field Office conducted a site inspection of the delineated wetlands on
October 6, 2010, with AMEC professional wetland scientists in attendance The inspected wetland limits
were then surveyed by Mr David Alley of Cavanaugh (NC Professional Land Surveyor) The signed and
sealed, specific purpose survey of the landward limits of USACE regulatory jurisdiction for.the Site was
subsequently submitted to Mr Crumbley for approval and signature The USACE Notification of
Jurisdictional Detemunation for the Site was issued on November 3, 2010, under Action Id No 2010-
01783 (expiration date of November 3, 2015)
2.2 Hydrologic Characterization
The Site is located within the French Broad River Basin (USGS 8 -digit HUC 06010106) This HUC is
identified as .a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in EEP's 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration
Prioiity (RBRP) In addition, the Site is situated within the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) 100 -year flood zone (Zone A7) according to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel N,o.
370120 0190B (FEMA 2010). The proposed activities for this project did not require a FEMA
development permit. Furthermore, the project did not require a Clean Water Act Section 404 / Section
PA

Final Welland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470100214
Ha}nvood County North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
401 permit as no ground disturbing activities within jurisdictional wetlands were anticipated or.compl'eted
on the Site.
Drainage on the ,Site is generally to the south and west through the wetlands, the East Fork Pigeon River,
and an unnamed perennial tributary to the East Fork Pigeon River The East Fork Pigeon River is
classified in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Basinwide Information Management System
as a Water Supply III (WS411) waterbody and Trout Waters Jr) Areas of the bottomland hardwood
forest are shallowly inundated or saturated Based on personal communication with the previous
landowner, the majority of the Site was farmed in the past, with cessation of farming activities occurring a
few decades ago The farming activities included the establishment of small ditches to facilitate drainage
of the farm land These drainage ditches do not appear to significantly affect the current hydrology of the
Site Some hydrologic enhancement has occurred on the project site for an unknown period of time due
to the activities of beaver (Castor canadensis), i e , a small number of beaver dams historically
contributed to the impoundment of surface water within the eastern portion of the bottom land 'hardwood
forest Beavers do not appear to be active on the Site at the present time, however The various
hydrologic changes through time have led to wetter site conditions since farming activities were
abandoned and these wetter site conditions have facilitated the establishment of hydrophytes on the Site.
Finally, other sources of hydrology for the Site include three culvert features which occur along Old
Michael Road Stream flow is conveyed onto the Site by these culverts The westernmost culvert
conveys stream flow from an off -site, potentially jurisdictional, stream feature into the perennial stream
channel that occurs near the western Site boundary. The central culvert conveys stream flow from another
oft =site, potentially jurisdictional, stream feature into the wetland dramageway that extends along the
northern Site boundary and Old Michael Road The easternmost culvert (cross culvert) discharges
stormwater into the aforementioned wetland dramageway
2.3 Soil Characterization
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the Site is underlain by the Dellwood
cobbly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (DeA) map unit, which encompasses
depressions and floodplams (landforms) (NRCS 2010) The NRCS considers this map unit to include
hydric soil inclusions, i e , small areas of'Cullowhee or Nikwasi soils in depressions. The hydric criteria
for this map unit is listed by the NRCS as `2133 ", i.e , soils that are poorly drained or very poorly drained
and have a water table at a depth of 1 0 foot or less during the growing season if permeability is less than
3

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470100214
Hayivood County, North Carolina EEP SCO 1D 10- 07350 -01
6 0 inches per hour in any layer within a depth of 20 inches An AMEC Licensed Soil Scientist
confirmed, through on -site soil probing, that the wetland areas within the Site were underlain by hydric
soils The hydric soils observed in the field consisted generally of loam textures Redoximorphic features
(mottles) were observed within one footaof the existing ground surface
2.4 Topographic Characterization
According to the USGS topographic quadrangle (Asheville, North Carolina), no distinct variation in
topography is apparent across the Site An elevation (contour interval) of 2,760 feet mean sea level is
depicted on the quadrangle along the north side of Old Michael Road and to the south of the southern Site
boundary No contour interval was depicted on the quadrangle for the interior of the Site More detailed
topographic data for the project site were provided through a specific purpose topographic survey of
ground elevations conducted by Cavanaugh in November 2010 The Cavanaugh field survey entailed the
collection of ground elevation data at 100 -foot grid intersections Based on the results of this topographic
survey, the ground elevations ranged from approximately 2,760 feet at Old Michael Road at the
southeastern corner of the Site to approximately 2,735 feet at the southwestern corner of the Site near the
confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River and the unnamed perennial stream Low contour intervals (low
surveyed ground elevations), ranging from approximately 2,737 to 2,739 feet, occurred within the east -
central ,portion of the Site where shallow pooling was observed during field reconnaissance Another area
of low contour intervals and shallow pooling occurred within the west - central portion of the Site, where
the ground elevations ranged from 2,738 to 2,739 feet The surveyed 2,740 -foot contour interval generally
extended through the western half of the Site
2.5 Plant Community Characterization
The distribution, structure, and species composition of the plant communities that occur on the Site partly
reflect historic agricultural land use practices The jurisdictional wetlands encompass a bottomland
hardwood forest with scattered shrub and groundstory openings (Figure 2) The wetlands are areas of
poorly- drained; seasonally saturated soils in lowlands abutting the East Fork Pigeon River Areas of
shallow seasonal pooling (i e , generally less than 6 inches) are also present within on -site depressions
The U S Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) online Wetlands Mapper
(USFWS 2010) identifies the majority of the wetlands area on the Site as Code PSS1A, or Palustrine,
Scrub /Shrub, Broad - leaved Deciduous, Temporary Flooded (Cowardin et al 1979). Based on the natural
community classification scheme for North Carolina by'Schafale and Weakley (1990), the wetlands area
on the Site would be classified as Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
4

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470100214
Haywood County, North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
Within the portions of the on -site bottomland hardwood forest that contain dominant or co- dominant
overstory vegetation, the canopy stratum is comprised of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow
,(Salix nigra), and red maple (A'cer rztbrum) Areas comprised of shrubs and areas dominated by
,groundstory plants are interspersed throughout the Site These, areas occur as, openings within the
bottomland hardwood forest The shrub vegetation primarily includes black willow (saplings) and
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) The groundstory is comprised of sedges, rushes, and herbaceous plants,
such as swamp aster (Aster puniceus); soft rush (Juncus effusus), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
false -nettle (Boehmeria cyltndrica), sedges (Carex spp.), panic grass (Panicum sp.), blackberry (Rubus
sp ), multiflora rose, seedbox (Ludwigia sp ), and duck - potato (Sagittaria lat folia)
2.6 Nuisance Plant Species Characterization
In the baseline condition (pre- enhancement), nuisance (invasive) plant species that occurred within the
bottomland hardwood forest on the Site, or in upland areas adjacent to the Site, included bamboo
(Phyllostachys sp.), common cattail (Typha lat folia), multiflora rose, Japane_"se knotweed (Reynoutria
japonica), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and /or kudzu (Pueraria montana). The North
Carolina Native Plant Society ( NCNPS) lists multiflora rose, Japanese knotweed, kudzu, and Japanese
honeysuckle as each having a `severe' threat (Rank 1 category) to native plant communities in North
Carolina ( NCNPS 2010) The NCNPS lists bamboo as having a `significant' threat (Rank 2 category) to
native plant communities in North Carolina No ranking of threat to native plant communities is assigned
for cattail by the NCNPS
Figure 3a (Appendix A) presents the general locations (areal cover) of the aforementioned six nuisance
plant species Three stands of bamboo were found in or adjacent to the Site The largest stand of bamboo
(Bamboo Area 1; 0.88 acre) was present within the eastern portion of'the Site, along the northern bank of
the East Fork Pigeon River The two, smaller, stands of bamboo were present along the southern
shoulder of Old Michael Road (Bamboo Area 2, 0 09 acre) and the northern side of the road (Bamboo
Area 3; 0 12 acre) While both of these latter two stands of bamboo occurred outside of the Site
boundary, they were considered to be a potential seed source for this nuisance species A cattail area
(Cattail Area 1, 0 61 acre) was present within the north- central portion of the Site, within a shallow
inundated shrub /, groundstory opening of the bottomland hardwood forest. Two smaller areas of cattail
were also present on the Site. Cattail Area 2 (0 06 acre) occurred within the western portion of the Site
and Cattail Area 3 (0 002 acre) existed near the southeast corner of the Site Kudzu occurred on or
5

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470100214
Hgpvood County, North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
adjacent to the Site at three locations Kudzu Area 1 (0 24 acre) abutted the northwest boundary of the
Site along the southern shoulder of Old Michael Road, while Kudzu Area 2 (0 11 acre) and a Japanese
Knotweed /Kudzu Area (0 02 acre) occurred within the southeastern portion of the Site in the bottomland
hardwood forest Japanese knotweed was sparsely scattered within-the southeastern portion of the Site
The two observed locations of Japanese knotweed include Japanese Knotweed Area 1 (0 06 acre) and' the
Japanese Knotweed /Kudzu Area (0 02 acre) Multiflora "rose was scattered throughout the bottomland
hardwood forest, under the forest canopy and within the shrub openings With regard to density and areal
coverage, multiflora rose was the most common of the six nuisance plant species observed on the Site
Japanese honeysuckle was sparsely scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest The
boundaries (areal cover) of the aforementioned areas of nuisance plant species occurrence were obtained
'through global positioning system (GPS) technology, via October 2010 field reconnaissance conducted by
AMEC
T

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470100214
Haywood County North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION PLAN
3.1 Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives
The established mitigation goals for the Site, were to enhance and protect existing wetlands and wildlife
habitat along the East Fork Pigeon River. Specifically, the target goal was the vegetative enhancement of
the existing wetland community on the Site. The project objectives included
• Enhance existing wetlands by .removing identified invasive plant species through manual and /or
chemical methods and by planting native species within the Site
• Protecting the wetlands on the Site with a permanent Conservation Easement.
3.2 Nuisance Plant Species Control
The control of nuisance plant species within the bottomland hardwood forest and shrub /groundstory open
areas on the Site entailed the treatment of the aforementioned six nuisance plant species (Figure 3a). The
control methods entailed the. treatment of small =sized plants with foliar spray and larger stems by hack
and squirt The chemical `aquatic glyphosate' was used for the herbicide applications The cut bamboo
in Bamboo Area 1 was placed in a slash pile and burned on the Site New shoots of bamboo which
developed after the initial treatment were treated with aquatic glyphosate All control treatments were
conducted by HARP The treatment periods included June 5, 2012 through November 2, 2012 (all week
days except if raining) and April 17, 2013 through June 2, 2013 (all week days except if raining) AMEC
inspected the treated areas of the Site on July 13, 2013 and November 6, 2013 'The nuisance plant species
were treated for two growing seasons prior to the planting of the Site. Note EEP postponed the planting
of the Site to allow for an additional growing season of nuisance species control prior to planting
A control treatment was conducted for Chinese privet (Ligustrum smPnse) in December 2013 by HARP.
Chinese privet was scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest, as was miultiflora rose.
Two upland areas that were infested with bamboo were included in the ,nuisance plant species control
effort- The two areas were located outside of the Conservation Easement, along the south side (Bamboo
Area 2) and the north side (Bamboo Area 3) of Old Michael Road (Figure 3a)
Figure 3b (Appendix A) presents the locations (areal cover) of two areas of living stems of multiflora rose
which were observed during a January 2014 field reconnaissance conducted by AMEC, after the plant
installation ,effort was completed The boundaries of these two areas were obtained through G'PS
technology Both areas will be treated by an EEP nuisance plant ,species control contractor in the, 2014
7

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC'Project No 64701`00214
Ha}nvood County North Carolina EEP SCO 'ID M0 07350"01
growing season. Follow up treatments for the control of all nuisance plant species within the bottomland
hardwood forest and shrub / groundstory open areas on the Site will be conducted through the wetland
monitoring term as necessary
3.3 Wetland Planting Plan
In addition to the control of nuisance plant species, the Wetland Mitigation Plan entailed the installation
of wetland plant species within the Site Subsequent to nuisance species control, a portion of the
jurisdictional wetlands were planted in December of 2013 with wetland tree and shrub species The
planting periods included December 19 through 23 and December 26 through 29, 2013 Tree and shrub
species were selected that were native to Haywood County and /or common to the bottomland hardwood
forested community along the East Fork Pigeon Rive► The planting operation was conducted by Habitat
Assessment & Restoration Professionals (HARP) (Charlotte, NC) Prior to plant installation, discussions
were completed among staff from HARP, AMEC, and EEP to finalize the planting palette Figure 4
(Appendix A) presents the boundaries of the four wetland areas within the bottomland hardwood forest /
shrub and groundstory openings of the Site that were planted in December 2013 Figure 5 (Appendix A)
presents these four wetland planting areas and the approved jurisdictional wetlands boundary. Table i
presents information on the December `2013 planting plan specifications plant species (common name
and scientific name), quantity installed; and USACE wetness tolerance. The size of
Table 1. , Installed Plant Material (December 2013) for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands
Prolect, Wetland Miti ation Plan, Ha ood Coun ,North
Carolina.
Wetland Area 1 0.29 acre
Black "um
N ssa s lvatrca
100
FAC
Tulip-tree
Lrrrodendron tuli r era
100
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occrdentalrs
100
FACW-
Subtotal
300
Wetland Area,2 1.05 acre
_ Black gurn
N ssa svlvatica
100
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occrdentalrs
200
FACW-
Green ash
Fraxrnus pennsylvanica
200
FACW
Silky dogwood
Cornus arronium
300
F_ A_CW+
Subtotal
800
Wetland Area 3 (0 19 acre
Sycamore
Platanus occrdentalrs
100
FACW-
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
100
FACW
Tulip tree
Lrrrodendron tu_ li r era
100
FAC
Subtotal
300
8

Final Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMEC Project No 6470100214
Ha}nvood County, North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
Wetland Area 4 ,0 73 acre_
Black gum
N ssa s lvatkw
300
FAC
Tulip tree
Ltrtodendron tuli i era
306
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
200
FACW -
Green ash
Fiaxmus penn.sylvantca
300
FACW
Shumard oak
Quercus shumardu
10
FACW-
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
300
FACW+
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
50
FACW -
Subtotal
1,460
Total 2.26 acres
2860
Treated Upland Bamboo Areas 0.21 acre
Black locust
Robinia pseudoacacta
30
UPL
Red mulberry
Morus rubra
30
FAC
Coralberry
S m horicar os orbiculatus
25
FAC -
Total
8'5
' Taxonomic nomenclature based on Alan ti Weakley,in Mora of the Muthern ana Mia- Attantle wates, marcn a, /uiu worxmg,
Draft, University of North Carolina Herbarium
2 Wetness Tolerance based on Plant Indicator Status in National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (Region 2 -
Southeast), Resource Management Group, inc , 1999, Abbreviations FACW = Facultative Wetland; FAC = Facultative, UPL =
Upland
wetland planting Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0 29, 1 05, 0 19, and 0.73 acres, respectively The total
wetland planting area on the Site was 2 26 acres. The boundaries (and acreage values) of the four
planting areas were obtained through GPS technology, via January 20'14 field reconnaissance conducted
by AMEC The wetland ,plant material was comprised of five species of wetland trees and two wetland
shrub species. The tree species included black gum (Nyssa sylvatica); green ash (Fraxmus
pennsylvanica); sycamore (Pkwanus occidentahs), tulip tree (Ltrtodendron tulip fera), and shumard oak
(Quercus shuntardn) The shrub species included silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis)] Bareroot seedlings were installed in planting Areas 1, 2, and 3 A combination
of one - gallon stock and bareroot seedlings was installed in planting Area 4. Tree shelters ( "Blue -X"
brand) were installed over the planted seedlings in all four planting areas The tree shelters were to
provide protection from wildlife depredation and wind. Minor field ,adjustments during the planting
operation were made, i e , moving the planting location of tree or shrub seedlings when obstacles were
encountered, such as logs or stump holes Approximately 2.26 acres of the total area of USACE
jurisdictional wetlands on the Site (13 95 acres) were planted in December 2013. Tile wetland areas that
were excluded from the planting operation encompassed- (1) a deepwater wetland drainageway which
occurred along the southern shoulder of Old Michael Road and was determined to be an historic channel
of the East Fork Pigeon River, (2) the stream banks of East Fork Pigeon River (bankfull bench and spoil
areas), and (3) the heavily forested portions of the bottomland hardwood forest Therefore, the planting
operation primarily encompassed the areas of the bottoiriland hardwood forest that were open and lacking
9

Final ,Wetland Mitigation Report March 3, 2014
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project AMF,C Project No 6470100214
Haywood County, North Carolina EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01'
an overstory of trees or a dense shrub component. The planting of trees (seedlings) within these open
areas would essentially restore the hardwood overstory of the wetlands Finally, the control of nuisance
plant species prior to the planting effort was necessary to facilitate the growth of the plant, material, i.e.,
competition for nutrients with nuisance plant species would be significantly reduced.
The Wetland Planting Plan did not include any enhancement activities for the iEast, Fork Pigeon River or
the unnamed perennial stream that occurs within the western portion of the Site These, surface waters are
essentially unimpaired and provide suitable habitat for fish and benthic macro - invertebrates
The boundary of the wetland planting area on the Site was delineated in 2010 by AMEC Based on GPS
technology, the size of the original (proposed) planting area was 5.64 acres The size of the final (actual)
plantmg,area, where the plant material was installed in December 20] 3, was 2.26 acres This reduction in
planting area (3.38 acres) was attributed'to the exclusion of portions of`the,original planting area thatwere
deemed to be unsuitable for the installation of plant material in December 2013; specifically; pockets
(clusters) of shrub vegetation or scattered trees that were considered to be too dense to successfully plant
seedlings-
Two upland areas that occurred along the south side and the north side of Old Michael Road were also
planted in December 2013 These areas are identified as Bamboo Area 2 (0.09 acre) and Bamboo Area 3
(0 T-2 acre) on Figure 3a The two areas were infested with mature bamboo The bamboo was removed
and the two areas were planted with one - gallon stock of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and red
mulberry (Morus rubra) Coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), a, deciduous shrub, was also planted
No tree shelters were used Both areas were located outside of the Conservation Easement.
3.4 Ground Level Site Photography
Ground level photography of site conditions within wetland planting Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 was acquired
during the January 2014 field reconnaissance conducted by AMEC. The photographic log is included in
Appendix B.
3.5 Project Components
The Mitigation Plan for the Site was implemented with the following results-
0
A total reach of 1,411 linear feet of East Fork Pigeon River. Reach includes a 30 -foot buffer
from edge of bank on each side of the channel
10

Final Wetland Mitigation Report
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
l7ayivood.County, North Carolina
March 3, 2014
AMEC Project No 6470/00214
EEP SCO 1D 10- 07350 -01
a A total reach of 664 linear feet of perennial stream (unnamed tributary of East Fork Pigeon
River) Reach includes a 30 -foot buffer from edge of bank on each side of the channel
• The planting of 2 26 acres of bottomland hardwood forest wetland within the Conservation
Easement (installation of woody tree and shrub seedlings)
• Non- planted area of 11 69 acres of bottomland hardwood forest wetland within the Conservation
Easement.
Table 2 also presents the aforementioned project components
Table 2. Project Components for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
ivortn uaronna.
Eastfork Pigeon River 1,411 linear feet
Perennial Stream 664 linear feet
Bottomland Hardwood Forest — Planted 2.26 acres
Bottomland Hardwood Forest — Not Planted 11 69 acres
' Four wetland areas were planted in December 2013, totaling 2 26 acres within the Conservation Easement Chemical /hand
treatments of nuisance plant species were conducted prior to the installation of tree and shrub seedlings within the wetland A
total of 11 69 acres of wetland with an existing midstory and overstory within the Conservation Easement was not planted
2 Stream reach includes(a 30 -foot buffer from edge of bank on each side of the,channel

Final Wetland Mitigation Report
East.Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood, County, North Carolina
4:0 MONITORING PLAN
March 3 2014
AMEC Project No 64701'00214
EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
Using the EEP Baseline Monitoring Plan template (version 2 0, October 14, 2010), a baseline monitoring
document will be developed Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP Monitoring Report
template (version 1.5, June, 8, 2012). The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that
will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis,
research purposes, and assist in, decision making regarding project close -out The monitoring period will
extend at least five years beyond completion of project planting or until performance criteria have been
met
IN

Final Wetland Mitigation Repot t
East Fork Pigeon River, Wetlands Project
Ha"vood County, North Carolina
March 3, 2014
AMEC Project No 6470100214
EEP SCO 1D 10- 07350 -01
5.0 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENYSTRATEGY
5.1 Legal Protection of Wetland Mitigation Area
The wetland mitigation area will be protected through the establishment of a Conservation Easement
The Conservation Easement is held by the State of North Carolina. The Conservation Easement was
recorded at the Haywood County Courthouse on December 10, 2010 (Deed Book: RB 795; Deed
Page. 450 -45,9)
5.2 Long Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review'Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program This party
shall be responsible for periodlc� inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP ,stewardship endowments within the non - reverting,, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 1 13A- 232(d)(3) Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
13

Final Wetland Mitigation Report
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
6.0 REFERENCES
March 3, 2014
AMEC Project No. 6470100214
EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program. FWS /OBS- 79/31. 103pp.
Division of Water Quality. 2010. North Carolina River Basin Map. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Web Site:
http: / /www,ee.enr. state. nc. us / public /ecoaddress /riverbasinsmain.htm. Accessed via the Internet on
November 8, 2010.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y -87 -1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 p. plus
appendices.
FEMA. 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 370120 0190B, effective date July 15, 1984.
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the North Carolina Floodmaps Program. Web Site:
http: / /www.ncfloodmaps.com /. Accessed via the Internet on November 8, 2010.
NCNPS. 2010. North Carolina Native Plant Society - Invasive Exotic Species List. Web Site:
http: / /www.ncwildflower.orWinvasives /list.htm. Accessed via the Internet on November 19, 2010.
NRCS. 2010. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Data Mart Web Site:
http: // soil datamart.nres.usda.p-ov /Default.aspx. Accessed via the Internet on November 9. 2010.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina —
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
USFWS. 2010. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory database. Web
Site: http: / /www.fws.gov /wetlands /. Accessed via the Internet on November 9, 2010.
USGS. 2010. 8 -Digit Cataloging Units — North Carolina. United States Geological Survey Web Site:
http: / /nas.er.usp-s.gov/hucs.aspx. Accessed via the Internet on November 8, 2010.
HE

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Haywood
County
North Carolina Inset
00
nw7�a� Laka
• o
<
21,
R•r
Z 110
O`
WayaaaN
H,izdwupd -" d
l P,
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, DeLorme,
NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,
h1ETl, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
TomTom, 2013
0 4 8
Miles
J
. - '- !1•h'MUI•Nwy . 19 .... r - -
CartaSn -
Site Location
;276
C
A
fa 1>
Kun „, s•na
Cudror
N�
East Fork Pigeon River
Final Wetland Mitigation Report
Project Vicinity Map
Prepared By
CLS - 1/17/2014
Checked By: Figure:
JDC - 1/17/2014 ameC
Project Number
5470100214

1
WETLANDS
E T F RK
PIGEON RI ER
ir
WET ALAL NDSj
int�e Glser�,
ti
I■

Multiflora Rose and
Japanese Honeysuckle
(scattered throughout wetlands)
• LD MICHAEL R • AD
Bamboo rea 2
Bamboo Area
Kudzu Area 1
attail Area 2
•attail Ara 1
Bamboo rea 1
Beaver D m
Beaver Dam
WETLANDS
Japanese Knotweed
Area 1
Kudzu Ares
flail Area 3
Japanese Knotweed!
Kudzu Area
gend 0 200 400eet
Perennial Stream
Project Boundary East Fork Pigeon River
East Fork Pigeon River Final Wetland Mitigation Report
Wetland Nuisance Plants
Initial Site Assessment -2010
:e Layer, Credits: Source: Esri, Prepared By
IGlobe, e'oEyOi- cubed, USDA, ct_S - 1m12014
7AEX; Getrnapping, °Aerogrid; IGN; Checked By Figure:
wis`topo and the GIS User r` �cc - 1n7izola amet 3a
Protect Number:
lUrllty

Project Boundary
East Fork Pigeon River
Wetland
® Multiflora Rose
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, i
DigitalGlobe'rGi -oEye i- cubed, USDA,
USGS7AEX, GetmappAg °Aerogrid; IGN,
IGP,`swis'topo aand the GIS User
Community ��:� 6
'a.
.y
I�

t ¢
l I
Culvert
Perennial Stream
Project Boundary
East Fork Pigeon River
® 2013 Wetland Planting Area
Wetland
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe . oEye`� ub�ed; USDA,
USGS ?AEX?Getmapping °Ae�ogrid 12,
IGP,`swisstopo and the GIS User
Community 3
J
i5u
J

APPENDIX B
GROUND LEVEL SITE PHOTOGRAPHY

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG -
EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
Haywood County, North Carolina
Photograph # 1: View to the south of wetland planting Area 1; photograph taken from the
northern end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).
Photograph #2: View to the north of wetland planting Area 1; photograph taken from the
southern end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).

Photograph #3: View to the north of wetland planting Area 2; photograph taken from the
southern end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).
Photograph #4: View to the west of wetland planting Area 2; photograph taken from the
eastern end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).

Photograph #5: View to the east of wetland planting Area 2; photograph taken from the
western end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).
Photograph #6: View to the south of wetland planting Area 3; photograph taken from the
northern end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).

Photograph #7: View to the northwest of wetland planting Area 3; photograph taken
from the southern end of the planting area (January 13, 2014).
Photograph #8: View to the northwest of wetland planting Area 4; photograph taken
from the southeastern corner of the planting area (January 13, 2014).

Photograph #9: View to the southeast of wetland planting Area 4; photograph taken from
the northwestern corner of the planting area (January 13, 2014).
Photograph #10: View of a small pocket of live multiflora rose within the project
wetlands; west - central portion of the project site (January 13, 2014).

M

EAST FORK ]PIGEON RIVER. WETLANDS PROJECT
SCO YID 10- 07350 -01
HAYWOOID COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
,NC (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina,27604
FILIAL WETLAND MI'TIGA'TION PLAN
'March 14, 2011

Prepared by:
,4MACTEC
MA,CTEC ENGWEEIaING AND'CGNSULTING, INC.
3301 Atlantic Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
MACTEC Project Number: 6470 -10 -0214
Telephone Number: (919) 876 -0416
Facsimile Number: (919) 831 -8136
Project Manager/Principal: Richard G. Maranon, PWS
Telephone, Numlbet: ,(919) 831 -8003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
Executive Summary ......... ............................ .................... .................... .........1
20
Watershed Planning..
2
2 -1
Watershed Plan Des_ cription ........ . ................. . . ....... .:..... ......... ..........
.2
3.0
Project Site Wetlands . ..... .... ....
3
3.1
Jurisdictional Wetlands. ....... . ................ .. ................. ........ ............ ...... . _­3
31,
Hydrological Characterization. . . .. .......... ....... .:.............. . ............ .....:...
5
3 3
Soil Characterization . .. ..... ... ........
7
3.4
Vegetation Community Type Description and Disturbance History.... ::..:... .... .. :...
7
3 5
Site Topography and Geology ....
9
3.6
Site Photography................ ............................. ............................... . ... ...................
10
4.0
Project Site Mitigation Plan ............ __ ... ........................ .. ................ ... :..::... ..... .... ..........10
_
4.1
Mitigation Plan Goals and ObJectjves :.: ,... _
I0
4.2
Nuisance Plant Species Control ..... . ............ .... . ................. .. . .... .............
I O
42
1 Bamboo ...... .. ........ ....... :. .. ...... ... .
1 l
42.2 Cattai l............................. ....... ...... .......... :.: ..... .......... .................. ....... ................
12
4.2.3 Japanese Knotweed.:. .. .............................................................. ...............................
13
424 KiudAl _ . ......... ..... ...............
14
4.2,5 Multiflora Rose.... .. ......................................................... ...............................
15
4.26 Japanese Honeysuckle ......... ...... ...... ..... ........... ... ........ .. .... .:........
16
4.3
Wetland Planting Plan .......................... ........................ ... .....................
17
4.4
Beaver Control., .................... .... ... .............................. I .... I . ......... ..
19
4.5
Mitigation Assets ........... ............................... ............. ................ - ... ....... ....... ... :.
19
50
Preliminary Monitoring . - . . ........... .......:....... .................. ................
21
6.0
Site Protection and Adaptive Management Strategy ..... ...... .. .. ... . ........
21
6.1
Legal Protection of Wetland Mitigation Area......, ...... ... .... ....... ............. .:.. ......................21
62
Long-Term Management Responsibilities. . . : ..................................... ............................'22
63
Contingency ..... .::................... ............. ....... .. .... ............................................................. ... -...
22
7.0
References .................... . . ............... ...................... .. ... ... ............. .... . -.22

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland Mitigation
Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 2 Jurisdictional Surface Watcrs, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 3 Nuisance Species Areas, Cast fork Pigeon River Wetlands Protect, Wetland Mitigation
Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure 4 Proposed Wetland Planting Area, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County„ North Carolina
Figure 5 Proposed Wetland and 'Stream Mitigation. Areas, East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands
Project, Wetland Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North, Carolina
LIST OYTABLES
Fable 1 Proposed Plant Material for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County, North Carolina.-.... ........... ... ............Page 18
Table 2 Potential Mitigation Assets for the East Fork ,Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan, Haywood County. North Carolina. ............ ...:. ... ..... ..Page 19
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix B NCEEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix C Specific Purpose Topographic Survey
Appendix H Ground Level Site Photography
ii

Final Wetland Mwgrilion Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetland,% Project
11aya,00d County, North Carolina
1.0 EXECUTWE SUMMARY
Mach 14; 2011
11 4CTEC Prajec;rxNo 6470 -10 -02'14
NCEEP SCO ID M- 07350 -01
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc (MACTEC) was awarded a Design Contract (SCO 1D' 10-
07350 -01) for the.East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) on July 27, 2010. Four dehverabies were included under this contract, i e, Delineation
of Jurisdictional Surface Waters; Mitigation Plan Development; Informal Contract Documents, and Final
Report and Record Drawings The Wetland Mitigation Plan presented herein has been prepared by
MACTEC to meet the second deliverable, Mitigation Plan Development
The East Fork,Pigeon River project site is a 1533 =acre parcel' of land that is located to the south of the Town
of Canton, in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project site can be reached via the
following directions- (1) from Interstate 40 at Asheville, take Exit 37 to access US 19, (2) proceed south on
U.S. 19 to Canton, (3) once `m Canton, turn right to access Pisgah Drive (NC l t',0) and proceed.along, Pisgah
Drive for approximately five miles, (4) turn left onto Cruso Road (US 276) and proceed for approximately
two miles, (5) turn left onto Old Michael Road, which is a loop road with two points of access to Cruse
Road, and (6) project site is,located on the south side of Old Michael Road near the center of the loop
The project site presently consists of a bottomland hardwood forest, numerous shrub and groundstory
openings, and a small upland stand of eastern white pine'(Pinus,strobus) (Figure 2) Surface waters include
a perennial stream channel, which occurs near the western project boundary, and the East Fork (of the)
Pigeon River, which includes braided channels and overlaps the southern project Boundary at multiple
locations The project site is owned by Ms Hclen Coleman The NCEEP has obtained a conservation
easement for the project site: The easement is held by the State,of North,Caroiina and has been recorded at
the Maywood County, Courthouse The Wetland Mitigation Plan and other project related components and
details have been discussed between representatives of MACTEC (Mr. Richard Hannon, Mr. James Cutler,
Mr. Josh Witherspoon, and Mr Robert Sain) and Mr. Paul Wiesner of the NCEEP (Western Project
Manager), during discussions held from April through Septembcr'2010
the Wetland Mitigation Plan for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands protect proposes wetland
erihattcement,ofa bottotnland hardwood forest which encompasses the ffloodplain,ofihe East Fork Pigeon,
River Nuisance plant species have become established over time within the bottomland hardwood forest
(jurisdictional wetlands) on site The Wctland Mitigation Plan will presentrriethods for the control of six
(6) nuisance plant species The Wetland Mitigation Plan will also include a planting program to install
desirable wetland plant species within the jurisdictional wetland area, The elements of the nuisance

Final uerland Mirigarron Plan ,'March 14, 201f
East Fat Pigeon Rivet Kelland� Pro1ecr XMC'7EC'Prrgleci Vv 6470 -10 -6214
llaysvoad County, Notch Carolina NCLLP SCC)1D 10- 07350 -Of
species control program and the planting plan will be approved by the NCEEP prior to implementation
The wetland enhancement will provide a quantitied amount of ,NCEEP wetland mitigation credit I -or
various permitted projects which occur within the same U.S, Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) The East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project is-not proposed to off -set or
mitigate for any particular protect MACTEC has prepared this Wetland Mitigation Plan for NCEEP to
facilitate the enhancement effort of the jurisdictional wetlands on the East Fork Pigeon River proiect site.
Finally, with regard to watershed planning, the East fork Pigeon River Wetlands project is located in the
French Broad River Basin MCC 060101060100'10, This HUC is identified as a Targeted Local
Watershed (l LW) in NCEEP's 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP)
(httV- / /www.nceep net / services /restplans /French"Rroad RBRP�15july09 pdf).
Restoration goals identified in the 2009 French Broad Basin RBRP include•
a Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients
by restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring
natural geomorphology, especially in headwater streams.
o Restore and protect habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species in the basin [see
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) (2005) for complete list].
Cooperate with land trusts and resource agencies to, help, leverage federal and state grant funding
for watershed restoration and conservation efforts.
Restoration goals and objectives for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project include:
e Protecting, the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat with a permanent conservation
easement.
o Enhancing the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat by removing identified invasive plant
species through manual and chemical methods and' by planting native species within the project
site
2:0 WATERSHED PLANNING
2.1 Watershed Plane Description
The 2009 French Broad River Basin RBRP identified as 06010106010010, which includes the East Fork
Pigeon River Wetlands protect site_ as a TLW The East Fork Pigeon River watershed is the most
forested of A TLWs in the French Broad, with 91% of'the• land in forest/wetland and 81%,of the streams

Final'Weiland Maigarion Plan Mach 14,'2011
Fast Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project IVACTF.0 Project No 6470 -70 -1214
14a)nrood County, North Carolina AVETP' SCO 11) 10- 07350 -01
with an aquatic buffer About half of the land is in the Pisgah National Forest, where the headwaters of
the East Fork are High Quality Waters. All streams in the watershed are Water Supply Waters
Restoration,goals identified in the 2009 French Broad River Basin kBRP,include:
• Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of,sediment and nutrients
by restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring
naturat.geomorphology„ especEally in headwater streams
• Restore and protect habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species in the basin [see
North Carolina WRC (2005) for complete list].
• Cooperate with land trusts ,and resource agencies to heip leverage federal and state grant' funding
for watershed restoration and conservation efforts
Portions of the East Fork Pigeon River serve as a,refuge for high priority aquatic species that depend on
high quality cool -warm water habitat
( http:// www. nceep .net/services /resiplans/French Broad RBRP [51uly09 pdf). The East Fork Pigeon
River Wetlands project will protect approximately 14 acres of wetlands in the floodptain of the East Fork
Pigeon River with a permanent conservation easement; therefore, this will protect floodplain function
along this biologically rich river In addition, the project will enhance existing, wetlands by removing
,identified mvasivc plant species through manual and chemical methods and by planting native species
within the project site
3.0 PROJECT SI'Z'E WETLANDS
3.1 Jurisdietinnal Wetlands
The 15.73 -acre East Fork Pigeon River protect site is comprised of 13 95 acres of U S Army Corps of
Enguiecrs (USACE) jurisdictional wetlands and 0.96 acre of non - jurisdictional uplands (Figure 2). The
jurisdictional wetl "ands include a bottomland hardwood forest with shrub and groundstory openings. The
non jurisdictional uplands include an eastern white pine community, vvthich occurs near the western
boundary of the project site, and linear areas of the shoulder (berm) of Old Michael Road, which extend
along the western, northern, -and eastern boundaries of the site. Jurisdictional surface waters include
1,4'11 linear feet (0 77 acre) of the East Fork Pigeon River and 664 linear feet (0 05 acre) of a perennial,
unnamed tributary to the East Fork, Pigeon River. The 0.05 -acre perennial stream channel occurs near the
western project boundary and flows to, the south to a point of confluence with the East Fork Pigeon River
The point of confluence is located near the southwest corner of the project site The East Fork Pigeon River
enters the project site as a braided channel system at a point along the southern project boundary and leaves

Final Wetland Miagution Plan March 14, 2011
East Fti?k Pigeon, Avei Wetlan& Project AIACTEC Project No 6470 -10 -0214
Ilaywoad'County, North Carolina NCEEP SC'O ID 10- 07350 -01
the project site near the southwest corner of the site as a single thread channel system. Overall, the project
site is bordered on the west, north, and east sides by Old Michael Road The southern boundary of the
project site abuts forested wetlands. The acreage values reported' herein were based on the ,specific
purpose survey of The project site, as conducted by Cavanaugh to October 2010 ". The descriptions of on-
site plant communities were based on field observations made by MACTEC scientists during site visits
conducted between April and October 2010
Note- According to February 9, 2011 correspondence from NCEEP to MACTEC (i e, Draft Miligation
Plan Documents Review Comments), the NCEEP is in possession of a land survey document of the
Coleman property'that was prepared by Joel Johnsoiv Land Surveying, (JJLS). The survey completed by
JJLS presents a value of 18 10 acres for the total size of the Coleman tract, as including a boundary
survey and a conservation easement survey The conservation easement portion of the JJLS survey of the
Coleman tract is 16.53 acres, which is the portion of the Coleman tract that has been put in a permanent
conservation easement by the State of North Carolina. An area of 1:57 acres (i e., the difference between
18 10 acres and 16 53 acres) occurs within the Coleman tract (parcel boundary), but in a right -of -way;
therefore, these 1.57 acres cannot ,be deeded as conservation casement The Project Area for the East
Fork Pigeon River Wetland project is 15.73, acres. The Project Area represents the area of land that was
examined to facilitate the preparation of the Wetland Mitigation Plan During the initial review of the
project in May 2010 between NCEEP and MACTEC, aerial photography of the project site boundary was
provided by NCbb;P_ "I he site boundary on the NCEEP aerial photograph was used to delimit the Project
Area The Pmj'cet Area boundary was surveyed, by Cavanaugh in October 24,10. The difference between
the Project Area (1 -5.73 acres) and the NCEEP recorded conservation easemenv('16 53 acres) is 0.8 acre
This value of 0.8 acre of land encompasses a small area of uplands along Old Michael Road
Jurisdictional surface waters, including perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, and other special
aquatic sites, are defined by 33 C;FR Part 328.3 and arc protected by Section 404 and other applicable
sections of the Clean Water Act (e.g, 33 USC 1344), which is administered and enforced by the USACE as
well as other federal and state government agencies MACTEC professional wetland scientists delineated
the landward limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S, including streams and wetlands, on the East Forte
Pigeon River project site using the Routine Wetland Determination (Level 2 - Onsite Inspection Necessary)
method as defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987,).
Phis technique uses a multi - parameter approach that requires positive evidence of "hydrophyttc vegetation;
hydric soil, and wetland hydrology, MACTEC considered areas exhibiting the aforementioned three
4

I real Welland tilidgation Plan A94rch 14. 2011
Last Fork Pigeon River Wetland% Projec! jW4C'TEC Projecr ,Vo 6470 -10- 11214
llappood County, k(irth Carolina NC'EEP SC U 11) 10- 07350-01
Weiland characteristics to be potentially jurisdictional surface waters and marked, with flagging tape, these
areas in the field Finally, to facilitate the identification of'potentially jurisdiefionA surface waters on the
project site. MACTEC reviewed readily and publicly available information sources, including the USGS
7.5- minute quadrangle ,topographic map, the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS 2010), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for
Haywood County, and relatively recent color aerial photography.
In the State of'North Carolina, the USACE is the lead regulatory agency in, regard to verification of,the
landward extent of jurisdictional surface waters MACTEC coordinated the verification of jurisdictional
surface waters with Mr 'Tyler Crurbley of the USACE. - Asheville Regulatory Field Office Mr-
Crumbley conducted the site inspection of the landward limits of USACE regulatory jurisdiction on
October 6, 2010, with MACTEC professional wetland scientists in attendance. Following Mr.
Crumbley's confirmation of the wetland delineation, the landward limits -of the on -site jurisdictional
surface waters were surveyed by Mr - -. David Alley of 'Cavanaugh, who is a registered Professional land
Surveyor in North Carolina. [ he signed and scaled, specific purpose survey of the landward limits of
USACE regulatory jurisdiction for the Fast Fork Pigeon River project site was subsequently submitted to
�Mr Crumbley for review, Supporting documents, wliich were prepared by MACTEC and submitted to
Mr -. Crumbley for review. included the completed Wetland Determination Data Form - Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region (data point for wetland side and upland side) and the completed Approved
Jurisdictional Determination Form (Rapanos, form) The specific purpose survey and the supporting
documents were approved by Mr. Crumbley. The U5ACF. iti'otification of Jurisdictional 'Determination
for the East Fork Pigeon River project site was issued on November 3, 2010, under Action id No. 2010 -
�01783 The Notification of Jurisdictional Determination is valid foi a period of five years, with an
expiration date of November 3, 2015. A copy of the specific purpose survey, as,approved (signed) by Mr.
Crumbley, and the aforementioned supporting doetiments are included herein as Appendix A
3.2 1lydrologicral Characterization
The East Fork Pigeon River project site is located within the French Broad River Basin (USGS 8 -digit
NUC 0,6,010`106 [DWQ 2010, USGS 201,0]) The project site is situated within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) IbO -year flood zone (Zone A7) ,according to Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) Panel No. 370120 0190B (effective date July 15, 1984, FEMA 2010). The completed NCFFP
Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included herein as Appendix B It is presumed that the proposed
activities for this prglcct will not'require a FEMA development permit Drainage on the site is generally
5

Final Weiland Mifigaiirin Plan March 14, 2011
Fast Fork Pigeon Rivet Wedands Projecl U4 TEC Protect Na 6470 -10 -0214
Haytivood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -fl1
to the south and west through the wetlands, the East Fork Pigeon River, and ap unnamed perennial
tributary to the East Fork Pigeon River. The East Fork Pigeon River is classified in the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Basinwide Information Management System as a Water Supply III (WS -11I)
waterbody�and trout Waters (Tr).
Areas of the bottornland hardwood forest are shallowly inundated or saturated. According �to personal
communication with the landowner, Ms I lelen Coleman (October 4, 2010), the East Fork Pigeon River
was historically located riear the toe of Old Michael Road, along the northern and eastern property
boundaries. I he shift in this portion of the reach to the south, where the reach now exists; occurred'a few
decades in the past according to Ms. Coleman The degree of change in the hydrologic regime from the
historic condition to the current condition is not specifically known. The location of the historic reach
near the southern shoulder' of Old MidhaeI Road i's now occupied, by a wetland drainageway The western
end of the drainageway abuts a metal culvert, which allows for the passage of water from the wetland
drainageway to an unnamed perennial stream channel to East Fork Pigeon River located near the western
project boundary.
Based on further personal communication with Ms Coleman (October 4, 2010), the majority of the
property was farmed in the past, with cessation of farming activities occurring a few decades ago. The
farming activities most likely included the establishment of small ditches to facilitate drainage of,the fann
land These drainage ditches do not appear to affect the current hydrology of the site. Some hydrologic
enhancement has occurred on the project site for an unknown period,of time due to the activities of beaver
(Camor conadensis), i e , because of two small dams within the eastern portion of the site The beaver
dams appear to .contribute to the impoundment of surface water within the eastern, portion of the
bottomland hardwood forest. The various hydrologic changes through time have led to wetter site
conditions since farthing activities were abandoned. Wetter site conditions have facilitated the
establishment of obligate wetland plant species on the project site
Finally, other sources of hydrolog} for the project site include three culvert features which occur along
Old Michael Road Siream flow (stream channel runoff) or stormwater runoff from adjacent properties is
conveyed onto the project site by these culverts. The locations of the three culverts are shown on Figure
2 The westernmost culvert conveys stream flow from an offisitc, potentially jurisdictional, stream
feature into the perennial stream channel that occurs near the westem project boundary. The central
culvert conveys stream flow from another off -site, potentially jurisdictional, stream feature into the
6,

Final Wedand tMigarion Plan March 14. 1011
Exit Fork Pigeon River Welland% Prnjecr MACTEC Project Yo 6470 -10 =0114
flay -wood County North Cat ohna NCEEP SC 0 ID 10- 07350 -01
wetland drainageway that extends along the northern project boundary and Old Michael Road, The
easternmost culvert,(cross culvert),discharges stormwater into the aforementioned wetland dramageway
3.3 Soil Characterization
According to ,the Natural Resources Conservation Service ,(MRCS), the project site is underlain by the
Dellwood cohbly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded' (DcA) map unit, which
encompasses depressions and floodplains (landforms) (BRCS 2010). The NRCS considers this map unit
to include hydric soil inclusions, i.e., small areas of Cullowhee or Nikwasi soils in depressions (NRCS
2010) The hydric criteria for this map unit is 'fisted by the NRCS as `2'B3', i.e, soils that are ,poorly
drained or very poorly drained and have a water table at a depth of 10 foot or less during the growing
season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches per hour in any layer within a depth of 20 inches. A
MACTEC Licensed Soil Scientist confinned, through on -site soil probing, that the wetland areas within
the protect site were underlain by hydric soils The USAGE confirmed the presence.of hydric soils within
the on -site wetlands during an October 6, 2010 site inspection conducted by USACE regulatory staff.
Ilse hydric soils observed in the field consisted generally of loam textures Redoximorphic features
(mottles) were observed within one foot of the existing ,ground surface. Finally, in regard to wildlife
habitat, the Haywood County Soil Survey lists the Cullowhee and Nikwasi soil series as `Good for
Wetland Plants'. The surface horizons of these soils are generally loams and sandy loamy with ,a pH
ranging from 4.5 to 6.5. Based on the aforementioned rating of `Good for Wetland Plants', it is presumed
that no soil fertility amendments will need to be applied to the planting bed during the wetland planting
operation Soil fertility testing may be needed to determine actual soil fertility amendment rates, if
needed
3.4 Vegetation Community Type Description and (Disturbance History
The distribution, structure, and species composition of the plant communities that occur on the East Fork
Pigeon River project site partly reflect historic agricultural land use practices The 13.95 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands on the project site, which will comprise the proposed wetland mitigation area,
consist of a bottomiand hardwood forest with shrub and groundstory openings (Figure 2). These wetlands
are areas of poorly- drained, seasonally saturated soil's an l6wiands abutting the East Fork Pigeon River.
Areas of shallow seasonal pooling (i e , areas of seasonal inundation of less than 6 inches) are also present
within depressions on site Based on the USFWS NWI map and the Cowardin classification protocols
( Cowardin et al 1979), the majority, of the wetlands area on the project site is classified as Code PSS1 A.
or Palustrinc, Scrub /Shrub, Broad - leaved Deciduous, Temporary Flooded Based on the natural
7

Final Werluiid Hingation flan Alatch 14, 2011,
Last Fork Pigeon Rrvei Wetlands Pr eject MALI LC Project .No 0470 -10-02'14
11a,}nvood County, North Carolina NCEEP sC0 iD 10-0 7350-01
community classification scheme for North Carolina by Schafale and Weakley (1990), the wetlands area
on the project site would be classified as `Piedmont/Mountain Bottom Ian d'Forest'
Within the scattered portions of the on -site bottomland hardwood forest that contain dominant or co-
dominant overstory vegetation, the canopy stratum is comprised of sycamore (Platanus occtdentalis),
black willow (Satix nigra), and red maple (Ater rubrum). Areas comprised of shrubs and areas dominated
by groundstory plants are interspersed throughout the project site. These areas occur as openings within
the bottomland hardwood forest. The shrub vegetation primdr,ily includes black willow (saplings) and
multiflora rose (Rosa multipra). The groundstory is comprised of sedges, rushes, and herbaceous plants,
such as swamp aster (Aster puniceus), :soft rush (Juncus effusus), orange jewelweed (Impatien.% capensi%),
false -nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), sedges (Carex spp.), `panic grass (Punicum sp.)', blackberry (Rubes
sp ), multiflora robe, seedbox (Ludwigia sp ), and duck - potato (Sagittaria lat fnlia) Many of these
groundstory species,also occur within the forested wetland portions of the project site
Nuisance (invasive) plant species that occur within the bottomland hardwood forest on the East Fork
Pigeon River,project site include bamboo (Phyllostachys sp.), common cattail (Typha laitfolia), multiflora
rose, Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). and kudzu
(Puerario montana) (Figure 3). Three stands of bamboo are found in or adjacent to the project site. The
larger stand (0,88 acre) of bamboo (Bamboo Area 1) is present within the eastern portion of the project
site, along 'the northern bank of the bast Fork Pigeon River, The other two stands of bamboo (0 10 acre
and 0 18 acre) are present along the northern project boundary, along the southern shoulder of Old
Michael Road (Bamboo Area 2) and the northern shoulder of the road (Bamboo Area 3). While both of
these latter two stand's of bamboo occur outstde.of the project boundary, they may serve as a seed source
for this nuisance species. A scattered cattail area (0 61 acre [Cattail Area I]) is present within the north -
central portion of the project site, within a shallow inundated shrublgroundstery opening of the
bottomland hardwood forest Two smaller areas ,of cattail are also present +on the project site: Cattail Area
2 (0 06 acre) occurs within the western portion of the project site and Cattail Area 3 (0 002 acre) exists
near the southeast corner of the site Kudzu occurs on, or abuts, the project site at three locations Kudzu
Area 1 (0 24 acre) abuts ,the, northwest boundary of the protect site along the southern shoulder of Old
Michael :Road, while Kudzu Area 2 (0.11 acre) and Japanese KnotweedlKudzu Area (0 02 acre) occur
within the southeastern portion of the site in the bottomland hardwood forest. Japanese knotweed is
sparsely scattered within the southeastern portion of the project site. The two observed locations, of
Japanese knotweed include Japanese Knotweed Area 1 (0.06 acre) and Japanese KnotweedlKbdzu Area
8

Final Wetland Uwgation Plan March 14, 2011
Last fork Pigeon River ,Wedands,Project A1,4CTEC Projeci No 6470 -10 -1214
Haywood Counh; Nurth C at ohna MEET SCD ID 10-' 0735Mf
(0 02 acre) Multiflora rose is scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest, under the forest
canopy and within the shrub openings Multiflora rose is the most common of the six nuisance plant
species discussed ,herein, with regard to density and areal extent within the project site. Japanese
honeysuckle is sparsely scattered throughout the bottomiand hardwood forest of the project site A dense
patch of Japanese honeysuckle also occurs within an upland area that abuts the western boundary of the
site, which is ,offsite, The locations and areal limits of'the aforementioned areas of nuisance plant species
occurrence were obtained through global positioning system (GPS) technology, diffcrcntially- corrected to
sub -meter accuracy, as conducted by MACTEC scientists on October 4 and 5, 2010. Taxonomic
nomenclature for the aforementioned plant species is based on Weakley (2008).
3.5 Site Topography and Geology
Based on the review of the USGS topographic quadrangle (Asheville, North Carolina) for the East Fork
Pigeon River project site, no distinct variation in topography is apparent across the site An elevation
(contour interval) of 2,760 feet mean sea level is depicted on the quadrangle along the north side of Old
Michael Road and to the south of the southern project boundary. No contour interval is depicted on the
quadrangle, for the interior of the project site. More detailed topographic data for the project site, are
provided through the specific purpose topographic survey of ground elevations conducted by Cavanaugh
in November 2010 The Cavanaugh field survey entailed the collection of ground elevation data at 100 -
foot grid intersections. The Cavanaugh survey drawing is presented in Appendix C fine -foot contour
intervals are presented on the survey drawing. Based on the results of the topographic survey, the ground
elevations ranged from approximately 2,760 feet at Old, Michael Road, at the southeastern corner of the
project site, to approximately, 2 „735 feet, at the Southwestern corner of the site near the confluence of the
East Fork Pigeon River and the unnamed perennial stream Low contour intervals (low surveyed ground
elevations), ranging from approximately 2,737 to 2,739 feet, occurred within the east - central portion of
the project site where shallow pooling was observed. Another area of low contour intervals and shallow
pooling occurred within the west- central portion of the, project site, 'where the ground elevations ranged,
from 2,738 to 2,739 feet The surveyed 2,740 -foot contour interval generally extended through the
western half of "the project site.
With regard to the geologic setting, the project site is located in the Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah
Falls Formation of the Blue Ridge Belt of North Carolina (NCGS 1985). This formation is underlain by
muscovite — biotite gneiss The East Pork Pigeon River is underlain by rocks of the Ashe Metamorphic
Suite I he rocks in this suite developed over 700 million years ago from sediment layers of gravel, sand,
z

Final Wieland Marganon flan March 14, 2011
F,asr Fork Pigeon River Wellande Project AYACT1.0 Project No 6470 -10 -0214
Maywood County, North Carolina NCEEP SCO if) 10- 07350 -11
and_ silt. After the scdiment layers were ,buried, compressed, and lithif ed into rock, they were
metamorphosed to form the mica gneisses and schists that are seen in the suite today.
3.6 Site Photography
Ground level site conditions,of,the East' Fork Pigeon River project Site were photographed by MACTEC
scientists during site visits conducted in April and October, 2010. The ground level site photography is
presented in Appendix D
4.0 PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN
4.1 Mitigation,Plan Goals and Objectives
The RBRP identified the following major stressors in the watershed. excess fecal coliform bacteria, nutrient
enrichment, habitat fraginentation from impoundments, and habitat degradation associated with
sedimentation, streambed scour, and streambank erosion.
Mitigation goals for the Past Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project are to enhance and protect existing
wetlands and wildlife habitat along the )vast Fork Pigeon River. These will address the RBRP goal of
protecting habitat for priority species in the basin
The project objectives include.
s Enhance existing wetlands by removing identified invasive plant species °through manual and chemical
methods and by planting native species within the project site
m Protecting the project wetlands and on -srte species with 'a permanent conservation easement.
4.2 Nuisance Plant Species Control
Based on site reconnaissance, conducted by MACTEC wetland scientists from April through October
2010, wetland enhancemetit can be achieved for the East Fork Pigeon River project site through the
control of nuisance plant species which currently inhabit the bottomland hardwood forest and
shrub /groundstory open areas on site MACTEC recommends that the control of nuisance plant species
exclude the use =of mechanized vehicular equipment Mechanized vehicular equipment would most.likOy
significantly disturb the soil substrate of the on -site wetlands Furthermore, any opportunity to place fill
material in the bottomland hardwood forest to facilitate the nuisance species control operation (providing
ingress/egress of equipment) is, not recommended, as this, activity would likely entail the filling; of
jurisdictional wetlands and therefore require authorization 'by the USACE With 'these considerations,
E

kmal Wetland .Mitigation Plan March 14, 201 f
Last Foe Pigeon Rnt w Wetlands Project W4CTr(' Project No 6470 -10 -0214
Hayivood Counq, North Carolina NC'l:F,f' SCO iD i0- 07350 -0f
VIACTFC recommends that the treatment of the aforementioned six nuisance plant species encompass a
combination of hand cledrnng (cutting by machete and /or chainsa-v) and herbicide application, as
described below for each of the six nuisance plant species. A seven -year tuneframe for the treatment of
nuisance plant species is proposed.
The timing of herbicidal control methods for the six nuisance plant species, on the project site will be
dependent on the type of herbicide (chemical compound) and the target plant species. The window for
optimum results may be narrower for one species compared to another Furthermore, the "location" of
the chemical application (i.e., stems, leaves, roots, etc ) varies among species These factors will
influence the implementatton/duration of the nuisance species control operations when herbicidal control
methods are employed.
By controlling ,the nuisance plant species the habitat for wildlife, the habitat for aquatic biota of the East
Fork Pigeon River, production export, visual quality /aesthetics, and the uniqueness /heritage ofthe project
site will be improved To complement the nuisance plant species control efforts, increased diversification
of native plant species, will be provided through, the planting of the wetlands on site with native
bottomland hardwood tree species. The target goal'for these efforts will be the vegetative,enhancement-of
the existing wbtland community on the East Fork Pigeon River project site
42 1 Bamboo
Overview. The North Carolina Native, Plant Society lists bamboo as having,,a `significant' threat (Rank;2
category) to native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPS 2010). Bamboo is native to ,Asia
Some species of bamboo were first introduced into the United States in the nineteenth century for
ornamental purposes (SEPPC 20,10). The control of non-,native invasive bamboo must include the
removal of as much of the root mass and rhizomes of the plant as possible. The use of power equipment
(ehasnsaws) is recommended for larger areas of infestation. Containment can also be a fairly effective
method of controlling bamboo As the rhizomes of bambou are fairly shallow (i.e., growing less than one
foot deep in the soil), a barrier made of concrete, metal, plastic, or� pressure = treated wood installed about
18 inches deep can prove effective. Bamboo rhizomes are not stopped by barriers but are merely
reflected i herefore, the areas surrounding the barriers, should be monitored regularly for escaped
rhizomes. As it will most likely be impossible to remove all pieces of bamboo, a follow -up treatment
with herbicides is generally required 1n conjunction with removal or containment; a non - selective,
herbicide with the active ingredient glyphosate (i.e , Roundup or Eraser) is commonly used- Glyphosate

final Ifetland Uaigarron Plan Watch 14, 2011
East 1,w k Pigeon River Wetlands Project UACTEC Project Nu_ 6470 -10 -0214
Hopvoud Counry, North Carohno NICELYSCO ID 10- 0 7350 -0I
does not have, residual soil activity and will only kill plants that receive direct application. However, for
glyphosate to be ,effective, the bamboo must be mowed or�chopped and allowed to regrow until the new
leaves expand. Glyphosate can then be applied to the leaves Typically, one application of glyphosate
will not eradicate a bamboo tiifestation. Therefore, it can potentially take two to three years to achieve
complete control For bamboo control next to creeks, wetlands, or other water sources where spray drift
will contact the water, a glyphosate product labeled for use near water (Eraser AQ,, Rodeo, Pondmaster,
Aquamaster or Aquapro) is required. Aquatic formulations of glyphosate can be mixed with a non -ionic
surfactant, such as Ortho X -77 or Southern Ag Stirfactant for herbicides, to improve control (Ferrell et a)
2006).
Proposed Treatment. For Bamboo Areas 1, 2, and 3, the control operation should include- (1) the cutting
of bamboo stalks by hand (machete) and /or chainsaw in the spring (June), (2) the disposal off site of the
cut plant material, (3) the basal spraying of the cut bamboo stalks in October/early November, following
leaf growth, with one of the aforementioned .glyphosate products labeled for use near water; and (4)
retreatment, if necessary. The eradication of Bamboo Areas 2 and 3, which occur off site, is�
recommended to prevent further recruitment of this nuisance species within the prciect site. More than
one treatment may be necessary if the initial treatment does not eradicate all of the bamboo in the target
areas.
4 22 Cattail
Overview: Common cattail is native to North America. No ranking of threat to native plant eominuiiities
is assigned for cattail by the North Carolina Native Plant Society (NCTIPP 2010). Herbicidal control
methods generally provide suitable treatment of cattail Two chemical compounds, diquat and
glyphosate, are the most effective in controlling cattails and are approved for aquatic use fliquat is a
contact herbicide. therefore, complete coverage of the cattail is needed to eliminate the plant. This
requires spraying the area of cattails from several directions, which is considered a drawback. Another
drawback is that diquat does not travel through (lie plant and therefore does not reach the roots of the
plant. Since the root system is not killed, new shoots will emerge from the roots the following ycar.
Using diquat-will require yearly applications Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide; therefore, it will travel
throughout the plant and kill both the roots and vegetative portions Systemic herbicides are preferred in
the elimination of perennial plants such as cattail There is no need to spray from multiple directions
when using glyphosate Another advafitage of glyphosate is that one ,application of this systemic
;herbicide can often eliminate a cattail stand (Lynch 2002).
IN

Pinal Wedand,tlitrgntronPlan
Firm F(irk Pigeon Rwer Wetlands Project
/lapvood C'oumy. Norvh Carohna
,bMm ch 14, ? 011
,W,4C 7l,C PrQlect Nlo 6470 -10 -0214
W- PEP.W.70IT) 10- 07350 -01
Proposed Treatment. For Cattail Areas 1. 2, and 3, the control operation should entail the spraying of the
target areas with glyphosate in mid- summer through early fall A second treatment will most likely be
incccssary if the initial treatment does not eradicate ail of the cattail in the target areas.
4.2.3 Japanese Knotweed
Overview: Japanese knotweed, native to Japan, was introduced into the United States prior to 1890 By
,the turn ofthe,century, it was established iu °the eastent United States and was reported natural ized'a round
Philadelphia, PA,, Schenectady,, NY, and Atlantic highlands, NJ. Current distribution is from
Newfoundland to Ontario, to many parts of the north and southeastern United States, and west to
Minnesota and Iowa (SEPPC 2010). Vhe North Carolina Native Plant Society lists, Japanese knotweed,as
having a `severe' threat (Rank 1 category) to native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPP 2010),
Japanese knotweed spreads rapidly from stout long rhizomes Seeds are distributed by water in,
floodplains, transported with fill dirt. and to ,a lesser extent are wind- blown. Once established,
populations are,quite persistent and can out - compete existing vegetation Japanese knotwee&ean tolerate
a variety of adverse conditions including full shade, high temperatures, high salinity, and drought It is
found near water sources, in low -lying areas, waste places, utility rights �of way, and around, old !tome
sites., It can quickly become, an invasive pest in natural areas after escapiq from cultivated gardens It
poses a significant threat to riparian areas, where it can survive severe floods. Japanese knotweed
typically takes advantage of areas disturbed by humans (or wildlife, such as beaver); i.e , areas affording
ample sunlight and friable soil for the invasive roots Therefore, the clearing of forested land should be
avoided until the eradication of this species is completed. Mechanical control includes grubbing.
Grubbing can be used for small populations or environmentally sensitive areas where herbicides cannot
be used. The entire plant, including all roots and runners, is removed with a digging; tool Juvenile plants
can be hand- pulled depending on soil conditions and root development. Any' portions of the root system
not removed will potentially resprout All plant parts, including mature fruit, should be bagged and
disposed of to prevent reestablishment Herbicidal control methods ( glyphosate or triclopyr) include the
aforementioned foliar-spray method or the cut stump method. The cut stump method can be used in areas
where Japanese knotweed is aggressively established within or around non - target plants. I he foliar spray
method can be used to control large populations It may be necessary to precede foliar applications with
stump treatments to reduce the risk of damaging non - target species (Remaley and Bargeron 2403)
13

Final Welland .14ingalion Plan March 14; 2011
ha.►t Fnrk Pigeon Rimer Weilandy Project W,1CT1 -,C Protect N(,i 6470 -10 -0214
Haywood County, North Carolina M EEP SCO 11) 10- 07350 -01
Proposed Treatment* For Japanese Knotweed Area I and the Japanese Knotweed /Kudzu Area, the
control operation should entail the careful spraying of individual stems of the species with glyphosate or
triclopyr in mid- summer through early fall Juvenile plants maybe hand- pulled; however, since there is a
potential for resprouting from uncollected roots, herbicide application may provide better results. A
second treatment will most likely be necessary if the initial treatment does not eradicate all of the
Japanese knot-Weed in the target areas,
4.2 4 Kudzu
Overview- The North Carolina Native Plant Society lists kudzu as having a `severe' threat (Rank l
category) to native plant communities in North Carolina (NCNPP 2010) A native of Asia, kudzu was
introduced into the United States at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. The Sol] Erosion
Service (later renamed the Soil Conservation Service) distributed approximately 85 million seedlings
starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion In 1953, the United Stales Department of
Agriculture removed kudzu as a cover plant and listed it as a common weed of the South in 1970 It is
estimated that kudzu now covers seven million acres in the southeast Distribution is as far north as
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Connecticut and from eastern 'Texas to central Oklahoma in the west The
largest infestations are found in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia (5EPPC.2010)
Kudzu is an aggressive vine which will occupy forest edges or disturbed areas, such as abandoned fields
and roadsides Mechanical control methods include ,grubbing or cutting Grubbing, with a digging tool,
will rein ve the entire plant; including the taproot. Removed vegetation should'be destroyed by burning
Or bagging. As kudzu roots often extend five feet bel'ov< ground, eradication by this method is very
difficult and is primarily used for small initial incursions. With regard to cutting, the vines and runners
are chopped just alcove the grdundievel and the cuttings are destroyed Cutting does not typically kill
roots and should only be used to`control the spread of kudzu Herbicidal control methods (glyphosate or
tr,iclopyr) include the cut stump meihodJoliar spray'method,.and the root crown method. The cut stump
methodacan be used in,areas where vines are established within or around non - target plants or where vines
have grown into the canopy The foliar spray method can be used to control larger populations. It may be
necessary to precede foliar applications with stump treatments to reduce the risk of damaging nosy- target
species. After the steins and leaves have been brought under control (i e.; all above ground portions of the
plants have bccn effectively treated), further treatment °should follo%V with the snot crown method. For the
root crown method, the young or•resprouting stem of the plant is located down to the root. A digging tool
14

Final Wetland k itrganon Plan March 14, 2011
L•a►t Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project k111(,71,,C Pi gtect .No 6470 -10 -0214
Na}nvood County, No? th Carolina NC CEP SCO 11) 10-07350-01
is then used to cut into the root crown. Herbicide is then applied to the main root crown and any below
ground runners (Remaley and Bargeron 2003).
Proposed Treatment. For Kudzu Areas 1 and 2 and the Japanese Knotweed /Kudzu Area, the control
operation should be, completed using the cut stump method. Kudzu has infested the canopy stratum at all
three target areas. The foIiar spray method is not recommended because the population (areal coverage)'
of kudzu at these'locations is not large and,the non- target plants (trees) could be impacted. Kudzu Area 2
occurs near the East Fork - 'Pigeon River and the foliar spray method would impact, this surfacc water if
spray drift- occurred A second treatment -will most likely be necessary if the initial cut stump application
does not,eradicate all of the kudzu in the target areas.
4 2 5 Multiflora Rose
Ove "rView- The North Carolina Native Plant Society lists multiflora rose as having a 'scvcrc' threat (Rank
I category) to native plant communities in '`forth Carolina (NCNPP 2010) Multiflora rose was
introduced from Japan, Korea, and eastern China in 1886 as rootstock for ornamental roses In the 1930s,
it was widely promoted as a "living fence" for soil conservation and in wildlife programs. Present
distribution is throughout the United States with the exception of the southeastern coastal plains, Rocky
Mountains, and western desert areas. , Multiflora rose invades natural areas, especially fields, floodplains,
and, light gaps in forests (SEPPC 2010).
Mechanical control methods for multiflora rose, such as mowing or cutting, can be used for small
populations or environmentally ,sensitive areas where herbicides cannot be used Repeated mowing or
cutting will control the spread of multiflora rose, but will not eradicate it. Stems should be cut at least
onceper growing season.a&close to the ground as possible. Herbicidal control methods „such as the foliar
spray method or the cut stump method, can be alternatively used. The foliar spray method is suited for
large thickets of multiflora rose, where risk to non - target species is minimal Glyphosate can be used for
control'; however, as a non - selective systemic herbicide, this chemical may kill non - target partially -
sprayed plants Triclopyr is a selective herbicide for broadleaf species, therefore, in areas where desirable
grasses are growing under or around multiflora rose, triclopyr can be used without non - target damage.
The cut stump method can be used to treat individual bushes or in situations where the presence of
desirable species preclude foliar application (Remaley and Bargerni 2003)
15

Final Wetland Aligation Plan March 14, 2011
East Fork Plgeon.River Wetlands Project MACTEC Prq&ci No 6470 -10 -0214
Ha ifiomacl County. Norlh Carolina NC1sEP SCQ 1D 10- 07350 -01
Proposed Treatment- Multiflora rose is scattered throughout the bottomland hardwood forest, under the
forest canopy and within the shrub openings. The control operation for multiflora rose will be labor
intensive and will cost more than the control operations for the other nuisance plant species The
recommended treatment for the control of multiflora rose on the project site is the out stump method.,
Under this method, individual bushes would be cut and treated with glyphosate or triclopyr herbicide
(basal. spraying) Herbicide app] i cations �of glyyphosate and /or triclopyr, using -the foliar spray method, are
not recommended for the project site, as this method will deleteriously 'impact non - target, desirable,
wetland plant species within the groundstory. More than one treatment may be necessary if the initial
treatment doc& not eradicate all of the multiflora, rose in the target, areas Due to the aggressive nature
(recruitment) of multiflora rose and the -prevalence of this,species on the prnlect site, the control program
will most likely be more difficult to implement than the control programs for the other five nuisance
species
4 -2.6 Japanese Honeysuckle
Overview Japanese honeysuckle is a native of eastern Asia. It was first introduced into North America
,iii 1806 in Long Island, NY. Japanese honeysuckle grows extremely,rapidly and "is virtually impossible to
control in naturalized woodland edge zones due to its rapid spread via tiny fruit seeds It forms a tall
dense woody shrub layer that aggressively displaces native plants, (SEPPC 2010). The North Carolina
Native Plant Society lists Japanese honeysuckle as having a `severe" threat (Hank 1 category) to native
plant communities in'North Carolina (NCNPP 2010)
The control of Japanese honeysuckle, 'includes the following methods. mowing, 'grazing, prescribed
bunting, and herbicides. Whilc grazing and mowing reduces the spread of vegetative stems. prescribed
burns or a combination of prescribed burns and herbicide spraying, appears to be the best way to eradicate
this vine. Systemic herbicides which cap be used,for treatment „include glyphosate (Rodeo for wetlands
and Roundup for uplands) and triclopyr (Garton). Other chemical compounds with varying levels of
efficacy are available for use (MAEPPC 21110).
Proposed Treatment The control of Japanese honeysuckle through careful herbicide, spray application
(glyphosate or triclopyr) in, mid - summer through early fall is' recommended for the project site
Mechanical control methods (mowing) or prescribed burning are not recommended for tlic control of
Japanese honeysuckle within the wetland areas.
16

Final Welland Mitigation Plat
Lust Pork Pigeon River wetlands Projeci
Haywoud C aunly, North Carolina
4.3 'Wetland Planting Plan
Afarch 14. 2011
RAC7LC Project No 6470 -10 -0214
YCLF,P SC'C) ID 10-07350-01
The Wetland Mitigation Plan for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project will entail the control of
nuisance plant species and the installation of wetland plant species within the project site. After the
nuisance species control program is completed, a portion of the jurisdictional wetlands will be planted in
late winter with wetland tree species that are native to southern mountain wetlands. Figure ,4 depicts the
general boundary of the proposed wetland planting area based on aerial photography and grotindtruthing.
Approximately 8.31 acres of the total, jurisdictional, wetland area (13 95 acres) will not be planted,
however The wetland areas to be excluded from planting encompass (1) the deepwater wetland
drainageway ,which occurs along the southern shoulder of Old Michael Road; (2) the stream banks of East
Fork, Pigeon River (bankfull bench and spoil areas); and (3) the forested portions of the bottomland
hardwood forest. Therefore, only the portion of the bottomland hardwood forest that is open and lacking
an overstory of "trees and large saplings /large shrubs will be planted- With these planting exclusions, the
size of the proposed wetland planting area is approximately 5.614 acres Based on qualitative observations
of the species composition and "density of the canopy andusapling /shrub. strata of the bottom'land hardwood
forest during the 2010 field reeonnais'sance, the aforementioned 5 64 -acre planting area lacks an intact
overstory of hardwood tree species Therefore, to restore the hardwood overstory, the planting of trees
(seedlings) is necessary The control of nuisance plant species is necessary to provide a suitable `bed' for
the planting of seedlings;'i e., competition far nutrients with nuisance species will be removed, as will the
effects of too much shading.
Under the proposed wetland planting plan, the native wetland tree species will be installed at a density of
435 stems per acre (ten -foot centers). The plant material will be representative of the species composition
of botton lland hardwood forested wetlands along the East Fork Pigeon River, The final selection of plant
stock may be determined to spine extent by availability The sciectcd tree species, will consist of
containerized and /or bare root stock protected by tree shelters (i.e., TUBEXO or Miracle Tube tree
shelters) `The tree shelters will provide protection from wildlife depredation, wind. or other natural
influences. The tree seedhng material that is recommended for installation on the,East Fork Pigeon River
Wetlands project' is presented, in Table 1 below The palette of wetland tree species will be finalized
before installation and after consultation with NCEEP.
17

Final Wetland Mitigation Plan March 14. 2011
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project MACTF.0 Pr4lect No 6470- 1114214
Haywood County. North Carolina NCEEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -01
Table 1. Proposed Plant Material for the East .]Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
Mitigation Plan,,Ha_ od County, No rth Carolina.
" h'n{5�4. Ft. "} .b c. a.' .a "� c ,,�
F t +�rl ��„ 1�"�. t. 7-� L +MS
- n+ � .,F. •}} 4y .F•fL C -3 rr 3"�-u- �
1� !- .S- '`.'r''.` i Y -
� --x,�t ,1111 1 � {�
6^ c i', �,�L.•
5'< , } �Y
�+'Y 1 d�"�£.� r?
ainericana
Bittermit Hickory
I I cqrd�lorffds
•
Cherrybark Oak
Quercus pagoda,
�t•
We'e-n Ash
Er' / pennsylvanicd-
Sugarbe�,Y
Cehig laevigala
•
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Ozter&us michauxii
��•
' Taxnnomu nomenclature bascd on Alan S WeakleY in Flop ant the SaWherri and Mid- Atlanirc States. March 8. 20 10 Working
Drab, University of North Carolina Herbarium.
' Values of number ot'scediings to plant arc based on: (1) a total of approximately 2,454 seedlings to install, with the installation
of plant material equally divided among (tie sir tree -pccivs selected for installation and (2) d prulxsed wetland planting area of
approximately 5 64 acres and a planting density of435 Stems per acre
Wetncbs Tolerance'}saced on Plant Indicator Status in National Levi of Pitt Species That Vccr<r in'iWkwils (Region 2 -
Soulheast), Rewurce Management -Group, Inc ; 1999 Abbreviations- FACW —T muttdtivc Welldnd, FAG- } acultativc
Site preparation will be necessary prior to the planting of individual tree seedlings The site preparation
will include manual disking with shovels; spades, rakes, or other hand tools to remove or loosen the
existing groundstory vegetation and create a suitable planting bed for seedlings. The portions of the on-
,site wetlands that contain minimal groundcover should not require site preparation. Minor field
ad dstments during planting operations are,,expected, i.e., moving,the planting location,of tree seedlings
when obstacles are encountered, such as existing trees or shrubs, large logs, or'slump holes.
The planting plan will exclude the installation of wetland plant material within any of the non -
jurisdictional upland areas on the project site. The uplands include the eastern white pine community
occurring near the western boundary �of the site and the sloped arias extending, along the southern
shoulder of Old' Michael Road. Bamboo Areas 2 and 3 occur outside the project boundary and encompass
uplands, therefore, these areas will be planted with upland tree species common to the region, such as
eastern white pine or white oak (Quercus alba).
Finally, the Wetland Mitigation Plan does not ;include any enhancement or restoration activities for the
East Fork Pigeon River or the unnamed perennial stream that occurs within the western portion of the
project site. These,surface waters are,essentially unimpaired and provide suitable habitat for endemic fish
and benthic macro- invertebrates. However, it is recommended herein that these jurisdictional waters be
considered as available preservation credit
18

Final Welland Mltigation Plan
East Pork Pigeon River Weilgnd,� Project
Haywoud'County, Yorth Carolina
4.4 Beaver Control
March 14. 2011
MACT EC Projecr No, 647x1 -10 -021 Q
NC'EEP SCO ID 10- 07350 -07
During the April - October 201,0 field reconnaissance, sign of ,beaver was observed, including tree and
shrub girdltng/cuttings, a lodge, and two dams (Figure 3) within the eastern portion of the bottomland
hardwood forest MACTEC recommends herein that the control of beaver, via acceptable trapping
practices, be,conducted on the project site -during the wetland planting operations and for a period of at least
seven (7) years following planting to ensure= that depredation to the planted tree seedlings by beavers is
minimized. This activity is necessary for the survivorship of the planted wetland species and the overall
success of the wetland enhancement - effort. NCEEP, or appointed State agency, shall'be.responsible for any
long -term beaver cohtrol,efforts,on the project sitc
4.5 Mitigation Assets
The potential mitigation assets that, will be provided from the tmp'lementafion of the Wetland Mitigation
Plan for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands pr9ject are summarized in Table 2 below Table 2 Includes
the following, information:
e Linear feet of stream preservation and the corresponding (available and generated) Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs)
a Acreage of wetland preservation and the corresponding Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs).
e Acreage of wetland enhancemenhand the'corresponding WMUs.
Table 2. Potential Mitigation Assets for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project, Wetland
PIkfi
Perennial Stream
Co u
Preservation
East Fork Pigeon River I Preservation
North Carolina.
664 linear feet 5:l 132 SMUs
1,411 linear feet 5.1 282 SMUs,
Bottomland Hardwood Enhancement 5.64 acres 2.1 2.8 WMUs
Forest - Planted
Bottomland Hardwood Enhancement 0 02 acre 2.1 0.1 WMUS
Forest — Not Planted
Bottomland Hardwood preservation 8.29 acres 5,:1 1.6 WMU,s
Forest —Not Planted
' Tw(1 wetland enhancement areas are propO.s d' i e, a 5.64 -acre area of bottoniland hardwood,forest habitat which is larking a
mature overstory (canopy and tall shrub strata) and is proposed for control or nuisanca plant,spccinti followe&by planting of tree
seedlings (groundstory openings) and a 002 -acre area of bottomland !hardwood forest habitat with a mature canopy, which is
infested with kudzu and Japanese knotweed (Japanese Knotwued /Kudzu Area); will he treated, but not planted
The wetland preservation area (8 24 acre,) include,; the remaining portion of the bottomland hardwood fore,5t habitat that is
comprised of a canopy stratum and /or tall ,shrub stratum, which is propmed for control of nui'qanLe plant species, but nol (hL
planting n"ftrce seedlings.
2 SMIJs = Stream Mitigation Units: WMI s­Wetland Mitigation Units.
K

Final N'erland .Wnigarran Plan
Eavr Fork Pigeun River- Wetlands P, ojeci
llayiood'County North.Carohna
Xfarch 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No 6470 -10 -0214
NCEEP SC O ll.) 10- 073.50 -01
The NCEEP mitigation credit ratios that will be applied to this project are as follows:
Stream preservation at 5:1 for SMUs.
o Wetland preservation at 5.,1 for WMUs.
® Wetland enhancement,at 21 for WMUs.
The following conditions apply to this project with respect to the mitigation assets:
• Mitigation credit will be created for preservation and /or enhancement of on -site wetlands and
streams only, 'i.e., the preservation and /or enhancement of tiff= s"'ite areas will not yield any
mitigation credit The rationale for this determination is that,a conservation easement will insure
that management /maintenance activities for on -site mitigation areas are provided in perpetuity,
while off -site mitigation areas have no such protection and management/maintenance activities
can be discontinued at,any time
• Jurisdictional streams on the project site (i e., streams occurring within the .conservation
easement) must have a 30 -fo6t buffer from edge of bank on each side of the channel to be
available for stream preservation credit
0 Wetland areas occurring within the project site that will be treated for nuisance species; but not
planted, will receive preservation credit only. One exception is the Japanese Knotweed /Kudzu
Area (0 02 acre), which occurs outside of the planting area; i e , this area of nuisance species will
receive enhancement credit for the control of nuisance species due to the aggressive nature of
'kudzu and the potential expansion of this species into the surrounding forested wetlands
• The two areas of bamboo that, occur °along the north side,of Old Michael Road, beyond the, project
site boundary (i e., Bamboo Areas 2 and 3), will be controlled, however, no mitigation credit will
be provided for this control effort as the two baniboo�areas occur off -site, on other property
• The area of kudzu that abuts the northwest boundary of the project site along the southern
shoulder of Old Michael Road (Kudzu Area 1; 0.24 acre) will be controlled; however, no
mitigation credit will be provided for this control effort as the kudzu occurs either outside the
project site boundary or %%ithm uplands
• Areas of nuisance species that occur'within the 5.64 -acre wetland_ planting area include• Bamboo
Area 1 (0.88 acre), Cattail Area 1 (0.61 acre); Cattail Area 2 (0.06 acre); Kudzu Area 2 (0.11
acre), and Japanese Knotweed Area 1 (0 06 acre) (see Figures 3 and 4) Multiflora rose is
scattered throughout the wetland planting area
20

Final Werland Mitigation Plan Mwch 14, 2011
Fav'Fotk,Pigcon River Wetland.% Project UAC71:C Projccr A7o 6470 -10 -0214
Ilayvood County, North Carolina VCEEP SCO Ili 10- 07350 -01
Figure 5 presents the proposed wetland and stream mitigation areas (i e , the potential mitigation assets)
for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project, as including the perennial stream preservation reaches
and the areas of wetland enhancement and wetland preservation within the botibmland hardwood forest
and imbedded shrub openings
5.0 PRELIMINARY MONITORING
The purpose of the wetland monitoring program for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project is to
determine the degree of success the project has achieved in meeting the objectives of providing, wetland
enhancement Data on the survivorship, vitality, and growth of the planted vegetation, the areal coverage:
of nuisance plant species, and wildlife utilization can be gathered annually to show how well the proposed
mitigation plan'is working. At a minimum..the monitoring plan,should include
• Identify parties responsible for monitoring;
• Determine the data to be collected and reported; how often and for what duration;
• Define the assessment,tools and /or methods to be used for monitoring;
• Determine the format for reporting monitoring data and ,assessing enhancement status (success
criteria); and
e Identify monitoring schedule (monitoring will be conducted for a,minimum period of five years)
It is presumed that the wetland monitoring program will incorporate the NCEEP CVS monitoring
protocols Ito determine if success, criteria for the planted species have been met through the, enhancement
efforts At,a minimum, tither CVS Level 1 or CVS Level 2 monitoring (sample plots) will be conducted
in the project wetlands. Ground level photography will be acquired to document site conditions in the
wetlands., Monitoring activities will be conducted over a seven -year titneframe Overall, the wetland
monitoring,prograrri will be,conducted inaccordance with current NCEEP standards Monitoringreports
should contain a discussion of any deviations from baseline conditions and an evaluation of the
significance of these deviations and Ahether they are indicative of a stabilizing or destabilizing situation.
6.0 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MAiNAGEMENT,STRATEaY
6.1 Legal Protection of Wetland Mitigation Area
The wetland mitigation area will be protected through the establishment of a conservation casement. The
NCEEP has obtained a conservation easement for the project site The casement is held by the
State,ofltiiorth Carolina and has been recorded at the Haywood County Courthouse.
21

i'inal Welland Mitigation Plan March /4, 2011
Gao Fork Pigeon River 6t,'etlands Prnleci MA(TU' Preyea ho 6470 -10 -0214
HgXv,')rid,County, North Carolina _ CEEP,SC -011) 10- 07350 -01
6.2 Long - 'Perm Management Responsibilities
Long -term management and maintenance of the wetland mitigation area will be assured through the
placement of the conservation, easement on the mitigation area ,Formal managetrienUmamtenance of the
we ?land mitigation area beyond the monitoring period will be the responsibility ofNCF.EP Ownership of
the wetland mitigation area will reside with the landowner, Ms Helen Coleman, or,her respective assigns.
If the wetland mitigation area should ever he sold, all appropriate protective mechanisms (which will have
been recorded) would remain in effect and would remain with the site.
7.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F C. (iolet, and E T LaRoe , 1979 Classrfication of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U S. Department of ',the `luterior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program. FWS /OB5 -79/31 103pp.
Division -of, Water Quality 2010 North Carolina River'Basin Map. North Carolina Department of
Environment and I Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Web Site:
http / /www ee enr.State.ne us/ public/ ecoaddress /riverbasinsinain.htm, Accessed via the Internet on
November 8, 2010
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Enghaeers Wetlan& Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y -87 -1 U S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 p. plus
appendices
FF.MA 2010 Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 370120 0190B, effective date July 15, 1984
Fedetal Emergency Management Agency and the North Carolina Floodmaps Program Web Site
littp: / /w,ww.nefloodmaps.coml Accessed via the Internet on November 8, 2010.
Ferrell, J., M. Cxarnota, and K Langeland 2006. Bamboo Control (Document SS= AGR -75) Agronomy
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
`University of'Florida
Lynch, W.E 2002 C:'attail.Management (Document A- 11 -02). School of Natural Resources, Ohio State
University Extension Service, Ohio State University.
22

Final Iferland AMigation Plan March 14, 2011
Fast Fink Ageon River Woflands Project AJACTEC Project No, 64 7040-0214
Havzvood County North Carolina NCEEP X YJ 11) 16-07350-01
MAEPPC 2010, Mid - Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council, Web Site: http.//www.ma- eppc.orp/
Accessed via,the1riternet on November 10, 2010.
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina The North Carolina Geological Survey, Division of
Land Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
NCNPP 2010. Norlh Carolina Native 'Plant Society - Invasive Exotic Spccies List. Web Site :,
http / /www.ncwildflower .org /invasivesllist.litm. Accessed via the Internet tin November 19, 2010.
Meal, J.C. 2005. Controlling Bamboo in Landwape Plantings. Department of Horticultural Science,
North Carolina State University.
NRCS, 20110 Natural Resources Conservation Service Svil, Data Matt, Web Site,
http; / /soildatamart tires tisda gov /Default.a5px Accessed via the Internet on November 9, 2010.
Remaley, T. and C. Bargeron: 2003. Southeast Exotic Pest 'Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual.
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Web Site. http.! /www ni vas i;ve or,/ eastern /eppL/in trod uctton.html
Accessed via the Internet on November l'0, 2010.
Sehafale, MY and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina —
third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department .of Environment and
Natural Resources
SEPPC 2010- Southeast Exotie Pest Plant Councit Web Sitc, tiM. / /www.se -epee org /. Accessed via
the Internet on November 14, 2010
USFWS- 2010. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory database. Web
Site, http•/ /.www "fins govhvetlands /. Accessed via the Internet on Novcmbcr'9, 20,10
USGS 2010, 8 -Digit Cataloging Units — North Carolina. United States Geological_ Survey Web Site:
Itttp /lnas er tis;s.gov /hues asffx. Accessed via the Internet on November $,- 201.0.
23

Final Welland Mitigation Plan
East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
March 14, 2011
MACTEC Project No 6470.10 -0214
NCELP SCO ID 10- 07330 -01
Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora, of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding
Areas. Working Draft of April 7, 2008. 'Unive "rsity of North Carolina Herbarium; University of North
Carolina at Chapel Bill
24

FIGURES

0 -25 50 , 100
N 0 RT H CAROLINA_
11PROJECT VICINITY
01)
63
Ni
WAYN ME ),PROJECT LOCATIO
Oda ESL
273',
t
Al
a INTO
e's,
Mil
�l I luwr-
=�-lll
Souroe httpl/services artgisonline corn/ArcGiSiresUservice&(Baseniapfmapserver, dated 2010
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
OMACTEC HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED'- DATE,— — -AjCHECKED,- DATE 1 NUMBER ;IIFIGURE
BY- -1 1/9r20.l'06y !- 1-/2312010 6470-1,D-021

1 *.
'1 �T!��,� U� � e J�' it � �1 n 1. 1 •`. .. � [� t - �
Y. ' d' - e•
It
i 1
Gtr `� '' �ti (� •; � ,
t, 1

i
� r
�y Err}
r
'x
C'
S FORK.
PIGE -
Wetland /Stream Feature Mitigation Type Quantity of On -slte Habitat
Perennial Stream Stream Preservation 664 linear feet
East Fork Pigeon River Stream Preservation 1411 linear feet
Bottomland Hardwood Forest -
Wetland Enhancement 5.64 acres
Planted
Bottomland Hardwood Forest -
Wetland Enhancement 0.02 acre
Not Planted
Bottomland Hardwood Forest -
Not Planted Wetland Preservation 9.29 acres
Note: Stream preservation assets were calculated with a 30 -foot buffer on each side of the
M.
y Y .-

APPENDIX A
USACE NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Q.T.S. ARMY CORPS OIF ENGINEERS
WITAINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id: 2010 -01783 County Haywood U.S.G S Quad-,' NC -Crush
NOTIVICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PropertyOvAmertAgent. MACTECC for Ms. Helen H. _Coleman (owner?
Address 7347 West Friendly, Avenue Suite E
Greensboro, NC 27410
'l elephone No 336- 294 -4221
Property description'
Size (acres) 13,9 acres wetland and 2,076_LF streams Nearest Town Cruso
Nearest Wawrway UT to East Fork of Pigeon River and East Fork of Pigeon River
River Rasin Frer& Broad
us(css HUC 060101,66 Coordinates 35.461)4492,N, - 82.8431099 W
Location description The oroiect cite is located off OM Michael Road (SR 1885) along the East Fork of the pigeon
River in Cruso Haywood County NC. Coordinates 1,m Decimal De rees are: 35 460449 It - 82.$431 99 W.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. PreliminaiT Determination
Based onpreliminary information, there may be waters and wetlands owthe above described property We,strongly
suggest you have this property'inspec-ted to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)jurisdiction To be
considered final, ajiuisdictional determination must,be verified by the Corps. rhis pretiminary defermination is riot an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CPR Part 331 )
B. Approved Determination
Themare Navigable Waters of the United, States within the,above� described property subject to the permit requi`rements,of
Section 10 of the,Riven and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless, there, is a change in the law or
our,published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to excecd,five years from the date of this
notification.
There are waters and wetlands on tlic�above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act,(CW1'103 USC § 1344) ilnless there K a chwibe in the law or our published regulations, this
deterniination'may he relied,upori for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notifidation
We strongly suggest you have the waters and wetlands on your propertti delineated Due to the,size of your property
and/or our present workload. the Corps may,not be able to accomplish this °wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a
lire timely delineation, you may vrish to obtaiwa consultant lobe considered final, any delineation must be verified by
the Corps
The waters and wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been'venfied by the Corps We
strongly suggest you have this, de lineation surveyed Upon completion_ this survey should be reviewed and verified by the
Corps, Once ,verified, this survey will`provide an accurate depiction -of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your
property which, provided there isino change in the,law or our pub lished,reguiations,,may he relied upon for a period not-to
exceed five years
X "the waters and wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below om3 November. 2010. Unless therc ,ma change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a periad'not'ttr,exceod five,years from the date of this notification
_ There are no waters of the U.S . to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
pennit'requirements of Sectmn,404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law orour
published regulations, this'determination may be relied upon-for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification

Action Id_ 2010 -01783
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 3tl,l of the Clean Watcr Act (33 USC Q 13'1 1) Myou have any questions regardmgthis
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program. please contact Tyler Crumble/ at 828 -271 -7980,
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetland`s as determtnedbS,the USACE 1987 Weiland Delineation Manual`.and is adjacent to strcarn channels
located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The stream channel on tlitproperty is an,unnarned
tributary to UT to East Fork of Pigeon River and East Fo"r_k• of Pigeon River which flows into the French Broad River and
ultimately flows'to the Atlantic Ocean.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (Thisinformation applies only to approved ] urisdictinnaPdete "rminations,as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this'verification is,an,approved jurisdictional determination If you are not in agreement with that approved
Jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331 Friclvsed you will find a Notification
of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal, (RFA) form If you request to appeal this determination you must
submit a completed RI -A form to the following,, address
District-Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room,208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine'that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331 5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP
Should you decide to submihan RFA form„ it :must be received at the above address by 2 January,, 20L1.
**.It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official- _Tyler Crumbles �-
Issue Date- t1ftM!k0^ Expiration Date 3 November, 2015_
3 Nay � o
SURVEY PLATS, °FIFLD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORNIS,'PR01ECT PLANS, ETC, MUS1' BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
''fvis 'T�elen'H ' Coleman,

Applicant \4ACTEC for Ms Helen H. Pile Number: 2410 -01783
Date 3 November, 2010
Coleman (owner)
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Leifer of
A
Permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DF.T-F.RMrNATION
_ E
S_EC�1'�0 1= The foll�wrt ° sdeiitit es yoiuyrlgf is anii options regarding an�.adniinistrative ag eal:ofttbe o�e r.
r;.
dectsioii dditional�infomtafiton =i apibejfouxid_;a`t�hitp: / %vvww usace arriiy m�I%inet/fiu�ctionslcw /cecwo /rep or' -
xf.^KS�i � "_ -.,i 3�tl� -1G .� s -.� -�- .._ ;yrii.��2•.^,•,_ "S•- •^•S: =:vf .,.'ii_�" "='k_�t'. t =L_. L•R_:uf ��l L- i_.Y.�.
:Co'" -
A: `INITIAL PROFFERED' PERMIT. You may acceptor object to the permit.
o ACCEPT: If yuu received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit doeumentaand return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. if you received a Letter of Permission (1 OP), you may accept the T,OP and your work is authorized Your signature
ion the Standard Permit or acceptance of thc.LOP means`that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive allarights to appeal the
permit, incl'udingJts terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit
• OBJEC 17 if you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain termb'and conditions'therem, you inay request that the
permit be modified accofdmgly. You must complete Section 11 o'f this form and return the form to the district engineer Your
objections must belreceived`by the distract engineer within 60 days,of the,date'of this notice, or you will forfda:your right to'appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt,ofyour letter, the district engineer -will evaluate your objections and may: (a),modi1' the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the.permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued'as previousiv written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as ffidicated' in Section B below.
B:, PROFFERED PERMIT. You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT- ]fyou received a Standard,Permit, you`may sign the permit document and return it to the•disirict engineer for Final
authorization If you received,a,L' etter of Permission (LOP), you -may accept the LOP and your work is authorized Your signature
on the Standard Permit or ai ceptance of the LOP mean; that'you accept the perrnit'in its entirety, and waive all,rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with ,the permit
• APPEAL if you'ehoose -to decline the proffered perinit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
play appeal the deciined'permit under,the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Prccv,5, by completing Section 11,6f this form
and sending the form to the division engineer This form must he'reeeived'by +the division engineer within 60 days of the date, f'
,this notice
C• PERMIT DENIAL: You,may ^appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section TI ofthis form and sending'the form'to,the division engineer This form musube received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice
I): APPROVED JURISDICTIOI�TAL DETFRMINATIONI . You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new• information
. ACCEPT, You do not need to notify the Corp4 it) accept an,approved ,TD. Failure to nutify'the Cops within 60 day; of the date of
this.notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive.all rights to appeal the approved JD
o APPEAL' 1f you disagree with the approved JV, you may appeal,the approved JD'under the Corps of Engineers Adnimntrativc
Appeal Process by completing Section iI of this form and sending the form to'the division engineer This, form must be received by
the division engineer within,60 days of the date of this notice.

E- PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION You do,not'need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you inay request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting tine Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration,by the Corps to reevaluate the ID
=4-i1 - _ v :w ` ie.axf- -. i. -ca �; •i'j�: ,.`c.%• _ .:..� i.' �a • 4 ?`i.- `k"���: ♦ .r'.`i'
_ >x� !i`'._%t ,_t— ;t��r ,- �': m'rdc." _y s.:. ys�. �.;-' ha .'`µ- 1:,= �z_��_= 4 +?^'. -��,y •.s -... ,� ,a -.. ......'+- f.. -,.. a =r-f<: 3•-.,. _- _ _
iIK`= i1tE-�, APPEAL• O8J CTIONS O�AMPINi_TIAL PROFFERED`PERNIIT
SECTION' U1;STYOR_= or,, -
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing °the °decision or'your
objections to an initial proffered pernnt,in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your,reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record)
ADDITIONAL IINFORMATIC)N. The appeal is limited to a,review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any °supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the admirustrativ6,reeord 'Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may acid new information or'analyses to the record. Howcvcr, you may pro% ideadditional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
_F;C0N —C' FO91QUESFI9 N5'
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
If you haveaque,,tibm regarding thisdecision
and/or the appeal process you °may contact:
may also contact:
Tyler Crumbley, Project Manager
Mr Michael F Bell, Adrrunistrative Appeal Review
USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Officer
151 Patton Ave
CESAD- ET -CO. -R
RIM 208
U S. Army Corps of Rrigineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, ItiC 28806
64 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
829 -2 7I -7080
Adanta,'Georgia 30303 -8804
RIGHT OF ENTRY- Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
consultants, to conduct investigations of the proicct site during the course of the appeal process. You
government
will be provided a 15 ,day,notice of any site investigation, and will. have the opportunity to participate in all Site
investigations
,mate: Telephone number.
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this,
form to:
D&triet Engineer, WiCnringtou Regulatory Division, Attu: Tyler Crum bley,,Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, IS] Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC: 28801.
M

I
0. 1
MM �
' G 1
_Op•
�YiN�1
Fj.
CYS
�tl,
RIAU;
A� �(
i�xJ
19
1��}
'�Vi�
_
. ♦rvp �{
^NVNfVNnf��d_OI�,hWS3
..�
{i„_�p 1�
A
/�ry{i
j�0.�y] p
.}l��j{
P-T
�.{
�{ f�
i9•
^C gI
•d�
tL
WO
#�WWWffi
fa
Y
■
�x
W_wW
##ffi
�Y
WwW
SIX
1
WSW
W
°1
V ut
"n�Y
'
WIYWWW
°;9$"
W
WW
'.
WwW
W
i.IW
W
UYW
'
^RI�Y8119
W WW
WffiYi
8��1A51
#3
° °_��$�
i4ih
hor$
��ii
m
E
p
�y ♦pp
elNY���FY3
rypp�.l.1•��
2ZZSZNN
♦ggxrn..
n
n6
NN
jiryp'
0�o
G
6r,,�'S
sfni
(Yj
'rZ
b�
ynb
irT
�'YY:.dLiiii
�-
J,
ICJ
LSY12VI2
.
NNWNNNNIAN
NNNNNNbINN
NN
NNNTL
���'[•a•
YJi�p
ul
C
"1V
II .vnjniO
..J��JJ:iJJP
��.!
�J
airy
J':rJJJ.1
oil s
A It`� J�
=JAY
/
e1' I
Fj.
CYS
�tl,
RIAU;
h 11
19
'
31I
+�Exic
L w�9
11T11i
Ixa,
M
P-T
tL
WO
#�WWWffi
fa
Y
■
�x
W_wW
##ffi
WihW
Mua
#Y
#f
oil s
A It`� J�
=JAY
/
e1' I
R
T ` 6,r
. i,A%
�z
5
?�r4 h
N -, � L •w �
,
_
Fj.
CYS
�tl,
RIAU;
h 11
19
'
31I
+�Exic
L w�9
11T11i
M
P-T
#�WWWffi
WW
W_wW
##ffi
WihW
#Y
#f
ggg�.-
°o .•o�y+..
Q
° °_��$�
°tai
-SS `.'!
Ij
YZY
2ZZSZNN
NN
NNNNNN
(Yj
'rZ
-,'
irT
�
�-
J,
ICJ
1 •,
.
R
T ` 6,r
. i,A%
�z
5
?�r4 h
N -, � L •w �
,
_
Fj.
CYS
�tl,
RIAU;
h 11
19
'
31I
+�Exic
L w�9
C
'
f A,
Aw
d El a a
o
2
�s� ~�n� FYI ii Y41�W3
�r
8 z
vpN Q� �1 -gNg2
oOEoo
10 zaa j�
dad
89'8Y�¢
ria�r/ro crnl aM aq ^1Y S��,, its5 j (rl I - N -
wx,
f A,
CIS wSP
ice` xE
31I
+�Exic
Aw
d El a a
o
2
�s� ~�n� FYI ii Y41�W3
�r
8 z
vpN Q� �1 -gNg2
oOEoo
10 zaa j�
dad
89'8Y�¢
ria�r/ro crnl aM aq ^1Y S��,, its5 j (rl I - N -
wx,
CIS wSP
ice` xE
31I
+�Exic
Aw
d El a a
o
2
�s� ~�n� FYI ii Y41�W3
�r
8 z
vpN Q� �1 -gNg2
oOEoo
10 zaa j�
dad
89'8Y�¢
ria�r/ro crnl aM aq ^1Y S��,, its5 j (rl I - N -
wx,

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL pETERMINATION,FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This foi in should be ,completed by following,the instructions provided to Seaton 1V of the 1D Form Instructional Guidebook
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORTCOMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRR T OFFi F., I' ILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville
C. PROJECT LOCATION,AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project area - 157,3 acres
Statc, North Carolina County /pat ishlborough Haywood City", Canton
Center coordinates of site (latllong in degree decimal format) Lat 35.4606'N, Long -82 8430'W
Universal Transverse Mercator
Nanic of nearest waterbody Fast Fort. of Pigeon River
Nanietof nearest I raditional Navigable Water (TN W) into which the aquatic resource flows Pigeon Rivet
Name,ofwatershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) French Bradd / LSGS'Cat Unit No 06010106
JQ Chcck tf map /diagram of ieview area and/or potential.Jurisdict ion al aicas is(arc available upon request.
01 Check if other site§ (e g, offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc ),aie associated with this action and are recorded on a
diffeient JD form -
D. RF;VJEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALI, THAT APPLYj:
Q 'Office (Desk) Detcrniinatton ,Date-
® Field Determination, Date(s), October 6, 2010ksite inspection conducted with Mir Tyler Crumbley, USACE, Asheville.
SECTION II: SLNIMARY OF FINDINGS
A RHA SECTION I0,1nETERM1l[NATION OiM' JURISDICTION.
There!kiie to - navigable wafer s of the I / S'" within Rivers =d Harbors Acr(RH k) jm isdiction (s defined by'33 CFR part 329) in the
review area [Rf'gttnerQ
Q Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
EJ Waters arc prescnily used, or have been used to the past, or may bc,susccptible for use to transport interstate or foreign comm_ tree,
L\plain
B CWA SE(A ION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
`/ere%Ake "watersof1he U.S- within Clcan Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as,de[ined by 33 Ci-R part32S) in the rcvtcw area [Regisue(j
I. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of watersaof U S. in review area (check all that appl)) '
[1 TNW9,'inciudmgileintonal seas
Q Wetlands ad;accnt,to'I'NWs
Relatively Pei mancnt waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or inderocily 11)101-,Nws
Non,RPWs that iiowdircclly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands ,directly abutting Rl'WS that flow directly or indirectly into I NWs.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs'that flow directly or indirectly into TNWa
�t Wetlands adjacent to.non -RPWs that flow directly or mdtrec.tly into TNVks
Q Impoundments of jorisdictional waters
Q [solate.d (interstate or intrasta(e) waters including isolated wclland.,,
b. Identify lesttmate) sve of waters of the U.S. in the review area•
Non wetland waters 2,076 linear feet variable width (ft) and/or 0 820 acres
Wctlands_ 13.952 acics
r Limits (boundaries) of Jurisdiction based oil' !1 +9$7� e9iiaeatiie�a ^NTsiio<al
Elevation of establlshcd OHWM (If known)
2 Non - regulated w'aterslwetlands (check if applicable).'
❑ Potentially Juri sdictional watets and /or wetlands were assessed wgh i rt the ievtew area and dctcsrnined to be riot )ut isdictional
Explain-
' iioKa (.hzckcti bclon shall hc,� ppon, d Uy + vinpli rig iris appmpndti SCCtiVr� it Si Lunn ill b0m%
lot putpcxc+of this form, an RPW is dctiricd,m a tributary t`ia(,tynot,a 1 NW anddlix (gpif-alty 0(m,; yearimirld or hds atinit tuouti tlo%v ai leacU "ae.t�unolly"
(r,tv .(ypii ally �3 mon.hsl
}uppottmg uuu.mc nutiun ,a preticntu "vi Sectirn fill

SEC I ION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A t NWs AND WE I LANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies,will assert jurt%tiiction over' I NWq and wetlands adjacent to,7 NWs� If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section 11I.A.I -and Section 11-LDA. onl);?tt the aquatic resource is a rtietland,ad)acent to a TNW, complete Sections III A.l and 2
and Section III D.t , otherwtce „see Section III.I3 below
1. IN
Identify TNW-
Suminarirc rationale supporting determination
2. Wetland adjacent io TNW
Sumtnartre rationale cuppomog conclusion that wetland is "adjacent "•
B CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACFNT WETLANDS (IF ANY)-
This:section summarizes information regarding charActeristics or the tributary and'its adjacent wetlands, Wany,, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapsnoc have bcen`met.
The agencies will assert,jurisdictton over non - navigable tributortes of TNWs "here the tributartes,are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e triGutaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g,, typically 3
months ).,A wetland that directly abuts an RPW'is also jurisdictional. if the aquatic resource is not a TNW', but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D,2. If thc�aquatic,,resource is,a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
ikip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is .idjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requtreva significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
FPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence ofla significant nexus between a
relatively permanent'tributary that is not perennial (and itstadjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is,not required as a matter of law
It the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a Ketland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will renutre addtttbnal data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary to combination "ith all of its adjacent wetlands ,This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adlatcnt wedands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the,tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both, if the,.11) covers a tributaryrwith adjacent wetlands, complete, Section Ill B.1 for
the tribuiarv_Section 131.8.2 for any onsite wetlands „and Section II1.11.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that - tributary, both onsite
and offsoe. Thc'determinatien whether a significant nexus,,exists'fs determined in Section 1f .0 below.
1. Characteristics of non - I iN Ws that now directly or indirectly into TNW
(t) General,Ai ea Conditions:
Waurshcd sire 'iek- si
Dr.un.ige area VMNLMSt
Average annual rainfall- inches
Average annual snowfall, inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Rclation;hip with TNW
❑ Tributary flows,di'rectly "into TNW
❑ Tributary flows through Ti&M si t trtbutai ics before entei mg TNW.
Project waters are �,l?'la i�-Am t river iniles fiom TN W
Prnjcct waters-are st river mil" frbni Rf W
Pnilect waters are MWEist aerial (straight) tiles from TNW,
Project waters art 1PiekBListzactial (scratght),inilds from RM
Prolctarwatcrs cross or scrtic as state bowidartC5 Explein
Identify flow route to TNW'
Tributary stream order, if known:
`'Nute,thal the bmfn.i'un.d (,indebook col itain% add Awnal,niform'aVfl regal arig vvashes, and'uciaHnlai teuiure,'gc.,ciallp and iwthc and
Wes(
' I It) V. liiute can K. dt%,nbLJ'by idctttifyittg, e.g , tnhula•y a, N0101 1110%” through tbL rVview ana, to.tluw Tito ui [it tery b, whiLh t%neI llowc into t'NW

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply
Tributary is- ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man -made) Explain'
❑ Mlanipulated (man - altered) Explain
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate).
Average width feet
Average depth feet
Avcrage•stde slopes
Primary tributaryisubstrate composition (check al l that,apply)-
❑ silts _ ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
{] Bedrock ❑ Vegetation Type /% cover
❑ Other-
Explain-C3
Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary conditionlstability (e g , highly,eroding, sloughing banks) Explain-
Presence of runtrimc/ ool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope)
(c) NOW
Tributary provides,for Em
Estimate average number of Flow events in review arealyear k—AT691
Describe flow regime
Other information on duration and volume
Surface flow is: j0M. Characteristics
Subsurface flow. INM Explain findings
❑ Dye,(or other) test performed
Tributary has (check all that apply)
❑ Bud and banks
❑ OHWM'$ (chcck,all'indicators that apply).
❑ clear, natural line impressed,on the bank
[] the presence of htter'and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑ the presence of wrack line
❑ vcgctatiornmatted down, bent, or absent
❑ sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or,washc&away
❑ scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑ multiple observed or•predictcd flow events
❑ water staining
El abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list)
❑ Discontinuous OHWM-1 Explain
If factors other than the,OHWM were used to determine
lateral extent,of CWA,lurrsdietion (check all that apply).
High "Fide Linnridicated by: ®
aMcan High Water'Mark indicated by
❑ oil 6r'-;cum line alongshore objects
❑ survey to ayaildblc datum,
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings,
❑ physical markings /characteristics
❑ 'vegetatton lines /changes,in vegetation types
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list)
(iii) Cbemical Cbaracteristics
Characterize tributary (c,g , water color is clear, discolored,
oily film, water quality, general watcrshed,charactcristics, etc )
Explain
Jdentify specific. pollutdnts, if known
dA natural or man -made discontinuity in the Ol1 WM dccs notmecessanly sevcr juritdiition (e g, where the stream temporarily flov-b underground, or where
the of WO hac tx:cn removed by'devclopnient or agricultural practices) When, there is a break in the,OI (WM that is unrelated to tlic wmerbodv's flow
rrgirw,(e,g , flow over a rock outcrop or ihimigh a culvsrt), the'egeneies will look loi iiidicaior, of flow abme and'below the break
',Ihrd,

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply)
❑ Riparian corridor Characteristics (type, average width)-
❑ Wetland fringe Characteristics.
❑ Habitat for
❑ Federally Iistcd species Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas Explain Endings
❑ Other,environmentally- sensitive species. Explain findings
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics
Properties:
Wetlandsize: acres
Wetland type Explain
Wetland quality Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries Explain
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW.
Flow is'PickMi`st. Explain
Surface flbw is• Characteristics
Subsurface flow-. Explain findings
❑ Dye (or other) test performed-
(c) Wetland Adj_acen�- �De_terminatton with Non -TMW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not,directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection Explain
❑ ,Ecological connection Explain
t] Separated by bermlbarner Explam:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Flow is,from
Estimate approximate location,ofwetland as within the `,floodpiain
(ii) Chemical Characteilstics:
Charactenze wetland system (c g -, water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface, water quality, general watershed
characteristics, etc.) Explain:
ldentify specific pollutants, if known
(bit) Blolaglcal Characteristics. INctiand,supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer Characteristics (type, average width).
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for
Q Federally Listed species Explain findings
❑ Fishlspawn areas Explain findings,
[]
other environmentally - sensitive species Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic +wildlife dtvcrsity. Explain.findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to•the tributary (if an
All waland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis-
Approximately ( ).acres in total are'being considered in the cumulative analysis

I'oi each wetland, specify the following
Directly abuts" (YfN) Size (In acres] DirCCtlV abuts•" (YiN') Svc tn,acre-,I
'Summarize overall biological, ehentical,and,phystcal functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT ;NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analyst's will assess thcflow characteristics and functions,of the tributary itself and the functions performed.
by any wetlands adjacent to the'tributary to determine if they significantly, affect the chemical, physical, and°biologecal integrity
of a 7 NW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the,tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has, more than wspeculative or,insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological,integrity of a TNW.
Considcrattons when evaluating, sign ificant nexus tnclude,,but are not limited'to the volume, duration; and frequency of the flow
of water in the,tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the,funclions performed by ihetrinutary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine siguificant,nezus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e:g.,betw,een a
tributary and its adjaceni wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the tact an adjacent wetland ties within or
out,dde of a iloodplam te,not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connectionc.betwecn the features documented,and the etlects on the TNW, as identified in the Raparios Guidance and
discussed in,the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include,,for example:
• Does the tributary, in c.orribination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry, polIuOfits or floodwaters to
TN Ws, of to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching'a "I NW?
• Does the tributary, in a ombination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, Ouch as feeding, nesting, spawning, orrearing young for species that arc present in the TNW'
• Does, the tributary, in combinaUen with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and oiganic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs ?'
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent Netlands (if any), have,othcr re Jett orShips,to the physical, chemical or
biological integrity of the TNT' 9
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive,and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. r xplain,
findings of p:cscncc or dbscncc of significant nexus below, based on-the tributary itself, then go to Section ill D
2. Significant nexus, findings for non --RPW'and its adjacent wetlands, where the nun -RPW flows,directly or indirectly into
TNWs, Explain findings of presence,or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in coinbinauon with all of its
adjacent wetlands, fhdn go to Section,11I D
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not dirc0l) abut the RPW Explmn lindings,of
presence or absence of-significant nexus below, basest on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then so to
Section III D
D. DETERMiNATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL, FINDINGS. THE SUBJECI WA FERS /WFTGANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY).
T11W's and Adjacent`Wetlands. t'heck-all that apply and provide size estimates in review I] ea
91 TNWs linear feer width (ft), Or, acre¢
El Wetlands adjacent -to TNWs acres
RPW,; that flo►F'directly or indirectly into TNWs
>� Ti butanes of IN Ws where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is pencnniall Rationale the subject tributary (R1'W) is identifeid as the Gast Fork of Pigeon River. At the project
site lcoanon, jhi,, tobutary was classificed by imAi'7GC scientists Is a,perenmal stream" based on (lie protocols,nm NCI }FNR
DWQ(docunicnt "MothodologyTfor Identification of"lntcrniitti,nLand Pcronmal'Strcams,and Their Origins, Version 4 1 " This
perennial sti-C,1111 (R?W) is mapped as a blue line feature on the i:SGS topographic quadrangle I he stream (RPW) flows into
the Pigeon River, which is presumed io be the TNW Finally, a smaller, unnanicd tributary of the Fast Fork of Pigeon River
occurs along tlic we5terri.boundaiy of -the piojcct site This unnamed stream channel was eharacibn /ed d� perennial based on
the a1'orcirenvoned DWQ protocols

01 Tributai ics of I NW where tributaries°have,continuous -flow "seasonally" (e g, typically three,months each year) are
jurtsdtcltonal Data supporting this conclusion is provided af",Section 11LB, 'Provide rationale indicating thattributary flows
seasonally.
Provide estimates for jwtsdiettonal waters in the review area (check all that apply).
Tributary wafers, 2,0761 ini ar feet variable width (fl)
Other'non -wet land waters acres
Identify types) of waters,
3. Non-RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
ID Waterbody that is not i'TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TN W, and it has,a significant nexus with a
TNW 15 jurisdictional Data supporting, this conclusion is provided at Section ill C
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply)
p 'I ributary waters linear feet width (tl)
Q. Other, non- wetland waters. acres.
identify typc(s) of waters
4, Wetland&directly abutttng�an RPW that flow directly, or indirectly,into TNWs.
CK Wetlands dircctly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands
® Wetlands directly abutttrig an, RPW wit ere tributat tes typically flow year -round Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III D 2,'above Provide rationale mdicaung'that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW Rationale- Based,on the Cowardin Classification, thejurisdictional wetlands occurring
within the project site are,characterized as,Palustrine forestedbroad- lea-ved,deciduous =(PFOi), Palustrine
scrub/shrub broad-leaved °deciduous (PSS1), and Palustrine emergent persistent (PEM1). These wetlands directly
abut the bank of the RPW (i.e , the East Fork of Pigeon River) along the southern project boundary, as
determined by direct visual observation made dunngithe wetland delineation field effort.
Wet]anda directly,abuttirig an RPW where iributai tes typical I flnw, "seasonally " Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Scctton Ill B and rationale in Section 1I1.0 2, above Provide rationale indicating'that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the revicw-area 11952 acres,
5. Wetlands adjacent to but,not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Wetlands,that do not directly�abut an,RPW, but when�considered in combination with the tributary to which thcyarc adjacent
and with stmilaily sltuited adjacent wetlands, have a yignific,intinexus with a,'1"NW'0e jiu'tsidiwonal, Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C,
'Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area- acres_
b. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TIrWs.
Wetlands adi scent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they,are,adjacent and
with;sinvlarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a stg11tficant1nexus with ,a'CN W arequrisdictional ,Data supporting this
conclusion is provicicd,at Section ill C
Provide cstimates for)ur1sdic110nal wetlands in the review area acres
7. Impoundinentsiof jurisdictional waters!
As a general role, the impoundment ofa jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional
Demonstrate that Inipotmdnicnt was created froin "waters of the US," ar
Demonstrate that water meets thctcnteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -0) or
® 'Detnortstraie that water is isolated =with a nczus to,coinmeice (sec E below)
r
E. ISOLATED IINTERSTATE ORJNTRA- STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WFTLAN DS,,I,H E t)SE,
DEGRADATION'OR DLSTRUCTION'OF'WIIICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTA'T'E COMMERCE, INCLLDING ANY
SUCH WA'T'ERS (CHECK; ALL THAT A'PPL.Y)•10
Ncc t�tiwnotc p 3
9 To'complete the awlytii- oicic.i tuwc key .n Section Ill 1) 6 of the T,isuuctional Gutd'eUuol.

Q whieh,aretor could be used by uterstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes
M from which fish or shellfish °arc or could be taken and sold in interstate or-forcign commerce
ED which are oecould be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate comnmcice
Interstate isolated waters Cxplam_
d Other factors Explain
Identify water body and summarise rationale supporting determination:
Pfovide estirnates for Jurisdictional waters to the teview area (check,all that apply)
Tnbutary waters linear feet width (ft)
Other non - wetland waters acres
ldcnufy,type(s) of waters
Wetlands acres
NON- JURISDIC -1 IONAL WA I ERS, INCLUDING WIr-I LANDS (CIIECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q If potential wetlands were assessed within the,revtcw area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1997'Corps of Ftigmecrs
Wetland Deliticanon'Manual and/or appi optiate Regional Supplements.
ED Review area included isolated waters with no wbstantial nexus to interstate,(or foreign) commerce
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANC:C'," the review area would have been regulated based sa]ely on the
"Migratory Bird,Rule" (MBR)
1B Waters'do'not tricot the "5ignificatit Nexus" standard, where such a ftnding.is requtrcd,for Jurisdiction, Explain,
Q Other (explain, if not,covered abme)
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofJurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i c_, presence of mid ralory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for'mrrigatc&Ugneul(urc), using best professional
Judgwrrit(check,all that apply)
El Non - wetland watcrs-(ec , rivers, streams) linear feet width ('ft)
® Lakes/ponds acres
Q Other non - wetland writers acres List type of aquatic resource:
❑E� Wetlands acres
Provide acreage estimates for non - Jurisdictional waters in the review,area that do not meet the, °Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Q Non- wetland waters (i.e , nveis,,stfeams) linear feet„ width (ft)
Lakcslponds acres
Q Other non- wedarid waters_ acres List type of aquatic`f%sourcc
Wetlands: acres
,SECTION 1V: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed far JD (check all that apply - checked items�shall be included in c.a5c file and, where checked
and requested, Appropr Lite Iy reference sources below):
Maps, pl.ttiS, Plots LOT plat submittedby orion „behalf of the applicant/consultanr Wetlarid:Streain Survey prepared by PL'S (encl' )
Data sheets prepared /submitted-by or on beha]f'of the apph can t/consuItant
❑ Office concurs with data shcets'delineation report
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report
Data bhects prepared by the Corps
Cotfis navigable waters' study
U S Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas
❑ USGS NfID data
❑ USGS S and 12 digit HUC maps
® U'S (ecological Survey rnap(s).,C iwscale & quad riame See MACTEC JD request package provided to USACE °(0912010)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service - Soil Survey Citation. See MAUI LC JU request package to USACE (09 /2010)
Q National wetlands inventory map(s) Cute narne-
1 State/i rieal wetland inventory m:ip(s)
® FE -\4A' /FIRM snaps _
ni I00 -year Floodplain hlevation is (National Gcodccttc'Vcrucal Uaturp of 1929)
Q Photogiaphs ❑ Acrivl (Name & Date)
10'nrlor to asscrting'or deoltning (AVA jurisdiction buseii soldv,'on ihis catggory. Carps District, will klevate the aetunn'to Corlwand F1'A Htl fur
review consistent,with the proces%,described iu the CorpclF1'A M1lrninrrtrtrliurr Regurdirtg CJV11 ALL Arrsdtchort Foftawittb Rapdmu-N

or 0 Other (Name & Date)_
Previous determination(s) File no and date of response letter
Applicableisupporting cnse law
Applicable /supporting,scientific literature
Other information (please spccify)-
B. ADDI ONALCOMMENTS TO'SUPP©RT JD:

WETLAND DMIRMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
WETLAND SIDE
Project/Site-
Cast Fork Pigeon River CO/County
Haywood
Sampling Date' 10/5/2010
Applicant /owner
NC hi..osysterrr EnhanLrmrnt Program ('Applii ant)
—state, NC
Sampling Poml Flag W I -8 (1.55)
Invevigator(s),
Josh %lithetspoomand James Cutler Section Township
„Range: NIA
❑
Landfor,m (hdlslope, terrace,mtc') Tionciplarn Bonomland, Lnral Relief [concave,corvex none}, Concave
Slope I%) d
Subregion;ILRR&MLRA)
-l`! Lat„ 35 46,12'at RD point
Long -82 8444
Datum; WLiS 84
SolihMap,UmtName
loam,(DeA)
NWI Classification
PSSIA
Are Climatic /hydrologic conditions on,the site typical forthistime of year? Yes
D ❑ ct, exptain in Remarks )
❑
Are Vegetation ❑
, Sod ❑ , or Hydrology ❑significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑'
Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturatly problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
Crayfi_s_h`Burrows (C8)
SUMMARY OF FINDINU35 - Attach site map showing sampung,point,Iotattonsr transacts, lmportanz,Teatures, etc.
Hydrophyoc.Vegetatron,Present? Yes E] No a' is the Sampled Area
Nydric Soll 'Present? Yes Q No ❑ with ima,wetland) Yes Q No Cl
Wetland Hydra logy Present? Yes I1 No ❑
Remarks Invasive plant 'Multiflora Rase' is abundant in understoty within wetland
NWI Code PSSdA - Paitfstrine, Scrub /Shrub Broad- leaved Deciduous, Temporary Floodcd
?Marrow transitional boundary -between upland ama'and wetland aria,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary
Indicators-fmmimum of two renuired)
Pnmanj Indicators Iminimum of'one is reowred, check all that appiy)
❑
Surface Sort Cracks (66)
❑ Surface Water (A1)
❑
Water-Stained Leaves (99)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
❑ High Water Table 1A2)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (813)
d
Drainage Patterns (810)
i] Saturation (A3)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (8 141
❑
Moss Trim'Lines 1616)
❑ °WaterMarks 01)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑
Dry- Season Water Table IC21
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
ox id tied Rhiaospheres on Living Roots 1C3)
❑
Crayfi_s_h`Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift,0eposlts (83)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Sdturat ion Visible on Aerial Imagery 1C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (R4)
C1
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
D
Geomorphic Positron (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (65)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C71
❑
Shallow Aquitard (03)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery 187
❑
other (Explain m Remarks)
❑
FAC- Neutral Test IDS)
Field Qbwrvatiaos
Surface Water,Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches)
WaterTable'Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes I] No
❑
Depth (inches) G inches
'Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Q No ❑
(includes ca p? Ia_ry f rmge)
Describe RecordeG Data (streanrgaull monitoring well, aerial photos, prewous ins oections), If available
Remarks-
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

Vtta_t_IAI IUFM . Use 5QenF1TIL,ndn1C_ VI prdnu.
3D
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
Sapling Stratum (Plot'sue )
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
% Cover
Spec es7
Status
1. _Solixsnigra
15
Y
OBL
2 Pio[anus ncrrdentohs
15
Y
FACW
3
cACW speues 55 x 2 = 110
FAC species 5 x3= 15
4.
FACU species 0 x 4 - 0
UPLspenes 25 x5= 125
5
Column Totals 164 (A) 325
(BI
Prevalence Index = 8/A = 20
6
fiydrophytic vegetation Indicators
Q Dominance Test is > 50%
7
Prevalence Index is 5 3 0`
= Total Cover
�] Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Exp,ain)
U5 Army Corps of Engineers
3D
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
Sapling Stratum (Plot'sue )
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC' 6
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
1 sa8xwgro
25
Y
OBL
2
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 86%
(AM)
3
Prevalence Indewworksheet:
OBLspecies 75 x 1 = 75
4
cACW speues 55 x 2 = 110
FAC species 5 x3= 15
5.
FACU species 0 x 4 - 0
UPLspenes 25 x5= 125
b
Column Totals 164 (A) 325
(BI
Prevalence Index = 8/A = 20
7
fiydrophytic vegetation Indicators
Q Dominance Test is > 50%
Prevalence Index is 5 3 0`
= Total Cover
�] Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Exp,ain)
Sh rub Stratum (Plot size )
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
1 Salix'nigeo
10
Y
OBL
2 Rosaatu+trftore
25
Y
UPL
3_
cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4
approximately 20 ft (6 rtt) or more,m height and less,than 3
in 17 6 cm) D8
5
Shrub- Woody plants, excluding,woody vines,
approximately 3 to, 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
6
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, includirg
herbaceoeus,vines; regardless of size, Includes woody
,7
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately, i ft (1
m) in,height
35
=Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 Asterpunlceus
2S
Y
OBL
2. Impotrenscapensrs
25
Y
FACW
1 luncvs effuses
5
FACW
4 Boehmerra cynndr+co
5
FACW
5 Ru6ussp.
5
FAC
6 Cortex so,
5
FACW
7
8
9
10-
11
12
70
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Strawy (Plot size -
1.
2
2
2
2
I _
�0
= Total Cover
Remarks- (If absen ed, list morphologiral adaptations below?
I&Vasive plant Mi luflora Roe' is abund int'in tinderstor% within wetland
(pockets)
U5 Army Corps of Engineers
Hvdmphytic,
Vegetation Yes No ❑
Present?
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version
Dominance Test Worksheet.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC' 6
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across AlIStrata 7
(B)
percent of' Dominant Species'
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 86%
(AM)
Prevalence Indewworksheet:
OBLspecies 75 x 1 = 75
cACW speues 55 x 2 = 110
FAC species 5 x3= 15
FACU species 0 x 4 - 0
UPLspenes 25 x5= 125
Column Totals 164 (A) 325
(BI
Prevalence Index = 8/A = 20
fiydrophytic vegetation Indicators
Q Dominance Test is > 50%
Prevalence Index is 5 3 0`
�] Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Exp,ain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7,6
cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 rtt) or more,m height and less,than 3
in 17 6 cm) D8
Shrub- Woody plants, excluding,woody vines,
approximately 3 to, 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, includirg
herbaceoeus,vines; regardless of size, Includes woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately, i ft (1
m) in,height
Woody,vine - All,woody vines, regardless of height
Hvdmphytic,
Vegetation Yes No ❑
Present?
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

11910
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the mdli
Depth Matrix
(inches) Coloc(rroist) % Color (moist)
O,to 18 7 5 YR 3/2 90 7 5 YR 3%1
0
sampling rain crag vv i -e tu71
)or ar confirmthe absence of indicators).
Redox Features
95 Type' roc' Texture Remarks
10 D M Loam Mottles common and,faint
ype,C = Cnncentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grams
2LDcation PL= Pore Lining, M = Matrix
fdrLC Soil'Indicatais•,
Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
Indicators for Problem attc,Hydric Soils -
❑
Histosol,(Al)
❑
¢nlyvaiup Below�Sucface (58) (LRR S,,T.U)
❑
1 cm Muck,(A9) {LRR 0)
(]
Histic Epipedor (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface f59) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (At 0) (IRR S)
❑
Black Histic IA3)
❑
Loamy Mucky'Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (FIB) (outside MLRA 150A,6)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
LoamyGleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont FloodplainSoils (1`19) [LRR 9,5,T)
❑
Stratified Layers,(AS)
❑
Deplete&Matrix (F3j
❑
Ariomalous;Rright Loamy,Soils (F20)
❑
0rganic Bodies IA6) ILIM P,T,U)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (11`6)
(MLRA`IS38)
❑
5 cm Murky'Mineral (47) [LRR P,T,U)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑
Muck Presence (A81 (LRR U)
❑
Redox Depressions (FS)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) {LRR T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A91 (LRR PT)
0
Marl IF 10) (LRR V)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarksl
❑
Deplcted,Relow Dark Surface (All)
❑
Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
•
Thick,Dark'SurfacellAl2)
❑
Iron Manganese Masees,(1`12) (LRR O,P;T)
)Indicators of,hydrophytic vegetation and
•
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) [MLRAiSDA)
❑
Umbnc Surface013) [LRR P,T,U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) [LRR O,S)
❑
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4j
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18)'IMLRA 150A, 1508)
❑
Sandy Redox,(SS)
❑
Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F,19) (MLRA 149AI
❑
Stripped'Mat(ix IS6)
❑
Anomalous,Bright Loarny Sorls,jF20)'(MLRA 149A,153C,1530)
❑,
Oark'Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
=_strictive Layer III observed).
Depth (inches)
Low chf6ma
Hydric Will Present? Yes U No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region- Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
UPLAND SIDE
Prolect/51te
List Fork Pigeon River City /County
I Iaywood
Sampling Date 1 {1!512(110
Applicant /Owner
NC Ecosystem Fnhancement Program_ (Applicant)
State NC
Sampling Point rlag W1 -8 (L55)
Investigator{sl-
Josh Wrth0r5p0011,and Jamcs Catier 5ection, Township,
Range NIA
❑
Landform, (hlllslope, terrace, etc.) HAISlopc (ioc) _ Local Relief {concave, convex, nonQ cone ve
Slope
SuhregionILRSoranRA)
N Lat- 35.4b12 a(Rl ')point
Long -82 9444 _
Datum, WCrS 84
Soil Map Unit Name
llellwood cobb) ,sand • loam (1)LA)
NWI Classification
NIA
Are- chmatic /hydrologic
conditions on the site typical far this time Df year? Yes
Do, explain in Remarks,)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Are Vegetation ❑
, Sod j] , or Hydrology ❑significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes
No ❑� ❑
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑naturally problematic?
{If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
❑ Drift Deposits (83)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Nyorophytic,Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No r2 Is,the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil'Present? Yes ❑ No I21 within a wetland? Yes, ❑ No d
Well andHydrology,Present Yes ❑ No r❑
Remarks
uvn®ril nry
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators Iminimum of two require,
Primary Indicdtors minimum of nnp is required, check all that a i '-
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (96)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Water - Stained Leaves (89)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (1381
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (813)
❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A31
❑
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑
Moss,Trim Lines {1116}
❑ Water Marks (6 1)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deanors (82)
❑
Oxidized Rhaospheres on Living Roots (0)
❑
travfisw6urrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (83)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
SaturationNisible on Aerial Imag",(0)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑
Recent Iron-Reduction in Tilled $ods (C6)
❑
GeomorNhiq, Position {D2�
❑ Iron Deposits (BS1
❑
Thin Much Surface (0)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (03)
❑ ,inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (97
❑
Other ",(> *in m Remarks!
El
FAC- Neutrbl Test (05)
Fleldd)bservations
Surface'warer Present? Yes ❑ No
n
Depth (inchesl,
Water Table, Present? Yes ❑ No
El
Depth (inches )'
Saturation Present ?, Yes ❑ No
❑O
Depth (inches),
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
(includes eapolary_fnnge)
pescrlbe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks No hydrologic indicatorq present
US,Army,torps of Engineers Eastern Mountains•and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

Vtt2C I AI IVIY ' VSC SGCf1lIIIL IICIII 1111121 NI JACH ILZI.
° "'Y " ^5 • '••• ' • °b • *� I
Absolute
Dominant Indicator,
oonninanceTest,Worksheet:
Tree'Stratum (Plot size- )
%Cover
5 ecieO
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Pinus strobes
70
Y
FACU
That Are 08 L, FACW, a FAC, 4
(A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
g
Species °Across All Strata 8
[8)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
S.
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC 50%
JA /B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7,
70
=Total Co_ ver
OBI. spec es 0 x i = 0
Sapimg Stratum (Plotsize )
FACW species 10 F2= 20
1 Carpnusaarolrnre'no
20
Y
FAC
FAC species 60 x3'= 180
2_ Prnus s_trob_ us
20
Y
FACU,
FACU species ino x 4- '400
3
0 P spec es 10 x s'= 50
4
Column Totals, 18D (A) 650
(B)
5
Prevalence Index = 6/A = 3'6
6.
Hydro phytic Vegetation `Indlcators:
7
= Total Cover
Shrub,Straturn (Plot size )
❑ DominanceTett is> 50%
1 Rose multi/7ore
10
Y
UPL
❑ Prevalence Index is s 3 0'
2 Prnusstrobus
10
Y
FACU
❑ Problematic Hydrophytc vegetation'' (Explain)
3
' Indicators of hydncsoil and wetland hydrology must
4
5
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6
_
Definitions of Vegetation Strata
7
20
=Total Cover
Herb 5tratum (Plot Size )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woodyvines,
1 Lonicero iaponrca
10
Y
FAC
approximately 2D ft (6 m) or more In height and 3 In (7 6
2 7oxicodendroa rad+cons
30
Y
FAC
cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DUH)
3 8oehmerro cyhndnco
10
Y
FACW
Sapimg • Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more In height and less than 3
5
--
—
in �(7 6 cm) DSH
6
Shrub - Woody plan's, excluding woody vines,
7
approximately 3 to 20 ft 11 to 6 m) in height
8
Herb -Ali herbaceou (non woody) plants, Including
g
_
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
-
m) in height
it
12.
Woody, vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
so
= Total Cover
i
Woody Vine Stratur (Plot sue
_
1
2
2
Hydrophytic
2
Vegetation yes ,❑ No d
2.
Present;!
0
= Total Cover
Remarks (If +nbseryed, NsUmorphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Pledmont'Region - Interim Verslor,

WIL
R roll le Description. (Describe,to the
Depth Matrix
(inches) Cola (moist)
0toI 7SYR25/2 _
1 to 18 10 YR 3/3
depth needed,to document the indir
% COlnf (moist)
100
100
or confirm the absence of,indtcators).
Redox Features
% Type' Loc' Texture
Loam
Loom
admpung ruoa rFdg vva -o tu:;l
Remarks
'TviwCl= Concentration, D = depletion, RM-= Reduced Matrix, CS a Covered ar,Coated Sand Grams
2Locabon; PL - pore lining, M = Matrix
Hydfic Soil Indicators:
Depleted Ochric (F 11) (MLRA 1511
❑
Indicators for Problematic Nydric Soi9s3
❑
HatosoI (Al)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (58) (LRR 5,T,V)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR,O)
O
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (54) ILRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (1RR S)
]
Black Histic (A3)
❑
loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR Q)
Q
Reduced Vertic,(F18) (outside MLRA 150A,6)
❑
HydrogeniSulhde (Q4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (LRR P,S,Tj
❑
Stratified Layers (AS)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20)
❑
organic Bndies(A6ljUtI F;XU)
❑
Redox bark Surface [F6)
IMLRA15351
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7),(LRR P,T,U)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7),
❑
Red ParentMaterial (TF2)
❑
Muck Presence (A8) ILRR U)
❑
Redox Depressions`(Fg)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (71`12) (LRR TV)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR PT)
❑
Marl IF10j,(1Rtt U)'
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface'(A11)
❑
Depleted Ochric (F 11) (MLRA 1511
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Iran - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRRO,P,T)
❑
r;nast Prairie Redox (A161(MLRA ISOA1
❑
UmbrFCSurfa6e,(F13) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) ILRR O,S)
❑
Delta Ocnric (F17) (MLRA 151)
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix,(S4)
❑
Reduced VertFc (F181 (MLRA 150A, 150131
❑
Sandy Reaox(SS)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)'IM1RA 149A)
❑
Stripped Matrix (Sb)
[3
Anomalous Bright Loamy Sods (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
❑
Dark Surface (S7) (L'RR P,S,T,U)
Rest rictrve layer (i( observed)
Type
3l red icato,s of hydrophytic vegetal ion and
wetland hydrology must be'present,
unless disturbed or Problematic-
Depth (inches) I Hydric Sod Present?
No'nydric soil indicators present
Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Interim Version

APPENDIX,B
NCEEP FLOODPLAIN REQU REMEVTS CHECKUST

Cortem
�i�llt�t�:
EEP Floodplain Requirements Cheeldist
71iis form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
Tltc fbrm is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of, the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
`East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands'
Name if stream or feature:
East Fork Pigeon River
County:
Haywood
Name of river basin:
French Broad River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Haywood County
Wetlands JD through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3701200190B
Consultant name:
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Phone number:
(919) S76-0416
Address:
3301 Atlantic Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27604
East Fork Pigeon Ri<<cr_Compifled FEMA Fltxidpljin Checkhst.doc Page I of 3

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (onc paragraph). Include project limits on a
rcfcrence orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ". Prolgct Description and Figure 1 are
attached to this checklist.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their' restoration priority.
Note: Stream preservation only
R'cach
Length
Priority
Northwest Perennial Stream
- 66.41tnear eel
Equal riortty
East Fork Pigeon River
1,411 linear feet
Equal priority
Floodplaiin Information
Is project located in a Special Flood, H, Area,(SFMA)?
rO Yes No
If project is located in a SFIIA, check how it was determined-
7 Redel>rication
r Detailed study
I— Limited Detail Study
R7 Approximate Study Per FEAfA, , ,the land area covered by the floodwaters of the
base flood is the SFHA on NFIP maps for Haywood County
F DonY know
List flood zone designation: A7(-Al—A30 = `Areas of 100 -year flood; huse flood
elevations anti flood hazard actors determined. )
Check if applics-
'i AE Zone
r` Floodway
r Ion- Encroachment
;- N one
r A Zonc
r Local Setbacks,Rcqurred
- No Local Setbacks Requzed
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet. Thirty (30) feet front stream TOO for
perennial streams depicted on USGS inap (Haywood County Ordinances. Chapter 151
[Watershed Protection - Section 151.34 fl3uffer Areas Required])_
East Lork ftcon,itiver_Completcd FEMA Hoodplain Checklist doc Page 2 of 3

Docs:, PI61)ci5o(i eilarlrlcl bcnlncl,uycllcloac:h oul,"Ide floodway /non-
C11CiL7tlLillntlltlSF :C1JftClCti�?
iM)Ie: Not uj�I?I able w thm pi-oiCO, r.c , .Itr-e(wr pve%Gj,vl i /ron prq).),%ed, nnr teWPI4111on.
CYe" No
Laical Acyuislilon (Check)
F State owwilect (lee smlple)
r Cort`el Yation cusimit (Design B(d Bulks)
F onservation Fawirx it (f-ull Delivery Pio)eet)
! '
Note- if the project property is sime- owned, ilicn A be acicll'cscc cl +,Ica
"th Departinunt of Adrnmi5tratiuu, State C 011StFLIC11011 Ofi]cC (aun: I Icubert Neity•
I"
' (C)19) 807- 41'01)
IS community /county panic ipatin8 in the NFIY program`) Havwood Co (CHM- 170120)
E Yes U No
Note: 14'Coillmu-111ty 1ti not participating, t'lipia Al ccclutre21rcnts S11001d he addle; ,%Cd tcl
NFIp (attn: Edward Curtis, (919) 715 -8000 x360)
Name of Local Floodplatn Administrator: Kris fto)�d (Hayw vd County)
Phone Numbcr. (828) 45,2.6632
FloodpOaln Requ5mments
This section w be filled by cle4igne0applicant tollowing vetltication wwuh the LFPA
W No Action
F No Rise
F Lc;tter of Map Re,v*,ion
F Conditional Lettei ui Map Rc 4i+.ion
F Other `Requaci> m,,
L&6 h- er tequircments: - — - -- - - -- - - - -_- �- - -
Nofluurll;'luin requirements care plemned,tor rhi.s projea.
COIIIIII ent.,,:
Nrujecd will not involve any deoc upmetiI actiOric.s within the JToodj)hiiu
i�l� m �1 ,;x.14 0.1 J'. I�l_��� ,,.���, Sigil,kWi : .l �'I �;f,
- - c !' -`.
tit rr�' ��_ 9]�ue
t. N I'alk Pigeon ttivc1 _ i'nnlpklCd t FMA J -111 Mdptuiil ( hkxktim W dov P,1pk!. i cal i

EAST FORK PIGEON RIVER WETLANDS PROJECT
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
Haywood County, North Carolina
Project Description - March 2011
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc (MACTEC) was awarded a Design Contract (SCO ID 10-
07350 -01) for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands project by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP), The project site is a 15 73 -acre parcel of land that is located to the south of the Town of
Canton, in Haywood County, North Carolina. The project;site presently consists of a bottoinland hardwood
forest, numerous shrub and groundstory openings, and a small upland pine island Surface waters include a
perennial stream channel and the East Fork Pigeon River. The NCEEP has obtained a conservation
casement for,the project site The Wetland Mitigation Plan for the project proposes wetland enhancement
of the 'hottomland hardwood forest' Which encompasses the floodplain of the East Fork Pigeon River
Nuisance plant species have become established over time within the bottomland hardwood forest
(jurisdictional wetlands) on site. The Weiland Mitigation Plan presents methods for the control of six (6)
nuisance plant species The Wetland Mitigation Plaii also includes a planting program to install desirable
wetland plant species within the jurisdictional wetland area. The elements of the nuisance species control
program and the planting plan will be approved by tjte NCEEP prior to implementation. The wetland
enhancement will provide a quantified amount of NCEEP wetland mitigation credit for various permitted
projects which occur within the French Broad River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code 0601010601001.0 This
HUC is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in RTCEEP's 2009 French ,Broad River Basin
Restoration Priority The restoration goals ,and objectives for the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands
project include (1) Protecting the existing, project wetlands and wildlife habitat with a perinanent
conservation casement and (2) Enhancing the existing project wetlands and wildlife habitat by removing
identified invasive plant species through manual and chemical methods and by planting native species
within the project site

a y," 3� f
x � s
�. - - •6 - � . �.; y _�- -- err ?� -- .. -
f
t
ic
TIT
� f ;
''1 ��, _r, .. � • J - R � .� ,��� � _ -i 31 �+ '.'us!t' � �. �S � �i -,� •'fit
I r k ,4'x`,q '`�. a �t J`;� } .> J it
yy d:t jf "
MUN =1
`1
r
� - "Int
i
1t
�Ui1�,�YAlJ

in 9 ;j MIMIC, 1
SPECIFIC PURPOSE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

Ig
to
MWO
L-vi ;WL4a
- 3$iii ;R 99
-F �RR 7Q4
Fw�«ww
r.
iw•+.Kdn�
3J
; RI; r
9 t
x� a
❑
i ���e T:` \v 1•lP
sg� oil r
? i Inv
ell
\\ '-
U1.
f \ \1�
`1
�• Jr,, Q
a�a
gjQC�
( wAv Q1N} LYD '.kfl Q 2 q
l I � beurMawl E a
f f�
1 z
1t
it
Jvfr
/
/
t
r
Ir �;
fl• GUa
s
D_ 2
UUU o
9
� Spy
pp
i 6 R K 3333if
a�a
gjQC�
( wAv Q1N} LYD '.kfl Q 2 q
l I � beurMawl E a
f f�
1 z
1t
it
Jvfr
/
/
t
r
Ir �;
fl• GUa
�r
lZ
O
N
`= .�fiy'•d,,,��., FOP,`
23e�i °W#
a,,�i�iz�CKyi�e
Mitt
kk iyy
UUU o
9
� Spy
pp
�r
lZ
O
N
`= .�fiy'•d,,,��., FOP,`
23e�i °W#
a,,�i�iz�CKyi�e
Mitt

APPENDgX D
GROUND LEVEL„SITE PHOTOGRAPHY

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

Photograph #3: View of Open Shrub /Groundstory Area (Wetlands) within Western
Portion of the East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).
Photograph #4: View of Bamboo Stand within Eastern Portion of the East Fork Pigeon
River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010),

Photograph #5: View of Bamboo Stand along Southern Shoulder of Old Michael Road,
Abutting East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).
Photograph 46: View of Ramboo Stand along Northern Shoulder of Old Michael Road,
North of East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).

Photograph #7: View of Cattail Clustcr in Qpcn Area (Wetlands) within North- Centmi
Portion oi'East Pork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).
Photograph #8: View of Japanese Knotweed within Southeaslem Portion of East Fork
Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (October 5, 2010).

Photograph #9: View of Kudzu within Southeastern Portion of East Fork Pigeon River
Wetlands Project Site (W, ober S, 2010).
Photograph #10: View of Kudzu along the Southern Shoulder of' Old Michael Road,
Northwestern Portion of East lurk Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (April 30, 2010).

Photograph #11: View of Japanese Honeysuckle along the Eastern Shoulder of Old
Michael Road, Western Portion of East Fork Pigeon River Wetlands Project Site (April
30, 2010).
Photograph 412: View of Bcaver Darn within Eastern Portion of Last Fork Pigeon River
Wetlands Project Site (April 30, 2010 )_