20151327 Ver 1_401 Application_20151215

W
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
December 21, 2015
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
512 N. Salisbury St.
Archdale Building -9th Floor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
2Q 1 51 327
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No.
and Water Quality Certification No. 3885
Western Stream Initiative — Barrier Stream Enhancement Project
Avery County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Higgins:
DEC 2 902015
The Barrier Stream Enhancement Project area is located in Avery County, North Carolina near the intersection of US
Route 19 East and Old Hanging Rock Road (Figure 1). The Barrier Stream Enhancement Project is part of the Western
Stream Initiative (WSI) program which is a partnership between Resource Institute (RI) and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) in its second year of implementation. The program seeks to complete projects on
agricultural lands that have been identified by NRCS staff in Western North Carolina. These projects are typically
somewhat longer and more challenging, in one or more respects, than traditional NRCS-funded projects. NRCS
federal grants fund WSI and similar bank stabilization projects as agricultural best management practices for the
purpose of reducing erosion and sedimentation into streams, installing complementary practices such as fencing and
watering, and in some cases for habitat enhancement. NRCS approved Technical Services Providers (TSPS) are
selected by, and contract with, RI to provide design and engineering services for the WSI projects. The designs
adhere to NRCS standard practices. Sites generally seek to achieve stable banks and/or channel stability through
bank sloping, structure installation or other minimally invasive methods. All bank slope and structural improvements
are accompanied by stream bank planting. Existing buffers and vegetation are typically maintained or enhanced. On
some project sites, more substantial work is required to abandon up -valley meanders orto otherwise correct
instability related to pattern where such work can be justified. Construction work is being conducted by pre -qualified
stream restoration contractors, selected by RI. These contractors have substantial experience in stream restoration
projects and work in partnership with TSPS and RI to complete high quality bank and channel stabilization efforts
under this program.
RI has an agreement (attached) with landowners that agrees that RI will be the applicant. An Agent Authorization
Form is attached which provides verification that Aaron Earley, the TSP for Wildlands Engineering, is acting for RI.
Project Overview
The Barrier Stream Enhancement Project proposes a combination of bank grading and channel stabilization work to
approximately 1,813 linear feet (LF) of the North Toe River. Proposed channel stabilization includes the construction
of in -stream structures and slight adjustments to stream pattern and profile (Figures 2 & 3). The project reach is
experiencing bank erosion, especially along outside meanders, as a result of tight channel pattern and minimal
stream bank vegetation. In -stream structures including log vanes, boulder spurs, constructed riffles, and
boulder/stone toes will help stabilize bed and banks and create conditions for natural recovery. Previous stream
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

stabilization efforts including two rock vanes and one root wad were installed by others to address channel instability
that occurred after large flooding events approximately ten years ago. One existing rock vane that is no longer
functional will be removed and material reused fortoe protection. The project also proposes to lay back eroding
banks to a stable bank angle that can be matted and re -vegetated for long-term stability. There are two unnamed
tributaries (UTi & UT2) that enter the North Toe River within the project reach. Minor grading may be necessary
along UT2 to tie the channel into the slightly adjusted pattern of the North Toe River. No other work is proposed to
these tributaries.
Jurisdictional Determination
WSI project sites being permitted by Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) were discussed with Tasha Alexander of the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Asheville Field Office in June, 201-4. Sites are on large streams and the primary
activities are occurring on the large streams. On some sites, small tributaries/ditches are affected. In all instances, it
appeared likely that tributaries were intermittent or perennial. When affected, impacts were included in the total.
Ms. Alexander indicated that USGS topographic mapping (provided) and photographs should be sufficient when
affected tributaries are present, and in order to verify the jurisdiction on the main stream. Wildlands Engineering
performed a field delineation for the Barrier Site on October 29, 201-5. In addition to the North Toe River, two
unnamed tributaries (UTI. & UT2) and two wetlands (Wetland A & B) were identified. The two tributaries exhibited
continuous bed and bank, baseflow, and supported a variety of aquatic life (including macroinverterbrates,
amphibians, aquatic mollusks, and fish). The two tributaries were classified as perennial using North Carolina
Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Form (Version 4.1-1-). Wetlands A and B exhibited surface water,
water stained leaves, high water table, algal mats, and/or saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface. These
areas have been historically manipulated by agricultural practices and lack canopy and understory vegetation. The
herbaceous layer within Wetland A was primary switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and common rush (luncus effusus).
Wetland B is a concave depression devoid with indicators of hydrology and hydric soils. A USACE Approved
Jurisdictional Determination Form, USACE Wetland Determination Forms (DP1-- DP4), and North Carolina Division
of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms are included in the package. Soil mapping based on the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS Soil Survey for Avery County indicates soils within the project area are
mapped as Dellwood cobbly sandy loam (DeB), Rosman loam (RoA), and Rosman sandy loam (RsB) (See Figure 4).
The Dellwood cobbly sandy loam is described as a moderately drained soil found on floodplains that are occasionally
flooded. These units are described as moderately to well -drained soils found on floodplains that experience
occasional to frequent flooding.
Proposed Impacts
The proposed stream enhancement work will temporarily impact 1-,81-3 linearfeet of the North Toe River. Stream
enhancement would include minor pattern and profile adjustments and in -stream structure installation to stabilize
the stream and banks. Stream work will be conducted with trackhoes and tracktrucks. Stream crossings and in -
stream work will be minimized to the extent feasible however in -stream work will be necessary to construct
structures. Due to the large stream size (74 square miles drainage area), continuous pump around is not an option
and some of the work will be performed in the wet. Final plans will prescribe to use off-line construction or short-
term pump arounds whenever feasible, to avoid working in the wet. In -stream sediments are primarily sand, gravel,
and cobble and, as such, are not susceptible to generate excessive turbidity or downstream impacts. Bank grading
will be done with caution to avoid spillback and transport of graded sediments into the river. Impacts to the
unnamed tributaries in the project area will be avoided as much as possible. An existing ford crossing of UTI. may be
utilized to access the project area from Old Hanging Road. A mud mat may be installed over the channel during
construction to minimize impacts however temporary impacts of approximately 15 LF are being accounted for on
UTI.. Temporary impacts of 16 LF to UT2 will be necessary for construction access. Mud mats will be used for the
temporary UT2 crossing. The channels at the crossings will be restored to pre-existing conditions after construction.
A larger cross-sectional area and thalweg alignment at Station 1-1-0+85 of the North Toe River is proposed to establish
a larger, stable cross-section in a tight meander bend. This will require laying back the right bank and result in a

0 -
reduction of 20 LF of UT2 at its confluence with the North Toe River. The reduction will be classified as a permanent
impact but result in a functional improvement to the North Toe River.
We have included the following supporting data:
• Vicinity, USGS, Site, and Soils Maps,
• Signed Agent Authorization Form
• PCN form,
• Photolog,
• USACE Approved JD Form, USACE Wetland Forms, and NCDWR Stream Identification Forms, and
• ii" x 17" copy of the 6o% plan set
This same information has been submitted to the USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife
Service Asheville Office, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. If you have any questions, please
contact me at O: 704.332.7754 x109 M: 704.83.9.o848.
Sincerely,
�" S
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Water Resource Engineer
Enclosure

.. .9 •A. ,„..1w r r �.
r 1
` r
7are"fi _ CANE C ' y
Mt3UNTA1JyJ r ' �� � �I` `; I,— � Crossnore ' moo
010 n va rA
�I. m _ Buck Hill
• 7
o; �' • c j, f f �t c / ' Gam
7 ,
Tny.
AVERY
Af-
Ri
MITCHELL
.�
Project Location `.�
' d Y
/ a
41
BURKE
,w
lox
Ow
- r
G
v d,
CDMCDOWELL{
p t
41
%7 , .! �1� S F r � r � i ►roll�rY Pj"A
Figure i Vicinity Map
Barrier Stream Enhancement Project
0 1 2 Miles
WILDLANDS I
ENGINEERING
Avery County, N

Project Parcels
Project Area
Project Reach
40
500 1,000 Feet
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
4
3N
0
h
,!47!
v
T T
40
SprucOPin 5 1 TO ua#m
Figure 2 USGSTopographic Map
Barrier Stream Enhancement Project
Avery County, NC

t
' i Project Parcels
A
444
Project Area
Delineated Wetlands
Existing Streams
N1,0
Project Stream
�� '`" ;. • Wetland Data Points
4 r
S.Z ax � M � '�- �-ih-. t 'yi �. • S
W
-
!
. 4114�
Project fieac
♦V-'i�+��J4 �,� _ r4��� 11y '.! ,..moi � '� ^.'" K'
O + j^
i`� �'x C7 � cr, •
Ui
d %it 0)
+p� "• CO
O
Tx v •• O
F dip
'tw
� x N e` �-r�z .:"�' i�" k i•. '. rich '
2011 Aerial Photography
Figure 3 Site Map
0 100 200 400 Feet Barrier Stream Enhancement Project
I i I i I
WILDLANDS
F N G I N F F R I N G Avery County, NC

D
PuE
SbD
PuD
SbD
Sa
—
Project Reach
41�JV
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
NkA
„yw
OmS,... Existing Streams
00%,� Project Stream
Delineated Wetlands
Project Area
Project Parcels
Soils
- CeE -Chandler-Micaville complex, 30-5046 slopes
OCtE - Cullasaja cobbly loam, 30-50% slopes
DeB - Dellwood cobbly sandy loam, i-S%slopes
NkA - Nikwasi loam, 0-3% slopes
PuD - Porters gravelly loam, 15-30% slopes
PuE - Porters gravelly loam, 30-50°.6 slopes
RoA - Rosman loam, 0-3% slopes
- RsB - Rosman sandy loam, o-5% slopes
- Sac - Saunook loam, 8-i546 slopes
-SbD -Sanuookloam, i5-3046 slopes
- UnE- Unaka-Porters complex, 30-50% slopes
UnF - Unaka-Porters comples 5o-gS%slopes
- W - Water
- WaD - Watauga sandy loam, i5-3o%slopes
WaD
__. . eE
Figure 4 Soils Map
Barrier Stream Enhancement Project
0 100 200 400 Feet
I l I l I
Avery County, NC

Photo 1- Facing up along North Toe River at upstream end of Photo 2 -Facing downstream looking at undercut right bank
project area. along the North Toe River.
Photo 3 -Looking upstream along eroding right bank of the Photo 4 -Looking downstream along the North Toe River.
North Toe River. Leaning trees along left bank in tight meander.
!A m.♦ m'.: sig _ _ •}ih
Photo 5 -Looking downstream along UT1 to the North Toe
River.
Photo 6 -Looking northward at farm crossing on UT1.
Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project Page 1
Site Photographs

Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project Page 2
Site Photographs

Mutual Agreement
for
Stream Restoration Project
Resource Institute (RI) is a non-profit organization that assists organizations and
individuals in carrying out projects to protect natural and human resources while promoting
economic development. RI can assist with projects in a variety of ways, including, but not limited
to, fund-raising, administering project funds, and contracting for services needed to complete a
project. RI has recently adopted a project referred to as the Western North Carolina Stream
Initiative to help farmers and landowners address eroding stream banks that are negatively
affecting them through loss of property, hazards for livestock, sediment transport into a stream and
degraded aquatic habitat. The farmer/landowner has either initiated an application for assistance
through USDA/NRCS's EQIP program or has already signed an agreement/contract for assistance
with USDA/NRCS's EQIP program. RI's role is to help attain the funding, for the design,
construction oversight and unmet construction needs of the work for sites with current EQIP
program agreements/contracts through USDA/NRCS.
RI will assist the farmer/landowner by helping to address issues related to managing and
contracting for the required design, planning, permitting and construction work for stream
enhancement practices on the site, as well as necessary structure work, and bank stabilization. RI's
t objective is to help address current water quality degradation issues; however, work cannot be
guaranteed for acts of nature related to flood events. RI is working with NRCS, Conservation
Districts and the farmer/landowner to help reduce those impacts as much as possible.
In providing services to the farmer/landowner on this tract of land for stream
restoration/stabilization activities to be performed we thereby mutually agree to the following
items:
1. The farmer/landowner will allow ingress and egress for all activities related to the stream
restoration/stabilization such as: surveys, engineering; construction, monitoring, etc. for
RI and its agents.
2. Farmer/landowner will follow the contractual guidance in the EQIP program with USDA,
NRCS.
3. Farmer/landowner will allow NRCS to provide RI with a copy of the associated NRCS
EQIP, application, contract and/or contract modifications, and appendix for the purpose
of allowing RI to sh e . 's other funders in an effort to help obtain matching
dollars. (Initial/date)
4. RI will serve as the financial manager for all funds related to the stream
restoration/stabilization activities received for the project.
5. RI will provide project management services such as, obtaining the technical resources,
bidding and contracting of project elements, and project construction oversight.
6. RI will work with farmers/landowners to resolve differences between construction costs
and payment schedule rates.

Signature Sheet:
Stream Restoration Project Agreement Letter
A Y��
Cour
ZOO'
Stream Length
r
Print Name and Title
n
Farmer/144downer Signature and Title
Dat
Email Address /717
Phone Number
Resource Institute Resource Institute Incorporated
Chairman, Resodir
-� --<6 - is
Date
Institute RC&D, Inc.
OA
Stream Name
�Aw cwme&

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
FOR WNCSI STREAM PROJECTS
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. Deed book 433 Page 1246 PLAN NO. _ PARCEL ID: 180200555599
LOT NO. Deed book 444 Page 1283 PLAN NO. _ PARCEL ID: 180200746521
LOT NO. Deed book 333 Page 1742 PLAN NO. _ PARCEL ID: 180200746146
STREET ADDRESS: 260 Old Hanging Rock Road Newland, NC 28657
PO Box 640 Newland, NC 28657;
152 Conrad Lane Spruce Pine, NC 28777
Please print:
Property Owner: Phillip Barrier et. al
Property Owner: County of Avery (Green Valley Community Center)
Property Owner: Weatherman of Spruce Pine
The property owners above have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Resource
Institute, Inc. that authorizes the activities proposed on the subject property (see attached for
reference). As an authorized representative of Resource Institute, I do hereby authorize
Aaron Earley , of Wildlands Engineering
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on behalf of Resource Institute and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance
and acceptance of this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
Resource Institute's Address:
2714 Henning Drive, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Date: � a- � t J Date:

O�0� W A
0lliii�-c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) For
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing DEC 2 9 2n15
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 P rrrtj NR .WATER RESOU
4 RCE
FIN
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number: G
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Western Stream Initiative (WSI) — Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project
2b. County:
Avery County
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Linville Falls, NC
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Phillip Barrier & et al / County of Avery (Green Valley Community Center) /
Weatherman of Spruce Pine
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
DB 433, PN 1246 / DB 444, PN 1283 / DB 333, PN 1742
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d. Street address:
260 Old Hanging Rock Road / PO Box 640 / 152 Conrad Lane
3e. City, state, zip:
Newland, NC 28657 / Newland, NC 28657 / Spruce Pine, NC 28777
3f. Telephone no.:
N/A
3g. Fax no.:
N/A
3h. Email address:
N/A
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Non-profit organization
4b. Name:
Charles Anderson
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Resource Institute, LLC.
4d.
Street address:
2714 Henning Dr.
4e.
City, state, zip:
Winston -Salem, NC 27106
4f.
Telephone no.:
336-750-0177
4g. Fax no.:
336-750-0177
4h.
Email address:
canderson(d)resourceinstituteing2M
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Aaron Earley
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering Inc.
5c.
Street address:
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
5e. Telephone no.:
704.332.7754 x109
5f.
Fax no.:
N/A
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 11

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
180200555599 / 180200746521 / 180200746146
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.976694 Longitude: -82.016529
1 c. Property size:
22.16 acre tract / 4.64 acre tract / 5.21 acre tract
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
North Toe River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV; Tr
2c. River basin:
French Broad 06010108
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The project area is located within a rural watershed located in southwestern Avery County, NC. Land use in
the project vicinity includes agricultural fields, open pasture, recreational fields, and forest land.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Two wetlands, totaling 0.06 acres, were delineated within or immediately adjacent to the project area.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 2,302 linear feet of perennial channel within or immediately adjacent to the project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Western Stream Initiative (WSI) program is a partnership to complete projects that have been identified by Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) staff in Western North Carolina. The purpose is to conduct channel and bank
enhancement work to reduce-instream erosion. The NRCS funds WSI and similar bank stabilization projects as
agricultural best management practices for the purpose of reducing erosion and sedimentation into streams, and in some
cases for habitat enhancement.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The work performed on the site will consist of stabilizing stream bed and banks through the use of in -stream structures
and laying back stream banks to a stable bank angle that can be matted and re -vegetated for long-term stability. Banks
will be re -vegetated based on NRCS best management practices and will include seeding, matting, and livestaking along
the banks. Existing vegetated buffers will be maintained or enhanced where needed.
Streamwork will be conducted with trackhoes and tracktrucks. Due to the large stream size, a pump around is not a
realistic option and some work will be performed in the wet. Bank grading will be done with caution to avoid spillback of
graded sediments into the river.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Wildlands Engineering,
Inc.
Name (if known): Ian Eckardt
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
Construction/
® PER
® Corps
S1 ❑ P ®T
Stream
North Toe River
❑ INT
® DWQ
60-70
1,813
Enhancement
S2 ❑ P ® T
Crossing
UT1 to North Toe
River
® PER
❑ INT
Z Corps
® DWQ
4
15
S2 ® P ❑ T
Construction/
Stream
UT2 to North Toe
® PER
® Corps
4
20
enhancement
River
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ❑ P ®T
Crossing
UT2 to North Toe
River
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4
16
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
1,864
3i. Comments: Permanent impacts on UT2 are necessary for stream enhancement along the North Toe River. The impact
will result in an improvement of stream functionality for the North Toe River.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑Tar -Pamlico ❑Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
131 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
During design efforts were made to avoid any existing wetlands and minimize impacts to tributaries of the North Toe
River. The project constitutes a positive impact, promoting high quality bank and channel stabilization efforts. Banks will
be re -vegetated based on NRCS best management practices and will include seeding, matting, and livestaking along the
banks. Existing vegetated buffers will be maintained or enhanced where needed.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Bank grading will be conducted with caution in order to avoid spillback of graded sediments into the stream. A
prequalified stream restoration contractor with a high level of experience and competency will be used. If it's necessary
to cross UT1 to access the project site an existing farm crossing will be utilized and a mud mat may be used to minimize
impacts at the crossing. Mud mats will be used for the temporary crossing on UT2.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. •If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is located in the Catawba River Watershed (H LIC
❑ Yes ® No
03050101) that is not identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection
Rules.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project involves the enhancement
of on-site stream channels, no increase in impervious cover will result from the construction of this project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase 11
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
.
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered 'yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream enhancement project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact
downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
This is an NRCS planned project and T&E species concerns were screened in-house. A copy of this permitting package
has been submitted to the USFWS Asheville Office.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Essential Fish Habitat Mapper website was reviewed for
potential Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). In North Carolina, EFH is limited to coastal counties which this project is not located
and includes salt marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrass. The enclosed permitting package has been forwarded to the NC
Wildlife Resource Commission.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This is an NRCS planned project and the cultural resources were screened in-house.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: This is a stream enhancement project and only involves temporary,
non-structural work within the floodplain. The floodplain administrator has been contacted and a floodplain development
permit will be obtained through no -rise certification, and more extensive modeling if required.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? McDowell County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Panel 1802, Map No. 3710180200J, effective date December 2, 2008.
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
45.,.,. 5 y
12/18/2015
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature �
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 11 of 11

Stream & Wetland Forms
USACE Approved Jurisdictional Form
USACE Wetland Determination Forms
NCDWR Stream Identification Forms

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Regional Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Western Stream Initiative (WSI) - Barrier Site
State:NC County/parish/borough: Avery City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.976694 ° lY, Long. -82.016529° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: North Toe River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): French Broad River 06010108
N Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Q Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Q Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are nd "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There.. ie "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
Q TNWs, including territorial seas
0 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 1,8131inear feet: 2-70width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.06 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
'- For purposes of this form, an RP W is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
7 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section HI.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: 74 square miles
Average annual rainfall: 49.62 inches
Average annual snowfall: 42.8 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through l tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 30 (or more) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 30 (or more) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No..
Identify flow route to TNW5: The North Toe River leaves the project area and eventually flows into the Nolichucky
River. The Nolichucky River flows into the French Broad River (the TNW) in Tenneessee.
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

bends.
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 50-75 feet
Average depth: 3-6 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stream bank primarily in outer meander
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Riffle/pool sequences are present..
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime: North Toe River has perennial, year round flow.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confine . Characteristics: Flow is confined within the stream banks.
Subsurface flow: UWown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
®
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
®
the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
®
scour
® sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
® water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
[� High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Project reach is located in a rural watershed where primarily land uses are forest and agriculture. Project reach
was clear during site visit.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mature trees are sparsely scattered along the right bank of the
project reach with grazed pasture beyond. The left bank riparian buffer is a combination of thin woods (less than 100 feet wide) and
maintained fields.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:0.04 acres
Wetland type. Explain:Using NCWAM, Wetland A classifies as a bottomland hardwood forest based on observers
judgement of how wetland would develop if agricultural practices were halted.
Wetland quality. Explain:Low quality because Wetland A lacks a connection to biological corridors and is actively
grazed.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: N/A.
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: During heavy storm events Wetland A could discharge to the North Toe River or
caputre overbank flow from North Toe River.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
® Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Wetland A is located in the floodplain of the North Toe River.
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 30 (or more] river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 30 (or more) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: No Flow.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the IJIM floodplain.
(H) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Wetland A is located in an actively grazed pasture. A small amount of surface water was
present and clear during site visit.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Cow manure present in Wetland A.
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Due to grazing the wetland is comprised almost entirely of herbaceous species
including switchgrass and common rush.
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 0.06 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland A - No 0.04
Wetland B - Yes 0.02
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland A has the ability capture and
treat overbank flows from the North Toe River. Wetland A also captures some of the pasture runoff before it enters the North Toe
River.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: Wetland A has the ability capture and treat overbank flows from the North Toe River. Wetland A also captures some
of the pasture runoff before it enters the North Toe River.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The project includes a portion of the North Toe River that exhibited average bankfull width of 60-70
feet, well defined riffle -pool sequences, and substrate consisting of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders. Strong perennial flow
as well as wracklines and visible acquatic life (fish, macroinvertebrates observed) are present. Two unnamed tributaries (UT1

and UT2) are small tributaries that flow into the North Toe River within the project area. These channels had bankfull widths
ranging from 2 to 6 feet, well defined riffle/pool sequences, and visible aquatic life (amphibians, fish, macroinvertebrates, &
mollusks) are present. NCDWR Stream Classificaiton forms are enclosed.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 1,813 linear feet 2-70width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland B directly abuts the North Toe River with no separation or barriers.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.02acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.04acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
'See Footnote # 3.
1 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland wateis (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultatiffigures & plans submitted with PCN.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Spruce Pine 7.5'.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Avery County Soil Survey.
Fj
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:FIRM attached.
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

or ® Other (Name & Date):see attached report.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site- WSI - Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project City/County: Avery Sampling Date: 10/29/15
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP1- wetland A
Investigator(s): I. Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 136 Lat: 35.975433 Long: -82.015864 Datum.
Soil Map Unit Name: Dellwood cobbly sand loam (DeB) & Rosman loam (RoA) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Feature is a linear ditch within a grazed pasture. Historic dredging has enhanced the hydrology and
grazing practices have removed the majority of trees and saplings.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
✓ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
✓ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches)- -
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 3
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1.
2.
3.
..
50% of total cover
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
1
2.
4.
Sampling Point: DP1 - Wetland A
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata- 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
20% of total cover:
_
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 20% of total cover:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3 0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6• be present, unless disturbed or problematic
= Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 5' radius ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1 Panicum virgatum 65 Yes FAC (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
hinniisaffimim 9n Yes FACW
4.
5.
7
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 42.5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. 30' radius )
1.
2.
3.
5
85 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 17
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: "'- WellandA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0-5 2.5Y 3/2
silty sand
5-7 2.5Y 4/1 90
7.5YR 4/6 10 C M
silty sand
7-14 10YR 4/1 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C M
silty sand
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)-
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: WSI - Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project City/County: Avery
Applicant/Owner. Wildlands Engineering State: NC
Investigator(s): I. Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none). none
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). MLRA 136 Lat: 35.975435 Long: -82.015751
Soil Map Unit Name: Rosman loam (RoA) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 10/29/15
_ Sampling Point: DP2 -Upland A
Slope (%): 0
Datum:
No ✓
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
Historic agricultural practices have removed the trees and saplings.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Pdmary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface.(C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): "
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): '
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2 - Upland A
6. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.97
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
6
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1.
95 Yes UPL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
(A)
2.
3. -Vitus sp.
Total Number of Dominant
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3•
than 3 in. (7 6 cm) DBH.
Species Across All Strata
0
(B)
4.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Percent of Dominant Species
Herb —AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8
5.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
(A/B)
9•
6.
ft (1 m) in height
10.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
11.
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover.
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size- 30' radius )
1.
species
x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
FACW species
x 2 =
1.'
FAC species
x 3 =
2.
FACU species 3
x 4 = 12
3.
UPL species 95
x 5 = 475
4.
Column Totals: 98
(A) 487
(B)
6. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.97
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
6
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum Plot size: 5' radius
( )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1 Festuca brevipila
95 Yes UPL
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 Tnfolwm repens
3 No FACU
Sapling —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. -Vitus sp.
2 No Unknown
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7 6 cm) DBH.
4.
5.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb —AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9•
ft (1 m) in height
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50
20% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size- 30' radius )
1.
1 4.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No ✓
e photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: IP2- Upland A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-14 10YR 3/6 100 sandy loam
RM=Reduced
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: WSI - Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project City/County: Avery
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC
Investigator(s): I. Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.976394 Long: -82.015049
Sampling Date- 10/29/15
_ Sampling Point: DP3-weciandB
- Slope (%): 0
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Unaka-Porters complex (UnF) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No ✓
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Feature is a linear ditch on the edge of an agricultural field. Historic dredging has enhanced the
hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
V. Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? - Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 4
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): ° (at s -f-)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1.
4.
50% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
1.
4
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius )
1.
5.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1.
2.
Sampling Point: DP3 - Wetland B
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
20% of total cover: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
✓ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total. Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
20% of total cover: 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 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Concave depression devoid of vegetation that exhibits indicators of hydrology and hydric soil.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
20% of total cover: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
✓ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total. Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
20% of total cover: 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 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Concave depression devoid of vegetation that exhibits indicators of hydrology and hydric soil.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP3-Wetland B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type ToTexture Remarks
0-2 10YR 4/3 sand
2-6 10YR 4/3 80 5YR 4/6 20 C M silty sand
6-14 7.5YR 2.5/1 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M silt loam
RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type.
Depth (inches):
2Location. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sol
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: WSJ - Barrier Site Stream Enhancement Project City/County. Avery Sampling Date: 10/29/15
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point. DP4 - Upland B
Investigator(s). I. Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%)- 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: 35.976408 Long: -82.015139 Datum.
Soil Map Unit Name. Rosman loam (RSA) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
Sampling location is located with a maintained agricultural field with no trees or saplings.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): '
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): '
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1.
50% of total cover•
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius )
1.
2.
Sampling Point: DP4 - Upland B
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 0 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
= Total Cover
Nrevaience inaex worKsneet:
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
FAC species x 3 =
20% of total cover:
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 5' radius )
UPL species 70 x 5 = 350
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Column Totals: 80 (A) 390 (B)
70 Yes UPL
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.88
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
20% of total cover-
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5 No Unknown
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
-Allium
4 Eupatorium capillifolium
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 5' radius )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1 Festuca brevipiia
70 Yes UPL
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.- Trifolium repens
5 No FACU
Sapling —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. sp.
5 No Unknown
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
-Allium
4 Eupatorium capillifolium
5 No FACU
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb —AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
50% of total cover: 42.5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size- 30' radius )
1.
85 = Total Cover
20% of total cover- 17
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present?
Remarks- (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Sampling Point: DP4- Upland B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type'Loc Texture Remarks
0-14 7.5YR 3/4 100 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol(Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
aduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ,D.��r{ f "j s
Project/Site: ldsl- Q,crrk'e.r
Latitude: 35`Cl *'Sggg?_
Evaluator: rj
County: Aver
Lon etude
g aZ.o l 1S.54qS
Other 0r I- U�54�N+ '� {�
Total Points:
at least intermittent ent 4i
Stream Determination (c'
Ephemeral
ffStream:191s ,�
if_> 79 or perennial if 'a 30*
Intermitten Perennia
e.g. QuadName: i~to.crl h•r
I
'6 "u,n,.
A. domor o o (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
p
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1'
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
co1
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
2
3
9. Grade control C.A-S eja�r � S L r
0
COP
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch: �o4erDS j3�` r�i ``
®A)5 U,\\6,,,
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual -
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal = e )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2(331
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based eviderice of high water table?
No = 0
Yes= 3
1
U. Blology (Subtotal = It ) �
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
w2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
Qj
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks ,,,.,,\
0
1CD
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 3 �� „p r
0
0.5 j1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5 11
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods: See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: �o4erDS j3�` r�i ``
®A)5 U,\\6,,,
1
t -o AU,

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10 _ 9 - JT
Project/Site: �t/SI-Q�-rn'cr
Latitude: 3-' q w5,l7
Evaluator: �ja�
county: Avyrj
Longitude: - g 2„ Q l 8��
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3 l S
Stream Determination (c'
Other UTa - fva�, 14
�
if >_ 79 or perennial if >_ 30`
ne
Ephemeral Intermitten Pee.g.
quad Name: C
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =___1(2__)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
g
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool0
sequence
0r
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
10
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control l s o� c�rns.ICa.a v G�+^�i
0
0.5
1)
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.51�
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = q� 5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter
1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0. 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in-streambed
3
0
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 -
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.
1
24. Amphibians
0
0
1
1•.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: CV.,,,. 1 n s 1,_ �� .-,
dv..
jA
Sketch: aIV�ky worr��
54'►s� �
W1

Western Stream Initiative 2015 -
Barrier Creek
Avery County, NC
for
Resource Institute
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
PU
Rist VRCL
DRAFT 60% PLAN
December 17, 2015
9
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL EAW!
D
IDEC 2 9 2015 ,
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Notes and Symbols 0.2
Concept Overview 1.0
Plan and Profile 2.0-2.3
Planting Plan 3.0-3.1
Details 4.0-4.1
Project Directory
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying
111 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Brad Kee, PLS
828-645-8275
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Engineer/TSP:
Aaron Earley, PE
TSP -13-9259
704-332-7754
Owner:
Resource Institute
Site Rep:
Angela Green
NRCS Representative.
Fred Y. Alexander
District Conservationist
Avery, Mitchell, and Yancey Counties
USDA-NRCS
11943 South 226 Hwy, Suite C
Spruce Pine, NC 28777
Phone: [phone] Ext. 3
C.
LOQ
I N
0
i"A

Exe
o' so, ioo, iso,
Q 8 M
zZ JAxg
=
aZ��aa�
aZou4!LLE
�w< LL
U
z
a �
U

2750
0' 2' 4' 6'
rvE�u
2755
2750
ISTING GROUND
ALONG EXISTING -- —
CENTERUNE
2745 2745
100+00 100+50 101}00 101.50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50
ST Al
NORTH TOE RIVER
EMOVE BAR MATERIAL. •�s' �' i : -
RELOCATE TOE OF SLOPE.
- --- '
STABLISH NEW TOP OF BANK __
r ;
b "
-----— -----
-_-27
-- GRADE BANK AT 2.5:1 SLOPE -- •�.• jai-_ _ 50� '//
= ' AND INSTALLMATTING _ --------
__—____ _ 'i - - " - - _--
-y
i : - -- ----- --- -' ----___ss _ - ----
7
1
-__ — - -__2755 _ _- ----------
- —``\ • i .. �.... .... �.... - -
_ c
_
_ _____ ___________
, ___.�_____�_______ _
'-----..----- �-=-'�- -- lei'= -----------
---------------------
-loo+oD
TART OF PROJECT --
-�/hSTATION 100+70 ;' �
/ ' /
`.` __ EBUIID THALWEG � � ___----' - _ -- _ _ � ULR CONSTRUCTION
STATION 101+30 TO -
i . 160.
STATION102x80 f='�.� — _ _ - - i AULROD
_ _ - i HA OAD
101+00
102+00
ISTING FENCE
_ /-----'-- -is - (PLACEHOLDER FOR REMOVAL PLANS
J
__
-_-_ NSTALL ROCK VANE ILL IN VOIDS BETWEEN EXISTING ROOTWADS
WITH SMALL BOULDERS AND CLASS I SIZE MATERIAL.
i
OULDER SPUR (TYR)
GRADE BANK AND INSTALL MATTING. DO NOT DISLODGE OR
_ _ ___________ _ DISTURB EXISTING ROOTWA05 (TYP.)
-- '
_ ---- XISTING TOP OF BAN ( )
-
—
efl i
� K TYP.
--- - -- N XISTING DIRT/GRAVEL ROAD
(SITE ACCESS)
/
Ag
zo4R 8q
CdY�=mm= -
a Zou~'xp` E
"AlP
o O�
Qq��JSw��G�
O�
L
0' 20' 40' iso' -;
IMabiOrrTW

nss
3]550
ADOf R0F/NE
37MO
LEV 2"".90
MSTUIGROUND ` _
ALONG EXISTING ""OSE
D PROFILE
CENLERUNE (TMNSPOSE00Nro /
IXISDNG CENTERLINE
- J ALIGNMEHi
V45
104.50
105M0 105550 101+00
105.50
IDl
tm.50
NORTH TOE RIVER
STABLISH NEW TOP OF BANK.
GMDEBANN AT 2.S:15LOPE
MA
/ AND INSTALL ]TING.
ELOCATETOEOF SLOPE.
SyGO / / • '' .. .+... • /.
\A\ ,.� -
11111
qq \•
ilC\�`\ \, \. `\�
•� -''/
_ , -,LT59'
� — --
� `!'_�—.__-•�.._.__... .�
EMY
``,, \--•� � `
-� ��_�-"
_ —
USE BO
ROCK VANE
ONIOT
I �( \
-C_..\
_ _- ,
DIISRNG
3 27c
J:..
ULDRSP
E UR
2�
_
.\ �
____________ 1
ILL IN VOIDS BE EEN IXGTING
WRHSMALLBOULDANKAN QNSTAU.E l `� �
MATERIAL GRADE RANK ANO INSTALL MATTING., ._ ELOCATETOEOF SLOPE`
DONOTDISLODGEOR DISTURB - `
I `15-
•______ /
EXISTING RCOTWADS (1YP.(
---
ISTABUSH NEW TOP OF Ill
GRADE BANK AT 2.51 SLOPE
I AND INSTALLMATIING. , •. `---. \\
-' -- `
105.50
Il
0 1' r 6'
zFss
M.�ru y 8
I�ZMP��E
3"
3]50
nas
109500 105015
i I
All
----------------
z
14ABUSHNEWTOPOF
i
- BOURELOCATENEOFSLOPE. CUADf w as:1-noxX-
> LDER roE _ _
---------------------
VANE. '
IN
NOTHERP M BANK ANDTERRACE. /
INOTHER PROPOSEOSTIl
ANDTERAC
FENCE

2]50
2745
2]10
1 OE.15 10E.50
110.W 110.50 111.W 111.50 112W 112.50 113. 113.50 113.7E
METER
o• T 4• c•
ne.�r.R Q 8
ZiARVA!
�Q i
x 8
3f ._v
bio {Sr"y
3W
o�
L
0' 20'
I�cmM,4I
MI OFR
JN9 5 VANE
EV2]4].50 STATION lUE.ES
E2747.M
ATION 130N5
LEV 2]46.80
,WN
_
\
—
ROPOSED PROFILE
(TMNSFOSEO ONTO EXISTING
CENTERLINE
ALIGNMENT)
ISTING GROUND
ALONG EXISTING
1145
CENTERUNEI
\
Tl+
\\i
Hill
2740
2]10
1 OE.15 10E.50
110.W 110.50 111.W 111.50 112W 112.50 113. 113.50 113.7E
METER
o• T 4• c•
ne.�r.R Q 8
ZiARVA!
�Q i
x 8
3f ._v
bio {Sr"y
3W
o�
L
0' 20'
I�cmM,4I

I r10
1 2745
214[
ATION 515.51
LW 2113.50 �SEAT I( IISK7
EEEN 274).50
7
ATpN13213.O
- IEV 3.50
RO PO RRONLE -
(iMNSVOSFOOMOE%ISNNG
OENNRUNEAOGNMENn _ -
ISTNGGROIIXO
ALONG aim G
QNNANNE
21so 0. z• a• e
za„R�Bo
p O
Wal
�2od�uE
3W
2715
2M Gpr
113-0 114.00 114.50 115.00 115.50 115.00 1ww 111.00 117.50 115.00 118.41
I.
W
• S'•.Sti 1.'i1:: i!-s>qy►Lidr>q►q ��1S.{y
i9 d► d i9. ,}�SR��j
:¢•1'. •i �:�:S- �.qYi �i�il..a Cl ��I �V►�VIj►dtq>i•yP q>d ��>� • •:: � �>�Ci'Q0►► �>ilgPrdYq►i>q•q!q>STgi ifgl d►q►qA d9 d1 6
::'L:. . ,4'.• �' s�a>s1•SH� dldii.9q► d►d! d9d► d!q! d!d► �►i► q►q► i!q! L>q! i>q9 �•'0��� �� �
.:ti:7 :::::ti�"::2�i :•'••.i •ti:•.:':� ��:: �: f � .�d� V►q� �ld�lq►A>dla�►dli� �lq�►q>= �i/q�>d/gr�ih�
►q A MA /►►4 lY►i►e >� ►i►►i►ii �i �►�>s�d f►i�9.►.; as.'
f#'

Single row of bare roots along top of bank at 8 ft O.C. spacing.
Multiple rows of bare roots and containers within rocks.
See footnote 1.
Multiple rows of bare roots at 8 ft O.C. spacing.
® Pasture seeding. See footnote 2.
Live stakes at 3 ft O.C. spacing.
Planting Footnotes:
1. Spread and work soil into voids between rocks. Plant bare
roots in larger pockets of soil. Excavating hole 3x larger than
container diameter and depth, fill with soil, and plant
container
2. Pasture seeding mixture rates will be SO lbs/ac Fescue and 8
lbs/ac white clover
Planting Schedule:
a' 1. 11 lla,
a$
¢
z�x-M
�mMsWF=
A�f€_ E
dWzI~'4
3'
U
z
0
0
U
All,

NORTH TOE RIVER
FLOW
Single row of bare roots along top of bank at 8 ft O.C. spacing.
i.! Multiple rows of bare roots and containers within rocks.
See footnote 1.
® Multiple rows of bare roots at 8 ft O.C. spacing.
® Pasture seeding. See footnote 2.
Live stakes at 3 ft O.C. spacing.
--s'' "'-----------_
Planting Footnotes:
1. Spread and work soil into voids between rocks. Plant bare
roots in larger pockets of soil. Excavating hole 3x larger than
container diameter and depth, fill with soil, and plant
container
2. Pasture seeding mixture rates will be 80lbs/ac Fescue and 8
lbs/ac white clover
Planting Schedule:
0. W. W In,
i�aa -
JIM

SEE PROFILE
SILVAGEDONS(TE
COBBLE BED MATERIAL
Profile A -A'
1. BED MATERIAL TO BE HARVESTED ONSITE
3. MEDIAN DIAMETER • IB'
Plan View L
B
F RIFFLE ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
SOLVAGEDONSFIE
MISSILE BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF MNK MP)
Section 6B'
Constructed Riffle
AD Notto Scale
INVERTELEVATNIN
TOP OF "INK MPI PERPROFILE
ONSITE MATERUA
(QAS51 MIXEDWOH HDNER ROCK
TOEOFSLOPE P WELLGRMHOGRAVELMIXi
1'
L OFFSET HEADER
EXCAVATE POOL R TO0,51
F
B PER PROFILE NONWOVEN -"DES UPSTREAM OF FOOTER
FILTERFABRiC ITT,
LBED
FLOW SCOUR lJ
1 A POOL
Jy B. FOOTER ROIX
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5- MIN. UPSTREAM
Section A -A'
A°TX
Plainview
TOE RIVER
N LFT)
33-
X ITT)
1.
x P—,
INVERTELEVATNIN
TOP OF "INK MPI PERPROFILE
ONSITE MATERUA
(QAS51 MIXEDWOH HDNER ROCK
TOEOFSLOPE P WELLGRMHOGRAVELMIXi
1'
L OFFSET HEADER
EXCAVATE POOL R TO0,51
F
B PER PROFILE NONWOVEN -"DES UPSTREAM OF FOOTER
FILTERFABRiC ITT,
LBED
FLOW SCOUR lJ
1 A POOL
Jy B. FOOTER ROIX
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5- MIN. UPSTREAM
Section A -A'
A°TX
Plainview
TOE RIVER
N LFT)
33-
X ITT)
1.
Y(FT)
1.
or)
E'
5(%)
3.6%
Rock Vane
}DNot to Rale
ProFiie V'ew &B'
E
0
STONE BACKFILL _
6'.IW M
rovoF uxK
TOE OF uNK
Tom.
b
Plan View
TOPOFBANK STONE BACKFILL
6--16' DIA
roE OF BANK
section View ,
Boulder Spur
XD NIX tOScale
D SEGMENT
iREPTEI _ 1
Plan View
f TOE BOULDERS
BASE FLOW 6 FLOW
ELEVATION
\ EMBED BODUfERBQS'IMINI
BELOW OIANNEI BED
Profile View C -C
MEAT
WE CUTTING
uld
Boer Toe
XD Na.s.ie
TOP Of BANK
TDE OF BANK
T �
F,
gSO�Kb O�
4���JyF�JG�
Profile View tS
BED
USE BOULDER, ROIX OR
BRUSHMATERIAI AS OIRECTED
TOCREATE STABLE BASE
Section &B
NOTES:
1. SYMBOL LENGTH /p BOULDERS SHOWN
MAY VARY BASED ON PROPOSED
LENGEMOFPRACTICE.
3. USE OF ON-SITE BOULDER FOOTERS MAY BE REQUIRED
IN LIEU Of STONE WE.

,�� L T Ll.ss•
_ f QD„R�M
//yy nm
BUFFER WIDTH DIBBLE BAP
2
•7 '° ayx&unmi
VARIES
a-A:mmc
PLANTING W BAP SHALL HAVE A I I /� ZE E $
R KFULL BLADE WITH ATRINGULM 6' MAX, WRH ARE L 11_ ^ -f L y
CROSSSEUION, AND SHALL 8E 12 NQS' I6' MAK. WRHOUT WIRE) aZw �F'FE
S. INCHES LO NS41NCHESWIDEND Typical $Ldkt Fc Stake 3�"E
I INCH HICK ATCENTER. 1. ALL SO RS WRHIN THE BUFFER
I"I m u
RESTORED PUWTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED. HS
CII NEl REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PUNTING, MIODLEANDVERRCALRES
2. ALL BLUFFS WALL BE PROPERLY SHALLBEI2}GAGEMIN
FILTER FABRIC 6- MINT, OVERLAP IN
ROOTING PRUNING INSUREEESURVVIVALIVAL INSTALLATION Li
NNRDOWNSTREAM DIRECION
SR
ATIAMENDS
UNTING P
SPACING PER ALL ROOTS STALL BE PRUNED TO
PLAN AN
ND BOTTOM STMNO
Section View AN APPoRRTE LENGTH TO SHALL BE 10 WUGE MIN. ECO -STAKE (lYP) TOP OF BANK
PPEVENi}pOOTING.
O O 3 O O O WIRE u u SpA "�f + + '(' + + { + '('�+ '(' + +
����o�
FILTER FABRIC LNG + + + + + + +....::: 110
F%ISTINGGROUND + + + + + •F..:. v
NOTES: COMPARED FILL - —l•••- d Q
G
1. USE WIRE A MINIUM Of 32' IN WIDH AND WH TYPICAL STAKE ALON TOE Of SLOPE
A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WH 12' MAY I TOEANOTOP pian View
SPACING.
(..': 2. USE FILTER FASTEFABRIC DEQUATINIMO THE 36TH WIDTH I I
A
AND FAiDENADE ENGINEER THE WIRES AS I I C�
v..:.
DIRECTED BYTHE ENGREER. I IIII
3.
PROVIDE S'STEEL POST OGTHE SELF-GASTFNE0. ,A'I I 8p EROSION CONTROL TOP OF BANK
INSERT TH E DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT HE DIBBLE, OR PUSH HE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE TO REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR ANGLESTEELTYPE. ANGLESTEELTYPE. EXTEND FABRIC �'w .� MATSING ITYP) SECURE MATTING IN
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH HE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES IN SHOVEL DOWN TO THE CLOSE HE W70M Of HE SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM INTOTRENCH �n 6•DEEPHI
INTOHESOIL TO THE FULL SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO FRONT OF THE SEEDLING FULL DEPTH OF HE BLADE. PLANTING FROM THEN PUSH UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
DEPTH OF THE BLADE AND HE PUNTING HOLE. PULLTHE AND BUSH THE BLADE FORWARD TO CLOSE HE TOP, HEEL BECAREFULTOAVOID
PULL BACK ON HE HANDLE SEEDLING BACK UP TO HE HALFWAY INTO THE SOIL EUMINATINGAIRPOCKETS MMAGING THE SEEDLING, FCO -STAKE ITYP)
TO OPEN THE PLANTING CORRECT RAF2PNG DEPTH TWISTAXDPUSHHE AROUND THE ROOT.
Hi (DO NOT ROCK THE (THERCOTCOUARSHOULDBE HNDLEFORWAROTO
SHOVEL BACK AND FORTH TO 31NCHES BELOW THE SOIL CLO ETHETOPOFTHESIR TOEOFSLOPE
AS THIS CAUSES SOIL IN THE SURFACE). GENRYSHAKE THE TO HOLD HE SEEDLING IN Temporary Silt Fence
PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOWHE PLACE,
COMPARED, INHIBITING ROOTSTOSnUUGHTENOUO <'1 ! TYPICAL SAKE LTYP
H
ROOTGROW. DO NO}TWISi OR SPIN HE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS
1 -ROOTED. $ on View
H 1VRGLSTAKE (M) I ,
Bare Root Planting nErosion Control Matting v
4.t o o ae ro$uIS 16a
>
La 0
iia 0 � y
U C�
slo �T 3' REFER TO TYPICAL SECTIONSSOILAND
2� O
D'�A� EROSION CONTROL ROLK MATRIX F� Q) Z
/ MA LNG
\C\/ (ME Di BNIffULL OIy fLO00PWN AS BACKFILL EROSION CONTROL MATTING VARAPPED MOUND >,
ELEVATION SOIL LIFT, E UFT HEIGHT IS APPRO%.113 OF HEIGHT
TOP a BANK 6G• PER ENGINEER'S R FROM WATER
SURFACE TO BNKFULL (FLOOCPLAIN), MAXIMUM
LAE STAKE Tri 1117 NT FT HEIGHT AT FROFACE 1.5'
TOE OF SLOPE PLACED LIVE
ELEV.YABOVE
DOWNSTREAM \. CUTTINGS
IUNNSPLUG Z RIFFLE INVERT
O
CkO N 'NATER SURFACE
3/2'102' 2m `ri MIX IN MORE SOIL
DIAMETER o z %�� ON TOP LAYER tO PRWIpE 3'(MIN) - TOE FS P
.ND„y�,. BCUT
EDDINGFMUVETINGS Ti
r ~ c Q T / • DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, MOODY DEBRIS
LIVE
STAKE (TVP) TOP Of BANK ELEV. WBELOW GRAVEL/SAND BACKFILL -Oft -COMPACTED STONE BASE
Liv! Stak<Petail '" POOL DEPTH COIR MPTTNG NOTES:
A A A A Q NATIVESOIL 1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' BEYOND PROPOSED TOE OF BINK AS
NECESSARY
A A A A A A A2. INSTALLALTERNATING LAWASOF LOSS, BRUSHIVROODY DEBRIS
AI^ ♦ A A EROSION CONTROL MATTING ISMALLMANCHESAND ROOTSCOLLECEDON-SRE)ND
A A A A A ADO SDIl TO LAYERSOFOACIFILL(BEDMAHRRL)TO FILLNYVOIDSPACE.
PLANTING TKIlE3. p\ UGMLY COMPACT BRUSFVWOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
..fK� 3. WHENUSING ST ONE, HARVEST MNE FROM 01 SOURCES
3' OF AS DIRECTED AND COMPACT LFAANG A LEA SLOPE(MIN)ON
Pan View
IUNNSPLUG TDEOFSLOPE 3[CONTAINERWIDTH SOp DENSELY PACKED NWDY DEBRIS HEFFUNN E.
NOW. A. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SOSTEMS MEROUGHLY PARALLEL
AND IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
1 PIANS ANDDRECTEO YT THE ENGINEER. THOWN ON � ` S. INSTALL WITH GOOD COIL NEAR TOP OF NTACT TO SOILBRUSH, PLACE ME NTTINGS jy
2. IUNCUSPLUGSTOBEINSfALLEDALONGMEOF E 6. INSTALLFILTERFMRICMERBRUSHIWOODVDEBRISTO S
WK. 4 d PREVENT MIGRATION OF SOIL MATERIAL IMO BRUSH. S
SOT" pT A BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE INSTALIED ). INSTALL SOIL -ROC[ BACKFILL IN LIFE WRAPPED IN COIR FIBER
-yCAI� FLUSH NITH BANG!' MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING TO TYPICAL L
Oyv SECTION DIMENSIONS, LIFTS SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY WILE
P6RVcMTHE WK FREIGHT AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. Ret J
& SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND
BINK STABILIZATION PER PIANS. (p'
k
Bank Planting Containerized Planting 6 Stone Tce with Soil Lifts s
A.t aro t at NIXi Bale 3.1 Nd roSCale