20061901 Ver 2_401 Application_20080208

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Versant
Woodfin, Buncombe County
North Carolina
PSI
o~- ~9ot y2
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION
TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS and NCDENR
Prepared For
Mr. Robert L. Richey
Versant Properties, LLC
225 E. Worthington Ave Ste 102
Charlotte NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Plannin Consultant D ~ ~ '~~ ~ ~
3714 Spokeshave Lane '•~ ~~' "-~~~' ~ ~_i~ ~~~
Matthews, NC 28105 t~
[phone] ~ ~ ~ ~ Z (~ 0 8
DCNk - ~n~ ~h uuAL!T'7
t~'cTIAN~S ANI? S i C?;i;"FNIATT=R (3RPddCti
February 3, 2008
Page 1 of 15

Corps Submittal -Cover Sheet
' Please provide the following info:
' 1. Project Name Versant
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: versant Properties, LLC
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Leonard S . Rindner, PwS
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s):
' S. Site Address: Baird Cove Road
6. Subdivision Name: Versant
' 7. City: Woodf in
8. County: Buncombe
' 9. Lat: 3 5.6 5 7 7 Long: 8 2.5 4 2 6 (Decimal Degrees Please )
10. Quadrangle Name: weaverville
11. Waterway: UT of Beaverdam Creek
12. Watershed: French Broad River
' 13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit # 3 , 2 9 , 12
' -General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
_Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office.
AID:
' Pre are File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
P
' Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
' Project Description/ Nature ofActivity/ Project Purpose:
' Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. O to - ~ q O 1 ~ 2
(Tf anv nartirnlar ifam is not annlicahlP to this nrniert nlease enter "Nnt Annlicahle" or "N/A".l
~-' w r-------- rr- --- - . .. ..
L Processing P ~ ~ ,
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
X 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit #3. #29
and #12
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: See attached Approval Letter
' S. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
' II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information ~ E~ ~ : ~"/
Name: Mr. Robert L. Richey _.. ~
Versant Properties, LLC ~ EB ~ i ~fi8
225 E. Worthington Ave Ste 102
Charlotte NC 28203 DENk ~ tiA"f iii uUALaY
N1ETP.RNDS ANl~ STdRMWATEFt DRrAitirN
Phone: [phone]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Leonard S. Rindner PWS
Company Affiliation: Leonard S. Rindner PLLC
Mailing Address: Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews NC 28105
' Telephone Number: 704 904 2277 Fax Number: 704 847 0185
E-mail Address: len.rindner.pws(a~gmail.com

' Page 2 of 15

III.

1

Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project:
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Buncombe Nearest Town: Woodfin
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Site is near Exit 23 at NC
19/23. The site is at the end of Baird Cove Road. See attached location map
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 398 Acres

1
1

7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Beaverdam Creek and Herron's Cove Creek
River Basin: French Broad River
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mss/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Former agricultural land and forested areas, developing
subdivisions and commercial areas.
Page 3 of 15
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.6577°N 82.5426 °W

i

1

i
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Versant is
gated residential development consistin off, f single family lots multi-family areas, and a
Village Center The planning and scope of the Village Center is described below by Oldham
Planning and Desi n complies with Audubon International Standards for the Gold Si n~ ature
Program and the Principals of Sustainable Resource Maria eg merit.
Village Center Site Project Goals
Create a unique, European-inspired, mountain-top destination that is the center of activity
for the community by offering:
- Educational and instructional venues for personal enrichment;
- Fitness 8~ spa venues for a variety of indoor and outdoor activities; and,
Retail venues for sundries, food and specialty items.
2. Enhance this mountain-top destination with semi-public venues that add an ever-changing
mix of people to the Village Center, along with Architectural 8~ Site elements that serve as
mini-destinations within the Village Center, increasing the inventory of recreational and
rentable event locations within the Village by offering:
- Outdoor Performance Space
- Indoor 8~ Outdoor Wedding Ceremony venues;
- Reception/Banquet Facilities, both indoor and outdoor;
- For-lease cabins with access to recreation and spa services;
- Executive conference facilities where privacy is enhanced by the gated entry and
helipad access; and,
- A luxury inn with access to recreation and spa services.
3. Provide direct pedestrian access from all Village Center residences, cabins and the inn to
all Village Center services, event spaces, and recreational venues.
4. Provide pedestrian access from surrounding single-family residences to the Village Center
core services, event spaces, and recreational venues.
5. Provide a variety of housing types within the Village Center to maximize density around the
Village core, as well as revenue potential for the most desirable views.
6. Maximize the availability of long-range mountain views for residences and commercial
uses for premium sales/lease fees.
7. Maximize the availability of internal cove/valley views for residences and commercial uses
that face Baird Cove for premium sales/lease fees.
1415 $OUTH CHURCH STREET, SUITE_ I CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 '!a' 704.342.1919 '". 704.342.202_5 -'' WWw.OPDA.CpM

Utilizing this historic architectural pattern would not only be appropriate from a
topographic and land pattern perspective, but would capitalize on the ability to obtain
maximum sales revenue for residences, and rental revenue for an inn, cabins,
conference facilities, and other event spaces.
Project Economics Perspective: Create a Destination
From physical, architectural, and functional aspects, the Village Center is a destination within
and for the community. As such, it establishes the ability to command premium pricing for
residential units based upon available views and proximity to services/activities.
Residential Opportunities
• Views: The main reason people choose to purchase premium primary or second-home
property in a mountain setting is the opportunity for long-range views and vistas from
their home. If this is not directly available to them in their own parcel, then easy access
to areas that allow a view experience is necessary. However, this experience must take
' place in a location that is perceived as directly and privately owned by them in some
measure, even if that ownership is shared with a limited group of neighbors.

1

Setting and Activities: Another reason people choose to purchase premium property in
a mountain setting is the opportunity to experience a unique setting, both natural and
built, that contrasts with their typical day-to-day experience. The uniqueness lies in
several factors: First is the ability to experience nature within a few steps of their home.
Second is the ability to stay, eat, shop and play in one location that is easily accessible
from their home by walking and in a variety of other ways. Lastly is the benefit of
elevation in providing a temperate setting during the hottest part of the year.
The Village Center as a unique destination within the already-established tourist-based
Asheville economy also presents the opportunity to sustain the Versant community by
accommodating revenue-producing uses and spaces.
Destination Support Services
• Eco-Tourism:
- Access to outdoor-oriented recreational venues: Hiking, Swimming, Personal/Small
Group Fly-tying and/or casting lessons, Canoe/Kayak basic lessons
- Bird-watching
- Nature photography
- Access to Audubon International educational resources
- Native Plant tours
- Animal-spotting tours
- Stream and Pond Fishing, Ice-skating during winter
• Special Events
- Corporate Retreats: Enhanced Privacy/Exclusivity with gated entry and helipad
access
' 1415 SOUTH C,HORCH STREET, SUITE I C.HARLOiTt., NC 28203 "~" 704.342.1919 ~'.-? 704.3422025 '°°' WWW.OPDA.COM

' - Special Occasion facilities for Weddings, Reunions, and other celebrations
- Intimate Musical Performances
- Charity /Fundraising Events
• Luxury Tourism:
' - Highly-serviced Inn and Cabins
- Access to ala-carte spa services
- Gourmet Restaurant
' - Specialty galleries, boutiques
- Enhanced Privacy/Exclusivity with gated entry and helipad access
- Access to recreational venues: Fitness Center w/ Personal Training and Exercise
' Equipment, Lap Pool, Water-Sports Pool, Indoor 8~ Outdoor Yoga, etc.
' Report Conclusion: List of Design Program Elements for Versant's Village Center
- Mix of Residential Types: Duplex, Townhome, Condo
- Inn
- 3-4 Small Retail Spaces
' - Conference Rooms -Flexible sizes
- Enclosed Banquet Rooms -Flexible sizes
- Restaurant with indoor & outdoor seating
' - Central Water Feature
- Educational/Interpretive Trail Signage
- View Overlooks
- Outdoor spaces to accommodate weddings
- Outdoor classroom space
' - Picnic locations
- Outdoor Sculpture spaces/opportunities
- Fitness Center with exercise equipment, spa facilities, saunas, pools
Amphitheater
Outdoor, hard-surface group gathering space
- Intimate outdoor view-oriented spaces
' - Trail Network (access from hard to rustic)
- For-lease/rent cabins
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
' project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
7415 SOUTH CHURCH STR[ET. SUITE I CHARLOTTE:, NC 28203 'Y' 704.342.1979 '''.704.342.2025 `~~!WWW.OPDA.COM

1

list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A wetland delineation was conducted for Versant and field verified by David Baker of the USACE -Asheville Regional
Office on March 9, 2006. The mapped wetlands and streams were utilized in the planning and design of the overall plan. A
Protected Species Survey and Habitat Assessment, and Aquatic Stream Survey was conducted for the project and presented
to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. Based on a field
survey the proposed activity will not affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. A Cultural Resource Survey has been conducted and submitted to the State Historic
Preservation Office for concurrence. According to the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places for
the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, this site is not
registered property or property listed as being eligible for inclusion in the Register. An archaeological survey has been
conducted by Cultural Archaeological Assessment Group and has been submitted for concurrence. On December 9, 2006 an
Individual Permit Application was submitted to the USACE and the NCDENR. Proposed impacts included approximately
1,250 linear feet of stream impacts and approximately 0.40 acres of wetland impacts. Three in-line ponds were proposed.
The Individual Permit Application was formally withdrawn in September, 2007.
Since that time, the project has been extensively redesigned to avoid and minimize impacts to within the Nationwide Permit
#29 thresholds. In addition, the proposed stormwater management plan has been designed with direct input from Ms.
Annette Lucas of NCDENR
The compensatory mitigation proposal involves an "in lieu" payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. The remaining perennial stream and the remaining intermittent streams will be preserved. Invasive species will be
removed to the extent feasible along the existing roadway along the stream. Invasive species will not be utilized in project
landscaping.
The project has been registered by Audubon International for the Gold Signature Program and they are working closely with
representatives of this organization to meet the principles of Sustainable Resource Management.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
Final development plans for the areas identified as Future Phases have not been finalized;
however Future Crossing-#7 and Future Crossing #8 is likely to be spanned over the creek to
avoid further impacts if crossings are required. Additional permit requests are not
anticipated for these phases. However if additional impacts are required in the Future Phases,
a PCN will be submitted as required. If "bottomless culverts" are proposed they will be
designed in accordance with NCDENR Requirements as of August 27, 2007 as stated below:
Bottomless Culverts
Use of Bottomless Culverts (a.k.a. arch culverts and conspans) on projects that require DWQ 401
Water Quality Certifications, Isolated Wetlands Permits or Buffer Authorizations:
Applicants are advised that bottomless culverts proposed within applications to DWQ and not meeting North
Carolina Department of Transportation design standards shall not be approved by this DWQ. Applications for 401
Certifications, Isolated Wetlands Permits and/or Buffer Authorizations that include proposed bottomless culvert(s)
must include submittal of a signed and sealed (by a Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist) geotechnical
investigation of subsurface soils which directly complies with the DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS -GUIDELINES
FOR DRAINAGE STUDIESAND HYDRAULIC DESIGN, PREPARED BYA. L. HANKINS, JR., P.E.
Page 8 of 15

STATE HYDRAULICS ENGINEER 1999
(http•//www ncdot org/doh/PRECONSTRUCT/HIGHWAY/hydro/g10399web/pdf/QUidelines.pdf ), which states,
' "When a shallow (3-5 foot max. depth) non-erosive rock foundation is found throughout the proposed site, the
structure can be built on footings without a bottom allowing retention of the natural channel bed." The non-erosive
rock foundation is necessary to minimize stream disturbance during construction, and to prevent scour and
differential settlement. The culverts must safely provide conveyance of the design storm event, must be economical
' to construct and maintain, and should maintain low flow channel and promote retention of bed material. There must
be a minimum of 50 feet between borings and 50 blows in less than 6" penetration per ASTM.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
' wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
' permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs
may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or
' description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Impacts are limited to widening of existing
' road crossings one new crossing 0 11 acre wetland impacts to a disturbed wetland to develop a water
feature at the project entrance' and impacts to wetlands (0.035) acre and stream (79 lfl to construct a
pond in the Village Center.
' 2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized
clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts
Ana to tenth etrnrtnrP and flnnrlino

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
A Pond Creation PEM1C/PSS1A-dist. No <50' .llac
F Pond Creation -flooding PFOIA/PSS1A No +/- 0 to 100'+ .035 ac

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.145 ac
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: Approximately 1.5 acres of
streams and wetlands overall.
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary impacts.
Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam construction,
flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib walls, gabions, etc.),
excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing
Page 9 of 15

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included. To calculate acreage,
multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Average Impact Area of

Number
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or Stream Width
Length
Impact
(indicate on map) ~
Intermittent. Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
1 * UT of Beaverdam Ck. Culvert Ext. Perennial 4 52' .004
2* Same Culvert Ext. Same 11' .001
3* Same Culvert Ext. Same 43' .003
4* Same Culvert Ext. Same 4' 38' .003
5* Same Culvert Ext. Same 4 0
Same New Culvert Same 4' S0' .004
6 Same Pond -Flooding Same 4 ~ 49' .004
F Same Pond -Dam same 4 30'
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 273 .022
* Existing crushed pipes have been replaced
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill_ excavatinn_ dred~in~_ flc~din~_ draina~e_ bulkheads_ etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.022 ac
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.145
ac.
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00 ac.
Total Impact to Waters of the U. S. (acres) 0.167 ac.
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 272 if
* All utility crossings of streams or wetlands will be conducted in accordance with Nationwide
Permit #12 Conditions.
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes X No
Page 10 of 15

' Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
'
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands X stream X wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): The pond located at the entrance will involve
excavation of a previouslydisturbed wetland area -wetland impacts are +/- 0.11 acres. The
' pond at the Village Center will be constructed ~ a dam. Approximately 79 linear feet of
stream and approximately 0.04 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The pond is located at
the immediate headwaters of the unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. In this area the
stream goes underground and reappears in approximately 30 linear feet (verified by David
Baker of the USAGE). Impacts to streams by_ponding are minimized to this naturally cut-off
upper segment of cut-off stream. Discharge from the proposed pond will be conducted by

' cold water release and at non-erosive velocity. There are no in-line ponds proposed
downstream of the upper pond.
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): The pond will be utilized as a focal point for
' communitygatherings educational resources and recreation. It is also expected that the pond
may supplement irrigation The developer expected to maintain trout in the pond for fishing
and recreation. The pond is not intended to be used to meet local stormwater mana eg ment
' requirements.
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: Undeveloped forested area in mid succession.
' Size of watershed draining to pond: 20 Acres Expected pond surface area: +/-1/3 acre
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative,. lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
On December 9, 2006 an Individual Permit Application was submitted to the USAGE and the NCDENR. Proposed impacts
' included approximately 1,250 linear feet of stream impacts and approximately 0.40 acres of wetland impacts. Three in-line
ponds were proposed. Versant formally withdrew the Individual Permit Application in September, 2007.
Since that time, the project has been extensively redesigned to avoid and minimize impacts to within the Nationwide Permit
Page 11 of 15

#29 thresholds. In addition, the proposed stormwater management plan has been designed with direct input from Ms.
Annette Lucas of NCDENR These avoidance efforts mean approximately 96% of the streams aze not impacted by the
' development of this project. With the exception of one new road crossing, impacts to streams are limited to extensions of
existing road crossings to meet current code requirements for construction and public safety. Impacts to streams and wetlands
other than road crossings aze limited to previously disturbed areas and a naturally cut-off segment of stream and wetland at
the very headwaters of the unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. This represents an over 400% reduction in stream impacts
' when comparing to the original Individual Permit submittal that was withdrawn. There are no in-line ponds proposed
downstream of the pond at the head of the stream.
' The compensatory mitigation proposal involves an "in lieu" payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. The remaining perennial stream and adjacent wetlands will be preserved. Invasive species will be removed to the
extent feasible along the existing roadway along the stream. Invasive species will not be utilized in project landscaping.
' The project has been registered with Audubon International for the Gold Signature Program and they are working closely
with representatives of this organization to meet the principles of Sustainable Resource Management.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC ZH .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
' Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
1
1
1
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing.. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state. nc.us/ncwetlands/strm~ide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Page 12 of 15

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
' website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 3001inear feet
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.50 acres
' Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) land? Yes ^ No X
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
' (Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No X
' Page 13 of 15

2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* I Impact I I Required
Zone ,,,~____ r „~~ Multiplier ,~,~;~;, „ti,,,,
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Paymer,
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
' XI. Stormwater re uired b DW
( 9 y Q)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss Stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If
percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed
' impervious level.
The total acreage of the multi-phase protect is 398.0 acres consisting of 303.5 acres of single family residential and 94.5
acres of multi-family residential (see attached Impervious Area Bulletin). Currently, there is approximately 0.4 acres of
impervious surface on the proyerty At full build-out we approximate that 53 8 impervious acres will exist which is 13.5%
of total acreage. However there is one drainage area where portions of the multi-family/mixed use areas exceed the 24%
impervious threshold A stormwater plan has been develoRed for these areas (see attached Stormwater Master Plan). The
final Stormwater Management Plan will be submitted to NCDENR for final approval. The Stormwater Management Plan for
future protect phases will be submitted in the future once programming and design have been finalized. There are no
wetlands and/or stream impacts planned for these future project phases.
t A full stormwater plan has been created with drawings details supplemental forms, and supporting calculations. The civil
engineers have been in contact with Annette Lucas at NCDENR, through a meeting in Raleigh, as well as numerous
discussions over the phone. During these conversations, several stormwater approaches to detention and treatment have
been discussed.
The above-mentioned Stormwater Management Plan is for the high-density area shown on the attached Phase I Stormwater
' Management Bulletin. These plans include volumetric detention fora 1-year/24 hour storm and water quality treatment for a
1-inch storm per DWQ's requirements. This hi -density region consists of three separate drainage areas. Each area has
been separately addressed for these detention and treatment requirements.
In order to achieve the DWO volumetric reauirements, four separate StormTech SC-740 systems are proposed. (Two_of the
~ drainage areas contain one StormTech system and one area contains two systems.) With these Stormwater detention devices,
each drainage area's most-construction runoff is equal to the pre-construction runoff, meeting DWQ requirements.
' Sand filters have been selected to address water quality treatment fora 1-inch storm in each drainage basin. Each sand filter
has been designed according to the DWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual. There are a total of six
(6) sand filters dispersed amongst the three drainage areas. (Two sand filters are in one area, three sand filters are in a second
area and one sand filter is in the last area.) Rip ramaprons and a level spreader will also be utilized to manage runoff and
into the
identified
' .Page 14 of 15

' keep sediment from leaving the site A combination of the detention and treatment devices will be fundamental in protecting
the surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property.
' XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail -the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
' Municipal facilities
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
' Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No X
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No X
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
1 http:/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Versant has been rezoned ~ the Town of Woodfin to respond to economic growth and
' population growth in the area. A stormwater mana eg ment plan is proposed to treat stormwater
runoff for the Ville Center drainage basin. Over 96% of the streams preserved in common
open space.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
i
1 ~' 3 ~ G
Applicant/Agent's Signature ate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 15 of 15

~% .M
P K O P f It T t h S, u
January 24, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter authorizes Leonazd S. Rindner, PWS as our firm's agent in matters
related to Waters of the U.S. and Waters of North Cazolina for the referenced
project site. This includes interfacing with the United Sates Army Corps of
Engineers and the North Cazolina Department of Natural Resources.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Richey
Member/ Manager
VERSANTasheville.com
7ui . , 'so= f
225 E. Worthington Avenue ;Suite I02 ~ Charlotte, NC 28203

~.-
PRUCiRAM
November 1, 2007
Robert Richey
Versant Properties, LLC
225 E. Worthington Ave., Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28203 Expiration of Acceptance: May 1, 2008
Project: Versant County: BUNCOMBE
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Frogram {NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant tv contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. if we have not received a copy of
the issued 4(14 Permit/401.CertificationlCAMA pertnit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the
applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice
will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized
work. The amount of the In Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following [able.
FRENCH
BROAD
06010105 Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
{Sq. Ft.) Buffer Il
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri azian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh
Impacts 0 300 0 0.5 0 0 0 0
Credits 0 600 0 1.0 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies
require mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP tv be responsible for the additional
mitigation, the applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
b~.
Willia D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi KaroIy, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Lori Beckwith, USACE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, NCDWQ-Ashevil]e
Len Rindner; agent
File
Rnstoriru~... £ .. Prot Our .~tat~

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

1
1
1
~;
N
II
O
n
N
~~ ~ ~_
~ ~~ ~ ~
~•J
~---.__.
~~ ~
~" '
,~
,_
,. ~ ~
~ ..- ~
~~ _
PROJECT VICINITY
NU7CTH
Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
O L D H A M
~L~II~IN • EEf loll 704.342.1919
1ffOC1~TEf,I~C
VICINITY MAP
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
(Not To Scale)
JANUARY 2008
TO HENDERSONVILLE
REGIONAL LOCATION

t

1

Oldham Planning & Design USGS MAP
1415 S. Church Street
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
Suite i (Not To Scale)
OLDHAM 704.342.1919
n~llnu • ocna" JANUARY 2008
fffOClf TFf,I~C

~ m
1 ~ ':.~
4 .i ~.
~~ ~~
~ ~: ..

.~• ~.
~E
P.
F f
- - v i
i .'
~i
E..
~ ~~
~ r
s ~• 4
~ ~ ~5:
-i
y~
`t
`p~
6jj
a(f((:
F
1
1
E
4~,
~~
'~
.. y~i
~.
~;
•.
•
~, ~
.,~-~~ ~~
r ~
r- s _,~
l ~ ~. -.
Li
~, ~ '•~
I ;. ~~, ~~
I e `, •
tld~~~ ~,•,Y~i~E..d L7Ca•~
•~ ~~...
~~,.,t tom. ~~ ~ .
~....
5
~i Mme
~ ~ t
i
S:
•~ , , ~,
.S ~.~ 1t 1~ .~4
+~ It
~~~
~• ~.at
~~~ 5 "'
e , '~
~s_
~ ~ ~m S
~ 1~~~ ft
~..~.
,.
_ - ~ <.
~~ -
~ t. _ 1 ~~ ~~ ~~~
~ w .F t
P ~ .i •'r I
i
I
t~ ~h.
:~9
t
s....~., ~..
~.~'~~
~.y
fEr
i ~. _ ~
~. p~ F ',
~~ ~t
4^~~ .^'
r -._
M ~ a~
_~~n ~~ ~
,r~
• J
... ~. ..
E~_
~ + •.__
LOCATION MAP

VERSANT SITE
LAT /LONG: 35.65774°N, 82.54263°w
USGS Asheville 1:100,000 Map
Oldham Planning & Design
' 1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
.°..:~~ Heo~Y 704.342.1919
...o~~..E..,.~
NAMED STREAMS
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
(NoT To Scale)
JANUARY 2008

Oldham Planning & Design AERIAL V i EW
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
.uw.: H.„~ 704.342.1919 i"= x,200'
...on.t...~.a
NOVEMBER. 2007

1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~~;.~
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #3)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #2) -
5EE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT # I
PHASE 1
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #4)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
OFFLINE WATER FEATURE
(ENLARGEMENT D)
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #5)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
NEW CROSSING
(CROSSING #6)
FUTURE CROSSING
(CROSSING #7)
j ~ - ~' ~~-"-~ ~ FUTURE CROSSING
,/~ `r-~ ~ (CROSSING #8)
i~ i I i
I ~I i
,4„
~<
> _ -~~
/'
~,~,-~ //
`li~_ nl
i~
"_~ PHASE 1 ;~ m
-~~~~~ `` TRAIL CROSSING
=',f~~,, ~~ (ENLARGEMENT C)
\ ~~
TRAIL OVERLOOK
(ENLARGEMENT B)
GATEHOUSE ~ FALLS FEATURE
(ENLARGEMENT A)
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING # I )
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
FUTURE
PHASE
-VILLAGE POND
_ ~ GREENWAY
(ENLARGEMENT F)
PHASE LINE
PHASE 1
WETLANDS OVERLOOK
(ENLARGEMENT E)
SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT #2 J
NOATI{
Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
w,nu Nru~w 704.342.1919
~~~ou-ns,ne
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
1" = 1000'
JANUARY 2008

REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #4)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
PHASE 1
. -~
~~
REPLACED CR05SING `~-
(CROSSING #3) --~
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS" -
o
Qm,~•'
REPLACED CR0551 NG -
(CROSSING # I )
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
GATEHOUSE ~ FALLS FEATURE
(ENLARGEMENT A)
~ /'•\Y /
_ _
,. ",...
~~
~ \ ~ ~r4
~ ~ J r _ ~ Y -~~z
_ -~- - ~ ~i~' ~/
•.\ ~/
~ ~ ri 1/
---~~'~ ',~ ~~~~ N
~~~ ~~~ ~~ l ~%~~•~ irr
~~
--==~ _ f ~ ,~~ ~,
`----- ,~
~~ \ ii`
PHASE 1 i ~~
.- ~ ~;. ==<,•,; ~• TRAIL CR0551NG
-" ~ \ G~~•~ ~~•. (ENLARGEMENT C)
~~ \ ,~
- ~-~~ -t ~~•.,~ TRAIL OVERLOOK
~i '\ ~. " (ENLARGEMENT B)
~ ~ ~~ tiir.
~ rr
j ~ ~\ n
~\ ' ~ PHASE LINE
,,\
1
NOHTFI
Oldham Planning & Design
' 1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
wl ow Hrulw 704.342.1919
' if iOCliT.i,liC
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
(ENLARGEMENT #1)
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
1"=600'
JANUARY 2008

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.~ ,.
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #4)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
WETLANDS OVERLOOK
(ENLARGEMENT E)
NEW STREAM CROSSING
(CROSSING #6)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: NEW"
--- ~
~ FUTURE CROSSING
_ ~ (CROSSING #7, TBD)
1 / FUTURE CROSSING
~ (CROSSING #8, TBD)
I ~i
,i
~ ~ '~-
i z
,~\ ~ , ~ ,~
I ~ ~~~
~ ~- -- -~'i ~~
~. ,
~~ \ I ,
~ O PH\ASE 1
~~~
FUTURE
PHASE
~~

VILLAGE POND
~ ~ GREENWAY
~ ,~ ,~ ~ (ENLARGEMENT F)
PF1A5E LINE
L TRAIL CROSSING ` 1
(ENLARGEMENT C) `
SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT #3
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #3)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
WETLANDS OVERLOOK
(ENLARGEMENT B)
~_ REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #5)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
OFFLINE WATER FEATURE
(ENLARGEMENT D)
__ NORTH
Oldham Planning & Design
' 1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
~.^;,; H„~„~ 704.342.1919
~uocuru.nc
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
(ENLARGEMENT #2)
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
~^_~'
JANUARY 2008

oho
~:v
:•x
;,~s
~ cn ~ O
~. J
(~
N ~ 3
n
~ C p~
~ S ~
~.
~ ~
N
co'
m
N
D
D Z
Z~~
D ii ~
• m
r
r
n
m ~
z 0
D ~
rn
O 0
m
rn Cn
z ~
rn
w ~
Z
-~ ,;~ _ i
,,\
i J ~ ~. h`n~
~
~ «
REPLACED CROSSING ~ ~
OMESTE !, MTn.VICW ~~
/
~
~
(CROSSING #4) t10ME9RE
~
' ~
. ~
~ ~ r ~ ~
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS" ~ ~
COVE-vIE'JJ
~
~, ~~
MOMESITE /
COVE-VIEvV
~
~
TRAIL CROSSING ,) 7 rloN[sITE ~
;.
~
"
(ENLARGEMENT C) ~o~ ~I_~
;
HOMESITE ~ / ~

`~~

~/ MOME;~IT[ ~
~ COVE-VIEW ~
--~__,~ COVE-VIEW
ryOM ESITE
n
ICw
~
J"J
r^`. - /
•
'IOM[91T[
1 .~ ~ COV_-VI"N PO
D~V
t10M[s1T[
~ ;'"
~ - COVE-VIEW /
-
~,~~~
V __ PHASE 1 ; t10NE91TE ~
~
,,
- - -
~~ / ~ J
\ J COVE-VIF~AJ
I e ~
/ ~ ONC-VIENJ ~, I

_ `._ ~
w~~ ~•_ FiOME.:ITE
POND-VIEWI hOME91T[% t
~

1 i ``
`~\
~ ` ~\\ /
1 ~
PHASE
~ ,.
~ `
PHASE LINE
OFFLWE WATER FEATURE
(ENLARGEMENT D)
POND ~ COVE-VIEW
DUPLEXES
WETLANDS OVERLOOK
(ENLARGEMENT E)
~~~~
VILLAGE CENTER
H ELI PAD
FUTURE
PHASE
,--
MTN. +~ COVE VIEW
CONDOMINIUM TOWER
POND-VIEW
DUPLEXES
•~ ~ ~,
~ ~~ •rr'~ ~ •~~~
., \ \ r ~
i ® POND-VIEW
~,; RENTAL CABINS
® VILLAGE POND
B ® B~ ® ® ~ GREENWAY
• O ~ (ENLARGEMENT F)
~~~ TERRACE PARK
ham,," CONFERENCE
CENTER
=~ MTN. VIEW
RESTAURANT
® INN W/ MTN.
~ POND VIEWS,
~ SHOPS
AMPHITHEATER
MTN. OVERLOOK
MTN. VIEW TERRACES
INDOOR FITNESS CENTER
~ POND-VIEW TOWNHOMES
_MTN. VIEW TOWNHOMES FITNESS +t LEISURE POOLS
TN. VIEW DUPLEXES MTN. VIEW CONDOMINIUM TOWER
NOBTH

LANs PIANNING
LANUSC APE ARC HIIEGTURE
UR9AN DFSI(;N
O~ (JHAM PI.ANIJ SING B. (][S~C,N Asscx;IATES, INC.
11 .
Village Center Site Design Program
~' Project: Versant
,_ Location: Woodfin, North Carolina
Villoae Center Site Project Goals
1. Create a unique, European-inspired, mountain-top destination that is the center of
activity for the community by offering:
- Educational and instructional venues for personal enrichment;
- Fitness 8~ spa venues for a variety of indoor and outdoor activities; and,
- Retail venues for sundries, food and specialty items.
2. Enhance this mountain-top destination with semi-public venues that add an ever-
changing mix of people to the Village Center, along with Architectural 8~ Site
elements that serve asmini-destinations within the Village Center, increasing the
inventory of recreational and rentable event locations within the Village by offering:
- Outdoor Performance Space
- Indoor 8~ Outdoor Wedding Ceremony venues;
- Reception/Banquet Facilities, both indoor and outdoor;
- For-lease cabins with access to recreation and spa services;
- Executive conference facilities where privacy is enhanced by the gated
entry and helipad access; and,
- A luxury inn with access to recreation and spa services.
3. Provide direct pedestrian access from all Village Center residences, cabins and the
inn to all Village Center services, event spaces, and recreational venues.
4. Provide pedestrian access from surrounding single-family residences to the Village
Center core services, event spaces, and recreational venues.
5. Provide a variety of housing types within the Village Center to maximize density
around the Village core, as well as revenue potential for the most desirable views.
6. Maximize the availability of long-range mountain views for residences and
commercial uses for premium sales/lease fees.
7. Maximize the availability of internal cove/valley views for residences and
commercial uses that face Baird Cove for premium sales/lease fees.
1415 SOUTH CHURCI-1 $7REEi, SUITE I CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 'S' 704.342.1919 :1704.342.2025 '~''-www.OPDA.COM

t

Land Use/Planning Perspective: Utilize Land Features and Historical Patterns

' to achieve Project Goals
Understandin the Land Patterns: The to o ra h of the ro ert creates a
• 9 p g P Y p P Y

' valley or `cove' between two ridges that run roughly East-West and Southeast-
Northeast. The highest point on the site is where these ridges converge. These
ridges offer the longest-range views. Historically, these locations, being the most
defensible, became the logical site of the European village center. Following
the historical pattern, the natural location of Versant's Village Core is here as
well. The ridge tops and outer-facing sides of the ridges offer long-range views,
with opportunities for specific sunrise and sunset orientations, as well as locations
' to experience both. These are prime locations for residences that will add
architectural mass to the Village, as well as maximize land sale revenue for the

' project.
In contrast the cove created b the rid es offers no Ion -ran e views. The cove
- Y 9 g g
does contain a stream that begins in a natural topographic "bowl" offering the
' opportunity to create a peaceful, internally-oriented view and functional
amenity incorporating water. This spot can function much like a village square or
gathering spot: It is centrally located within the site; contains an existing trail that
' wraps around the natural topographic "bowl" and can be improved as a main
pedestrian path to link residential areas to the village core. Along this trail,
various locations exist for creating places of respite, education, and eventing for
families and groups.
Utilizing these land patterns to create and maximize salable/experiential spaces
' requires a mix of community and residential spaces -some externally-focused
around long-range views and some internally focused around natural and
' created features. This mix is necessary to foster a spatially layered, visually
interesting, vibrant and desirable community.
' Establishing an Architectural Image: This community has been envisioned to
evoke the density, architectural mass and aesthetic qualities of a small European
mountaintop village. In that regard, the palette of building materials suggested
is native stone, stucco, heavy timbers, and tile. These are long-lasting and lend a
sense of history, continuity and permanence.
In the pattern of an historic village, the heart and highest point is the Village Core
made up of spaces that provide opportunity for both practical and ceremonial
activities for the community. Typical architectural features usually found within
this core include performance/gathering spaces, ritual/ceremonial spaces, a
' market, access to water (fountains, ponds, or riverfronts), and park/green
spaces. Supporting this core, and closest in proximity, are attached housing units
that lend density of both architecture and people to the village. These are
' grouped to take advantage of mountaintop breezes, views and walk-able
proximity to activities and services offered in the village. Outward from this
1415 SOUTH CHURCH STREET, SUITE I CHARL(ITTE, NC 28203 ~ 704.342.1919 L'", 704.3422025 'n~ WWW.OPUA.COM

' center, the densit of housin decreases to that of individual properties of
Y g
varying sizes.
' Utilizin this historic architectural attern would not only be a propriate from a
g P P
topographic and land pattern perspective, but would capitalize on the ability to
' obtain maximum sales revenue for residences, and rental revenue for an inn,
cabins, conference facilities, and other event spaces.
' Pro'ect Economics Pers ective: Create a Destination
J P
' From physical, architectural, and functional aspects, the Village Center is a destination
within and for the community. As such, it establishes the ability to command premium
' pricing for residential units based upon available views and proximity to
services/activities.
Residential Opportunities
' Views: The main reason people choose to purchase premium primary or
second-home property in a mountain setting is the opportunity for long-range
' views and vistas from their home. If this is not directly available to them in their
own parcel, then easy access to areas that allow a view experience is
necessary. However, this experience must take place m a location that is
' perceived as directly and privately owned by them in some measure, even if
that ownership is shared with a limited group of neighbors.
' Setting and Activities: Another reason people choose to purchase premium
property in a mountain setting is the opportunity to experience a unique setting,
both natural and built, that contrasts with their typical day-to-day experience.
The uniqueness lies in several factors: First is the ability to experience nature
within a few steps of their home. Second is the ability to stay, eat, shop and play
m one location that is easily accessible from their home by walking and in a
' variety of other ways. Lastly is the benefit of elevation in providing a temperate
setting during the hottest part of the year.

The Village Center as a unique destination within the already-established tourist-based
Asheville economy also presents the opportunity to sustain the Versant community by
accommodating revenue-producing uses and spaces.
Destination Support Services
• Eco-Tourism:
- Access to outdoor-oriented recreational venues: Hiking, Swimming,
Personal/Small Group Fly-tying and/or casting lessons, Canoe/Kayak basic
lessons
- Bird-watching
- Nature photography
- Access to Audubon International educational resources
1415 SOU1H CHURCH StREEt, SuirE I CHARt OTTL NC 28203 ~ 704.342.1919 '~I':'i 704.3422025 '~''~www.OPDA.COM

- Native Plant tours
- Animal-spotting tours
' - Stream and Pond Fishing, Ice-skating during winter
• Special Events
' - Corporate Retreats: Enhanced Privacy/Exclusivity with gated entry and
helipad access
- Special Occasion facilities for Weddings, Reunions, and other celebrations
' = Intimate Musical Performances
Charity /Fundraising Events
' Luxury Tourism:
Highly-serviced Inn and Cabins
- Access to ala-carte spa services
' - Gourmet Restaurant
- Specialty galleries, boutiques
- Enhanced Privacy/Exclusivity with gated entry and helipad access
' - Access to recreational venues: Fitness Center w/ Personal Training and Exercise
Equipment, Lap Pool, Water-Sports Pool, Indoor 8~ Outdoor Yoga, etc.
' Reoort Conclusion: List of Design Program Elements for Versant's Village Center
- Mix of Residential Types: Duplex, Townhome, Condo
- Inn
' - 3-4 Small Retail Spaces
- Conference Rooms -Flexible sizes
- Enclosed Banquet Rooms -Flexible sizes
- Restaurant with indoor & outdoor seating
- Central Water Feature
- Educational/Interpretive Trail Signage
' - View Overlooks
- Outdoor spaces to accommodate weddings
- Outdoor classroom space
- Picnic locations
- Outdoor Sculpture spaces/opportunities
' - Fitness Center with exercise equipment, spa facilities, saunas, pools
- Amphitheater
- Outdoor, hard-surface group gathering space
- Intimate outdoor view-oriented spaces
- Trail Network (access from hard to rustic)
- For-lease/rent cabins
' 1415 SOUTH CHURCH STREET, SUITE 1 CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 ~ 704.342. 1919 I~`~.704.342.2025 ~";www.OPpA.COM

z
©~
--':J) j
V!
3
W
_
H
W
Z
H
G
j ~ W y-
[
n
v
~/ J

W ~ W
W ~
V
0 ~ O
oc U ~ U

C ^
;~._-_.
Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
O L D H A M
rulllluc ^ oFUCII 704.342.1919
ASSO CIA TES,IEC
VILLAGE CENTER VIEW ANALYSIS
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
1 " = 500'
JANUARY 2008

1
1
1
1
EXISTING LOGGING ROADS
EXISTING LOGGING TRAILS
#2: 38 If (49 lf) PHASE LINE
+ .,. ___
X11 ~1 i \ \.~+ \~.~a~` ~ ~~~
~~- - #4: 36 If (74 if )
,..
--; ., ~-
--------- ,~ ~ t ._
.,~ ~~ `
a.
O~ 1_.
~`
~-~ a
~._
PHASE 1 ~~
~ ~.
M
r ~`~~
..
# 1: 85 If (137 lf)
+52'
EXISTING STREAM CROSSkJGS REPLACED
CULVERT REPIACFMRIT MPACT
CROSRJG xl + rj'l~
crroasr+G xz + 7 ~'
CROSSNG x3 + ~'
CROSSNG M4 + ~'
CROSSNG x5 + Q'
TOTAL RFPIACEMf31T
MPACT + ~~i
T~
/~i
~ ~~~ 1
i ,,~
~ i
PHASE 1
.-
;"
/`
1
~~ , ~, FUTURE
i ~~ PHASE ,_:
~ ~~..
I U` ~ '' ~ i
~` ~ ~ ~-~
~ ~ - I
``~ _ _ PHASE 1
#5: 51 If (SI if )
+ ~~
#3: 54 If (97 if )
+43'
P'OBTI
NOTES:
1. XX If (YYIf) reflects LOGGING ROAD STREAM CROSSING IMPACTS DUE TO CULVERT REPLACEMENTS
REFLECTED IN THE SURVEY PREPARED BY WEBB A. MORGAN & ASSOCIATES, DATED MAY 16, 2000, as compared to
(SURVEYED FIELD CONDITIONS AS OF SEPTEMBER 2007) .
2. ALL REPLACED STREAM CROSSINGS ARE AT EXISTING LOGGING ROAD CROSSING LOCATIONS.
Oldham Planning & Design STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
OLDHAM (Not To Scale)
Yl1xxIN~ i lLf1~Y 704.342.1919 JANUARY 2008
•saouana,lec

1
oananc~n anenc

Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
~.N.1: HoAlo 704.342.1919
f1f OCIf Tt],IMC
STREAM CROSSINGS: NEW
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
INot To Scale)
JANUARY 2008
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS -REPLACEMENTS"

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- ...- ,
.~.-- ~ r I , I ,
_ _._ ,.
___ ,
' ` \a
;I
~r ~ 118 LF OF 36" CMP ~ 11.0
INV IN 2456.0
-, `~ ~" - INV OUT 2442.9 ~
/ _..
..._. ~ .,
,,~ , _ \2
.. ~ ..
¢~
~... Rc~ .
SCALE: 1 "=50'
WATER ELEVATION
,~~
2440-- , ._ _ _;_ .. _ _ .I _ ~ --1-2440
~/ i , , ~
~ 118 LF OF ~6" CMP ~ 11 0% '
2430-~-...... _ INV IN {..2456.0.., _ _. , _.._ ; _ . --2430
INV OUTS 2442.9 ~ ; ~
2420-- I ._ _ _ _ _ _ ..2420
0+00 1+00 2+00
CROSSING-1
PRELIMINARY
SCALE: t"=50' HORIZONTAL NOTRELEASEO
FOR
1"=20' VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION

STREAM CROSSING N0. 1 FOR
200 SWANNANOA RIVER RD.
ASHEVILLE, NC 28805
VERSANT ~ ~
PHONE [phone]
fAX (828) 252-b365
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS, PA
WOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA ` www.civildesignconcepts.oom

~~
;~
_._ 1
.----
. ---. -
_r -
~_ , _.
N
4` ~„___
~ r ~ r
i
f ..~..., ~ _ ....
~ ,-
/--.
~` ....-- J-=
r
/ ~ .~,
~--.
~~
~.'~
~ i
..~ j/
i ,.,....
~~ ~ l
_ ~ 1 t 40 LF OF 48" CMP ®3.93 *~~~ +
i ~ / , .,;,. } ,r ~ INV IN 2486.3
INV OUT 2484.7 `--~
r,. `
'i 1~.. ~' A I,~, ` ~
SCALE: 1 "=50'
WATER ELEVATION
EXISTING SURFACE -
40 LF OF 48" CMP ®3.930
INV IN 2486.3
INV OUT 2484.7
2510--- -
2500---
2490
i
2510
2500
_~
_ _ 2490
...._....:...._.......--- 2480
2470-___....... _........_' ........................_..'........................._ _'... __..........__ 2470
0+00 1 ;i-00
CROSSING-2
SCALE: 1 "=50' HORIZONTAL
1"=20' VERTICAL
PRELIMINARY
NOT RELEASED
FOR
CONSTRUCTION
STREAM CROSSING N0. 2 FOR
200 SWANNANOA RIVER RD.
VERSANT ~ ~ ASHEVILLE, NC 28805
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS, PA
WOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA -~ www.civildesignconcepts.com
r`
i

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
. } \ ~ _..
~, ~--
-
., T.~~_,~. I .
\ , \ ,~ _
~. ~~
2613 LF OF 30" CMP ®4244.7% ~'""~ _ _
INV IN 2611.3 ~~ / ~ ~-
INV OUT -1.2 ~ ~ ~
I ~ ~ ~ ~~
' _..._
I ~ ~ L_ ..
SCALE: 1 "=50'
SAN ~R ~ ~
,:
t ,•
I -- .~
t
_. _ ._. _ ,
' /
j ~ • j.
WATER ELEVATION
EXISTING SURFACE
62 lF OF 30" CMP ®9.99
INV IN 2611.3
INV OUT 2805.2
2630---._. ..... _ ._. ,.. ._
i
PROPOSED STEP POOLS 262
~T~)
SEE FIGURE #2 OF
KIMLEY-HORN REPORT 261
2
259Q--- _ ..,...... ._. __.~..._..
0+00 1+00
CROSSING-3
SCALE: 1"=50' HORIZONTAL
1 "=20' VERTICAL
PRELIMINARY
NOT RELEASED
FOR
CONSTRUCTION
STREAM CROSSING N0. 3 FOR
200 SWANNANOA RIVER RD.
ASHEVILLE, NC 28805
VERSANT G ~
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
C1VtL DESIGN CONCEPTS, PA
~VOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA `~~~~ www.civildesignconcepts.com
...... 2630
i_. _.._..._..._-?-2610
._ _ ................2600
-2590
1+50

1
1
1
1
1
1
,. .,: ~ --~ r - f-,
.... ~ -
~.
< < _~\
'~ '4.
C\ \ S
w.....~
.-~ \ 1
.....
...~
.......-
_....,.
....................... _ ....~ r ~ ~ `
i/ '` ~ ~.
SCALE: 1 "=50'
59 LF OF 48" CMP ®11.3%
INV ~N 2725.1
INV OUT 2718.3
EXISTING SURFACE
274G----- _ _ _ _ _ ~ 2740
WATER ELEVATION 2730--- --~._ _. _.. ......._.._. 2730
PROPOSED STEP POOLS .._..... . , _...,..
~T~) 72 _ _ _ ._=2720
SEE FIGURE #2 OF
KIMLEY-HORN REPORT
2710....__. _. ---2710
0+00 1+00
CROSSING-4
~.
PRELIMINARY
SCALE: 1 "=50' HORIZONTAL - ~ NOT RELEASED
FOR
-1"=20' VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION
STREAM CROSSING N0. 4 FOR
T 200 SWANNANOA RIVER RO.
VERSANT ~ ~ ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS, PA
WOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA ~~ www.civildesignconcepts.com

1 .\`
`~\
`` ..,_,\
~..-\
~ ~
~.
~ \` 'i
t ~`
~ ~.
' r, ~
...
SCALE: 1 "=50'
,.
...._.-
., -.,,~~
\ ,.~
\~ 51 LF OF 24" CMP ®6.5% \
~`~~ ~ INV IN 2780.2 ~~ ~
~ 'INV OUT 2777.0
-_._`a
`,~' `i
\4\ \\
~~ ~
51 LF OF 24" CMP ®6.5%
INV IN 2780.2
INV OUT 2777.0
EXISTING SURFACE
WATER ELEVATION--~
2790-._.....
2780- _.. __.
\.
,.
780
PRELIMINARY
SCALE: 1 "=50' HORIZONTAL NOT RELEASED
FOR
1"=20' VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION

STREAM CROSSING N0. 5 FOR
200 SWANNANOA RIVER R0.
ASHEVILLE, NC 28805
VERSANT G C
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS, PA
WOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA www.civildesignconcepts.com

~,,,~ jr
.--,'' '`
___.
__.__ r ~,~Sc~
,-'.
r.
~„
_1
__
._~ .
___ _ ~
~.~ ~
~,,
_.
.., `~ _ ~ -
f
__.~._ ~ 4 LF 0 24" CMP ®15.x,
~...., " ~ It?IV IN 253.3 ~ i
_..~.- ..__-_ ____ ~~.,... '~ \,t V~ OUST 2747. ~ j /
\` ~~ J /
~~ (/
\` ~..
....-...r.~ ~. \...ti ....
,, ., .~ _ i
SCALE: 1 "=50'
EXISTING SURFACE
PROPOSED SURFACE
PROPOSED 40 LF OF 24" CMP ®15.0
INV IN 2753.3
INV OUT 2747.2
L

-2760
-2750
2740-./ _ _ --2740
2730-- _._ i _ _ _ _ _ __-2730
0+00 1 +00
CROSSING-6
PRELIMINARY
SCALE: 1 "=50' HORIZONTAL NOT RELEASED
1 "=20' VERTICAL FOR
CONSTRUCTION
STREAM CROSSING N0. 6 FOR
200 SWANNANOA RIVER RD.
VERSANT ASHEVILLE, NC 28805
PHONE [phone]
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS, pq FAX (828}252-5385
WOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA www.civildesignconcepts.com

~ ~ Kimley-Horn
~ ____ and Associates, Inc,
M e m o r a n d u m
To: Len Rindner, P.W.S.
From: Todd St. John, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
Date: January 15, 2008
Project: Versant, Woodfm NC
Subject: Culvert Crossings Design and Assessment
The following is a narrative description of the proposed activities to finalize the construction of the culvert
replacements at Versant. These culverts are replacements of culverts that existed on the property prior to
the road construction at Versant. All of these activities are proposed within the existing footprints of the
culvert replacements.
Crossing 1 -The culvert used for Crossing 1 was set at a steep angle to match the stream slope. It is
Kimley-Horn's opinion that setting that burying this culvert 20% of the culvert diameter below the stream
bed would eventually result in a head-cut forming upstream of the culvert. This is because the culvert is
likely too steep to maintain stream substrate in the bottom. h1 other words, the available substrate would
tend transport through the culvert at a higher rate than it would be supplied by the stream bed. Also
because the slope of the culvert is so steep, adding sills at each end would likely not provide much benefit
in regards to establishing substrate in the culvert bottom. As such, matching the upstream end of the culvert
to the stream invert is probably the best option (Figure 1 -Photo 2). However, providing a short step/pool
structure (Figure 2) to tie into the natural, existing step/pool system below the impact area on the
downstream end will provide some aquatic life passage and habitat restoration benefits.
Crossing 2 -The culvert at Crossing 2 was buried below the existing stream bed elevation and has a slope
that is sufficiently flat to maintain substrate along its invert as demonstrated in Figure 1, Photos 5 and 6.
This should establish a substrate needed for aquatic life passage. As such, no changes are proposed at this
crossing.
Crossing 3 -Crossing 3 includes the existing side tributary. This tributary is smaller than the main
tributary and is very steep. The culvert is not as steep as the culvert at Crossing 1. As such, a 3" or 4"
concrete sill is proposed at each end of the culvert to help maintain the presence of stream substrate for
aquatic life passage. The downstream side includes a very steep rip rap face (Figure 1, Photo 8). This is
proposed to be replaced with aeep/pool structure (Figure 2) to establish the potential for aquatic life

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1

r

Versant Culvert Crossings
passage from the main tributary. Boulder toes will also be provided at the upstream to connect the culvert
to the stream above and to narrow the channel within the impact area (Figure 1, Photo 2).
Crossing 4 -The culvert at Crossing 4 is very steep. The are two large natural steps immediately above
this culvert. Also, there is a lateral drainage pipe that enters from the north on the upstream end. Boulder
toes will be provided on each side of the tributary in the impact area to narrow the channel and dissipate
energy from the lateral discharge pipe (Figure 1, Photos 7 and 9). A 3" or 4" concrete sill is proposed a the
downstream end of the culvert along with a single step/pool to help maintain aquatic life passage.
Sewer Crossing - A step/pool structure will also be provided where the sewer line crosses the side tributary
(Figure 1).
Attachments: Figure 1: Culvert Locations and Photos
Figure 2: Step Pool and Boulder Toe Detail
2

~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ w ~

. ~~ - .~ ;-
~
~I ' _
~
T ~ ,.
._ _
..
~.

~; ..

~
;. .-z. ,_
~
.
:~
~~
~ ~
~.
?est. i I~I :81k ~ ' ..~ ry'
`
eg., F~-"`•$
~ . .
.
~
"*' -
PHOTO 4-CROSSING 3
PHOTO 7-CROSSING 4 PHOTD 9-CROSSING 4
DOWNSTREAM LATERAL DRAIN
FHOTO 1 CROSSNG 1 UP STREAM DOWNSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM

i S

CROSS G
e, CROSSING 3
} c
s
~~
t~
o

~ ,t
'~
H
90 a{'fr
'
~ « - Pp ~ o
r' ~~ a, . .~ ~ ~-r GSO~ ~0 m
~
ov
FHCTC 5-CROSSING 2 - G
UPSTREAM
~5 i
- ~
?~
t p i
.lF~A" ~^- i,~ ~ K CG~
CROSSING t c - '~ ~~ ~

r
• PHOTO 8-CROSSING 3 PHOTO 10-CROSSING 4
FNOTO 2-CROSSING 1
F
.~ CROSSING 2
"
:.. DOWNSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
. ,
iC
~
t
Z~
•
r

~

4

..
~ i `

~
f

"\

s. r...
1

n
y
< ..,
x
1
+~`~
PHOTO'8-CROSSING 2
~
.P
. DOWNSTREAM ~„~~ • G:

s,~
1
~ P~
U~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~
BANKFULL
ELEVATION LINE
STREAM
BED -~

BOULDERS IN VANE ARM
SHOULD NOT BE GAPPED
OR HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT
SPACES EXCAVATED
POOL, TYP.
ROCK CROSS VANE
HEADER-
BOULDER
HEADER BOULDER, TYP.
SEE PROFILE FOR ELEVATION _
FLOW
_. ~, ~ -
--- -
`' BED
Y,~,-~-'' - BACKFILL, TYP.
WELL GRADED MIX OF
FILTER 2"-12" NATURAL STONE
FABRIC POOL DEPTH FOOTER BOULDER, TYP.
SECTION A-A
WELL GRADED MIX
OF 2"-12"
NATURAL STONE
-FILTER FABRIC
BOULDER TOE PROTECTION
BANKFULL
MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE: 36"
NOTES:
1. BOULDERS SHOULD BE SELECTED AND
PLACED SO THAT THERE ARE NO GAPS
OR SI(i~11FlCANT SPACES
2 PR~O~R7AtONAL STO 1'RBEAM SLO~PE,Y
AND DIRECTLY PROPOR110NAL TO
BANKFULL YNDTH.
3. POOL DEPTHS AT BANKFULL ELEVATION
SHALL BE TYPICALLY 2 TO 3 TIMES
DEEPER THAN STEP DEPTHS AT
BANKFULL ELEVATION.
4. AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF FOOTER
BOULDERS MUST BE USED IN ORDER TO
HOLD UP THE BOULDERS AT~iEAD OF
STEPS DURING HIGH ENERGY IGH FLOW
EVENTS.
4 THE NUMBER OF STEPS REQUIRED IS
BASED ON A MA)DI~UM STEP HEIGHT OF
0.5
>~
!' A
~ ~~~i
FLO W
FOOTER ~ PLAN MEW ~Y KEY INTO BANK JAS
BOULDER BANK FULL WIDTH
STEP POOL and BOULDER TOE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
CROSSING NUMBER BANKFULL WIDTH STEP SPACING POOL DEPTH BELOW HEADER SHOULDER INVERT
ELEVATION
1 6' 8'-16' 1.8'
2 6' 8'-16' 1.8'
3 4' 4'-8' 1.2'
4 5' 5'-10' 1.5'

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~~:~
REPLACED CROSSING REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #3) (CR05SING #4)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS" SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS'
REPLACED CROSSING OFFLINE WATER FEATURE
(CROSSING #2) ~ ~ (ENLARGEMENT D)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING #5)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
NEW CROSSING
(CROSSING #6)
~-- FUTURE CROSSING
~'~
~'~ - _ ~ ~~ (CROSSING #7)
~\ ~ _ _
/~ --' ~ FUTURE CROSSING
~ / % / --r- / (CROSSING #8)
/ PHASE'1 ~ I j I
i~ i ~ .~ ~~
-- ~`- TRAIL CROSSING WETLANDS OVERLOOK
='R~,, ~~ (ENLARGEMENT C) (ENLARGEMENT E)
~~`
I ~\ ~~
TRAIL OVERLOOK
(ENLARGEMENT B)
GATEHOUSE ~ FALLS FEATURE
(ENLARGEMENT A)
REPLACED CROSSING
(CROSSING # f)
SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS"
NOA'fft
~ _ = '\! % j / ~ / j ~ FUTURE
_ j__ %~: "i / /~ ~ PHASE
~`~ i `' ~ % ~ '' ~i'
_ ~` `~\` ,"J:z-`T~C' i - • ~ ~I_~~ ~ ~ VILLAGE POND
-~ T~
~_k'~ ;,%-~ `~,~ (ENLARGEMENT F)
';j ,~ `•~/ i PHASE UNE
o _ ~~ ., ~~
~~ lid
iO - `:~ - ~_~~• ~'~~~' PHASE 1
"~~ PHASE 1 ;,,
Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
,u^n~ N,u~w 704.342.1919
uwcun,.ne
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
1" = 1000'
JANUARY 2008

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~~,~s
--- _
__ _ _
GUEST d GUARD
PARKING
BUFFER ARE TO REMAIN VEGETATED. VERSANT
,~ - EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE DRIVE
SUPPLEMENTED W/ LOW-GROWING
NATIVE SHRUBS E FLOWERING TREES.
REPLACED CROSSING
PATH (CROSSING N2)
' RETAINING WALL STREAM
sL~ °smEnM cROSSlr~cs: aEriaCF.~t~rs"
CHANNEL
LANDSCAPED EXISTING TREES ~,••'~•
PAT AREA TO REMAIN ..•..~
TOT WE ,.•
c

it I
••
WAL

,.
,r
~
i
LANDSCAPED v

•,.
! ~
•
AREA
\Y ~ ~
~ ~,.
r yr• O
'•~••
GATE HOUSE O •
'
SERVICF
Y
_
~
_.. _ ~ O
~
~ :'~ ROAD
••
PATIO sm~ ~~ O
~- ~ ~

•-•
PATH TO TRAIL
•••
•
•'"-
BRIDGE
•
GRASSED SWALE ~4" ~
~
` ,
OVER O ~G• ~
•
y=
" "!'!, STREAM ~

..
t. Y.., ~ y,,

~
~~
~ •
~•' °''
~ ATH
.
~ ,-i ' ~
VERSANT DRIVE ~ r
`~`~°?' LANDSCAPED POND EDGE
- ~
~. -~ ~'~. "_ ~ ,•~~~• ~• ~

i
4'•~ ~
~ ` OVERL ,; ~
~ ~ , ~ WETLANDDISTURBED
~. ~ ~

~ %fl O
UPPER POOL
`
/ _ ± 19, 240 GAL
-•-° •.

--
.,
- •.......--•...-.e

. ~ `
(a) 18" DEPTH
;~ LOWER POOL
O
~
_ X6,413 GAL. ~
_ _ ;
i
Jb
~ ~•
-------------•, ^ APPROXIMATE WATER INPUT
,
..
..a
.. ~
~
,
O~
~ ~, ~~
,t ear- 0

WATERFALL FEATURE
O
n
WATER FROM LOWER OFFLIAE POOL RE-CIRCULATED TO TOP OF FALLS.
o_
EXISTING TREES O
TO REMAIN
ENERGY DISSIPATION FOR OVERFLOW ~
Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
o ~ D x~ :~ 704.342.1919
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ENLARGEMENT A: GATE HOUSE & FALLS FEATURE
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
t"=30'
IANI IARY 9(X18

t
1
1
~~
STREAM CFIANNE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON SLOPE
___
-.
EDGE OP PAVEMENT
., •
-. -
~. , .
~. ~ ~~ x
i~, ~ ~ ~ REPLACED CROSSING VERSANT DRIVE
`, ~~ + ~ ~ ~ y (CROSSING #3)
- ~ SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS" ' - .
~ ~,
`~ ~ ~ ~~'~., ~'., I EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ _- _
~ ~ ~ ~ _.__
__.
i ,, ~ - _
,~,_ -
i, i{ ~, '~,` ` ,,, DSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS T REMAIN - - - _- ---
1 ~-\~ Tl i '` ~ `~, 1 AROUND 51 ORM OUllt~ IXISTING TREES O
,~
-~ ~ _ R- X - __ r___
I
Oldham Planning & Design PROPOSED SITE P LA N
1415 S. Church Street ENLARGEMENT B: OVERLOOK 8. FALLS FEATURE
Suite i VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
OLDHAM 1"=30'
...........~.. 704.342.1919
•uocun0.°c JANUARY 2008
Z:\07002 -Versant\master plans\Wetlands Permit ExhibitslProposed Work Exhibits\011408 Proposed Work WL Exhibits-07002.dwg,

..
NOTE:
'ENHANCED WETLAND' SHALL INCLUDE WORK TO HAND-REMOVE INVASIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANTS
AND RE-ESTABLISHING NATIVE PLANTS. IT SHALL NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION OR INUNDATION WITH WATER.
- __
~, ~ ~--~
~ _ ~,
1 -_ ~~-
__ ~ ~
~~, ~~
_, ~
_ ~,
__ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,,
_ ~ i3 1' \ R24-b
__-
~ OR /5 Fes] ~ \
f(~
\ \
\ ~ l ~ \ \ \~
~, `nwc Rota rrq WJ \
,~~„r ~~ REPLACED CR05SING ~
~ (CR0551NG #4)
'~'~'' s`°"` '"" SEE "STREAM CROSSINGS: REPLACEMENTS'
~~~-_ ~ ~~
~ _ '
~.
~~ I ` ~
~~ ~
\ \
~\ \ _-___ _ pasnornc ntM +dc
\ ``"~
-iY+y-
.~ , ~ K
` -\
I ",
____~%_ 1
~ i ~
~ ~ -_ watre~ _ (_ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~
,.\ Sro+e Pat'. 6 ' ~ `,,. Stvc• dl ~2claaq Y "~~___ ______ f, / JN~N6 \ '..
\ ,~~ ~ _, ~
:~w~ ' / ~-__ '.taneuxe ~ ~'
_ __, ,, ~
~x,
'. ~ ~
$ / '~- ___
_ .. GTCM1 IV0. ",_ ,~~ . i
,.~
__. _.
~~
R~2 Paso Grvn a9Y1'Par_.s 1Y!iton~9r dor Wal ~~
_ _ ~ ~~~,
~`M I. RN>
`a H ri,.ae, `
... taruy RaQ Ofnm
\ i` .
~ \
~ \
' - ~- \
Oldham Planning & Design PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1415 S. Church Street ENLARGEMENT C: TRAIL CROSSING
Suite i VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
o ~ ~ x~~ N 704.342.1919 ~ ~~ ° ~~
u~ecun~,°c JANUA ~~oo~
Z:\07002 -Versant\master plans\Wetlands Permit Exhibits\Proposed Work Exhibits\011408 Propose Work WL Exhibits-07002.dwg,

~~
NOTE:
'ENHANCED WETLAND' Si1ALL INCLUDE WORK 70 HAND-REMOVE INVASIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANTS
AND RE-ESTABLIS111NG NATIVE PLANTS. IT SHALL NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION OR INUNDATION WITH WATER.
Oldham Planning & Design PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1415 S. Church Street ENLARGEMENT D: OFFLINE WILDLIFE POOLS
Suite i VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
~..~.,; x. ;,u 704.342.1919 ~„- ~~
Z:\07002 ~ Versant\master plans\Wetlands Permit Exhibits\Proposed Work F~chibits\011408 Proposed Work WL Exhibits-07002.dwg,

1
NOTE:
'ENHANCED WETLAND' SHALL INCLUDE WORK TO HAND-REMOVE INVASIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANTS
AND RE-ESTABLISHING NATIVE PLANTS. IT SHALL NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION OR INUNDATION WITH WATER.
~~~~ ,,
¢S vv ~~ GUARDRAIL ~~_ ~_.
\\`T~CT~\ STREAM GROSSING N5
' ~ 'Py~\~\ s~°srtreaMCROSSiNCS: rzErueenae~rrr ENHANCED' WETLAND
\ \ ,
\
\ _
_ _--~
\\ \\ ~ -_~-_= --_~ ~~.,,, LEVATED PATH
\ ,
~ /
\ ;
~ ~ 1 =
\ \\ ~ _ _ ',.~ Nr ~, x NEW PATH
v `!
_ S ~ '~
v ~ , ~' r
~ ~ x ,
\ k .r
\ , ~..y/~..t > ,
1 ,
\ V ~~ --._
~~ \
,~
\ ~\ \
\ ~
~` \ ,
~~ ~ - _ A V << ~_
~~ ~~~ A ~ .... ~ ''~ A
~\ ~\ \ \ ..
`~ ~~ \ \
~~ ~~ \ \" F
\\ \
\ ~ ~ ~.
`~~~ \\ ELEVATED WETLANDS ` ~
~~ `~ OVERLOOK '~ ~'
~ ~
_ ~ •,
\ \ ~;~ , ~'
~ ~ ;: ,
~ ~ -
~ ~
~ ~,
\ I
~ ~.
\ ~
~ ,
~ ~
~ ~ ~
v~
~ ~ ~
~ \
`~ Fps \\ °./.~
r~G \ ~
T~\
`9 \
~ ~
\ ~\
\ ~ _
COVE VIEW
' DUPLEX
Nome
Oldham Planning & Design PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1415 S. Church Street ENLARGEMENT E: WETLANDS OVERLOOK
Suite i VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
LO~p H~A~M 704.342.1919 ~~~-~~
~i~ocuni,uc JANUARY 2008
Z:\07002 -Versant\master plans\Wetlands Permit Exhibits\Proposed Work Exhibits1011408 Proposed Work WL Exhibits-07002.dwg,

i

1

1

t

~~
'~
,,
,. ~
STREAM STARTS.
GAP BETWEEN STREAMS VERIFIED
BY USACOE (Dawd Baker). ~
,~ ~
_ ~ ,.
,,.~ ~-'t
s „~~ ~
~a OUTLET POOL ,
(CO-D WATER RELEA`~E )
PROMENADE ~
ON DAM -~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~, ~ `.
TRAIL ACCESS \ ~ , ,\ ~
~ VIEWING ~ ~ ~ ~ \
TOWER / ~ ~ '
\ \ 1 \ \ nc~5s~\~`.
STAIRS ~ ~~ ~~~M~~Mi
\ toc~
A V ~
\ \
`~ \
~ ~ ~
~` ~ ~
~. ~ ~
•~ ~
\ ~ ~
't ~ A

~ ~ v
`~ 5EE '
~,
STREAM ENDS ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
\ ~\
~ ~
~\ ~
~ ~~
~~ ~
~'
1.
1

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
POND-VIEW CABIN ,
POND-VIEW 70WNHOMES,
INN. d CONFERENCE CENTER ~
~~/ ~ ,
\ ~
~ ~
\ \
,. ~ ~ \
\ \\
~ ~
`` ~ \ \
'~ ~ \
~,~ ~ ~ ` ~
T ~ ~ ~
V `~ ~ ~ ~
- A ~ ~
~~ V \ V~ LAGS POND - _ `~ `~
\ (79 LF TREAM~ IMPACT) `,
..0359 ACRES WETLAND 1Mf AG~T}
'O LL SITU\MASTERPLAN" ~ "ENLAR ENT ~#~ ",
FOR VILLA6~E CONCEPT ~ POND ~ ''~
~ ~ // OVERLOOK
t ~ \ ~ I ly
I I
'~ ;
,~„ ~' 1 1 I
j '~,,, ~ I ~ I ~ I I
I I
~ - ~;,~
.,~ ~ ( ~ % %
~' / /
`~ ! ~ ~
+~ ,~, ~ / /
`~. EXISTING WETLAND / //i i
i
~~ ~ ( ~ r ~ ~
i
I ~
i.~ ~~ i~ i
~ i ,
~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~ ,'
~ ~ ~' ~'
~ ~~
~ ~ i~
~ ~ ~~
_~~ ~
.\
~ ,'
\\~~~ EXISTING TRAIL ~~~~/
-.. ~ NORTH
Oldham Planning & Design
1415 S. Church Street
Suite i
o ~ ~ x~~ ~ M 704.342.1919
.~.o~~.,...~.~
~ ~~
~ ~
TO ~~
S -~
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ENLARGEMENT F: VILLAGE POND
VERSANT PROPERTIES, LLC
t"=so'
JANUARY 2008

~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
S€o
~~0
~~S
nos
S.
~ ~ a O
iw m cn ~
N ~ ~ 3
~ V
~ C W
n
/^~
rt
o
V!
~~
m
~„ D
n Z
Z m '0
D D /~/'~
A y `V
~ N ~
N = m
~ ~
z m
r
r
n
r
D
rn
'.~
O
C/~
rn
D
---i
n
D
rn
C~
-~
O
Z
a~~~~~t~~~ µ~~~----------------------------- - -----
ceM;a'c ~n-.i< uMrn;.-re ^iu r. K e~uTecr.c~u
~~2'-~i' y 2~'01~'6 ytih tCll l•.5J:J9. 7c/-/-
3TJU~'A;:J Wv:L . DAV Flt[ IfIFI]I. 1 E'1-lIM M YMJ 'AL:TIw M4~•
Fe.'bOrvL GC11G1LWL2Yro~ -
~I'~vJftvnTiCV-2G15.L_ -_
WN wATlt tIYA:C -
kJ\li 1U^~N
-- ~~~~,1,~~- ~s,>,LG,s.~ µV VILLAGE POND SCHEMATIC SECTION
(1" = 30')
42" DECORATIVE METAL GUARDRAIL
CONCRETE WALK COMPACTED FILL PER GEOTEGHNICAL
_________ ____________ _ RECOMMENDATION58ASEDUPON ___
12~_g~~ PENDING SOIL TEST RESULTS.
STONE-FACED CONCRETE DAM. ~ PROMENADE
FINAL FOOTING DESIGN BASEDUPON_____ _________ __________________
PENDING SOIL TEST RESULTS.
POND ELEVATION -±-2825.6
COLD WATER RELEASE ~ 111,;,111=1T_h II„Ilf„I =,_„
14' I I I~ I I 1=1 I I I -I - -= i= --
EXISTING GRADE _ - -
- _ - _ _ POND BOTTOM
----- --- -- - -
----------- ~281~7.75------
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL
EXISTING SCHEMATIC DETAIL AA: VILLAGE POND DAM
OUTLET POOL
STREAM CHANNEL (1 „ _ 30,~

•
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS, PA
Versant
Versant is a premiere Italian style mixed-use development located in Woodfin, North Carolina.
The total acreage of the project is 398.0 acres, consisting of 303.5 acres of single family
residential and 94.5 acres of multi-family residential (see attached Impervious Area Bulletin).
Currently, there is approximately 0.4 acres of impervious surface on the property. At full
build-out, we approximate that 53.8 impervious acres will exist, which is 13.5% of total
acreage. Therefore, the site as a whole is below DWQ's threshold for Stormwater treatment.
However, there is one drainage area where portions of the multi-family/mixed use areas come
close to the 24% impervious threshold. A stormwater plan has been developed for these areas
(see attached Stormwater Master Plan). Phase I of the Stormwater Management Plan will be
submitted with the original permit application. Phase II will be submitted in the future once
' programming and design have been finalized. There are no wetlands and/or stream impacts
planned for Phase II.
' A full Stormwater plan has been created with drawings, details, supplemental forms, and
supporting calculations. We have been in contact with Annette Lucas at NCDENR, through a
meeting in Raleigh, as well as numerous discussions over the phone. During these
' conversations, several Stormwater approaches to detention and treatment have been
discussed. We plan to submit the complete Stormwater Management Plan to Ms. Lucas prior
to January 31s`.
The above-mentioned Stormwater Management Plan is for the high-density area shown on the
attached Phase I Stormwater Management Bulletin. These plans include volumetric detention
fora 1-year/24 hour storm and water quality treatment fora 1-inch storm, per DWQ's
requirements. This high-density region consists of three separate drainage areas. Each area has
been separately addressed for these detention and treatment requirements.
. In order to achieve the DWQ volumetric requirements, four separate StormTech SC-740
systems are proposed. (Two of the drainage areas contain one StormTech system and one area
contains two systems.) With these Stormwater detention devices, each drainage area's post-
, construction runoff is equal to the pre-construction runoff, meeting DWQ requirements.
Sand filters have been selected to address water quality treatment fora 1-inch storm in each
drainage basin. Each sand filter has been designed according to the DWQ's Stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMP) Manual. There are a total of six (6) sand filters dispersed
amongst the three drainage areas. (Two sand filters are in one area, three sand filters are in a
second area, and one sand filter is in the last area.) Rip rap aprons and a level spreader will
also be utilized to manage runoff and keep sediment from leaving the site. A combination of
' the detention and treatment devices will be fundamental in protecting the surface waters and
wetlands downstream from the property.
S:IACAD\10725U072_S-Storm\Storm Phase [\docs\Army Corps letter.doc
200 Swannanoa River Road, Asheville, NC 28805 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
' PO Box 5432, Asheville, NC 28813

~ . r ~ ~ ~ r . . . . . ~^^ . . . . .

~~ ~
_ ~ N
m
' ~~~
i 1- -
~ --~
~~ --
a~
I C \_ U
~, ~ Z
- ,t; O
ov ,/ l ~ V
-~ o
~~~
~U
X
8

TOTAL
AREA
(ACRES) AREA OF
PROPOSED
ROAD
(ACRES) AREA OF
PROPOSED
STRUCTURES
(ACRES)
NOF
PROPOSED
LOTS -'-- __ c
% ~';
TMPERVIOU3
DI-SF IN250 7.67 ]6.00• 100 12.94%
Dt-MF 27.61 1.6N 4.37 N/A 21.9]%
D~SF 3R.19 1.23 3.20• 20 11.60%
D3-SF 78.87 3.15 6.72" 42 12.51%
DJ-MF 6.32 0.26 0.64 N/A 14.24%
D4-b7F 2R.40 2.36 2.21 N/A 16.09%
US-~1} 6.18 0.16 0 N/A 2.91%
D6-MF 4.56 0.22 0 N/A 4.62%
D'-MF 21.41 1.34 1.78 N/A 15.51%
D?-SF 3.N9 0 0.64' 4 16.43%
'ASSUMES 0.16 ACRE PER LOT
PRELIMINARY
NOT RELEASED
FDR NORTH
CONSTRUCTION

a
r z
Z
Q U
N O
W g
' 3

1
1
1
1

~~
x ~'°~~ ,,
~ y ~
u ' /
1 / /Y
O p A I I
i
~ ~ ~ ~ III
~p = { ~ ~
O ~~ ~\ \ 4•~ \ Y /
a
~ f ' ----~ ~ ~1 - - --
r~~'
,,
' t~ ~ ~ 1 jj _ _, J
~ u /.
~,,,t~ ~,a'' .` ~'. 11 ~ of 1 r,1 " ' {,^ ~(I ~ ~_//,
~ l ~ x~ _ ~ ~~~ ~ 7
,~
J(~ e ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
"t ~ ~ `
.~ : '
rb y>H<>•7w M ~~ a
N ~
,off ~r~+ p ~b `~ I <y~, ~ ~
~o< z~a Hb
~ZO~xd end ~,~~ ,r
wQ ~ ~rr~: _~ ~ 1 ~.
~~~ &
d>~pMC~'1 C~jz p t ~ ~. 'ifs - (~ n ~~
a~ yodt°Qmg ~z~ .~, ~,, t ,i, ~
r
F., y~.
'~ r i. C`
_` ~ ~ ~
ey~)h !._ ,?/ ~~ i /~
~ ~I
~ ~ `,~ ~ 8
~! ~g
~ ~ ~, P
~ - F ~ ` ~~~' A ~'
~ ~ ~
~~~ s ~~:~: ~ - -- i ~%~
~'-~` ~~
pw ~upvwzw ` r{'~. 1
mtn*i~Cnpzpt~, p [ 1 r 1 ~ ~ A7
~4 b- Hy~ ~ ~ _J
~b~~~~ ~+
~ ~f ~
p,..i v
z=
ST~MWATER MASTER PLAN FOR: SCALE: 1'=500' 200 SWANNANOA RIVER ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
VERSANT G C PNDNE(6~,262~6
FAX (828j 262fi986
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS PA
WOODFlN, NORTH CAROLINA IAtpJlwww•cWfkledgnoa•wm

i ~ e_ ~ ~
,'
~~ ' ~
'.- ~ r
_. ,
~' ~ .
~~ ~
_~ , ~ ~~5 , ,,~ _ ~ ~~-/'
~~ \
~~
i \\
f
~~~ ' ~---1~_ _ ~'P' =) ti ~ ~ ~'--' ~
~ ~ ~ '! % ~ ~ ~j -- ~ - I
- ~ FuruxE PHASE
r 1 y ~ ~ , PHASE I
~` ~ . ~ '"~' ~~' ~ ~~ i
~` 5TORT4WATER PHASE LINE
~ al
f i ~ y, _ - ~~ ~ NOTE: PHASE 1 OF THE
\~ L-,~ ~/ ~ ~ STORMWATERAiANAGEhffiNT
r r
w ITH
' >. ~ ~ ' ' PLAN V« It,L HE SUBMITTED
! ~
~r l ~~ ` :~ I ~ ~ - ORIGINAL PERMIT APPLICATION.
r / ~ ~ t ~ r~ ~ t FUTURE PIfASE WILL BE
/ ~ ~++ ~~ ~ ` ` SUBAII7'"f ED IN THE FU7lJRE
APPROXIMAl'E LUCA'I'ION OF ~ ~ \ `'~ - _~ ~ ~ { ~~ ONCE PROGRAMMINGiDESIGN
PROPOSED DETF,NTION & c 1 1 ~• _ - ~ ~ HAVE 6EEN FINALIZED.
~J
TREATMENT.AREAS (TYP) P , ~ ~~
STORATV~`A'T'ER MANA(iEMEtiI' _ _ ~~
PLA\S FOR THE HIGN DENSITY }
AREAS SHOWN INCLUDE..
YOLUMETRTC DF,TENTION FOR
Tl IE I YFARI2A HOUR STORM
A\D WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT FUR A 1-INCH
STORM. MEETING DWQ'S
REQ li IREA1ENl'S

~ ~ ;'
~_~ _ _
~~~ ~ ~ ~~
~:/ _..
-~; ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ' i ~ - ~ i ,, ~ ~
A`--
C,y~y ~,
,O O 5*+ / -
_ QH~ ~ /
i
y•
YO~OOQ +• / ~ ~ ~'„ r /
em r 't ~ ~,~ ~~ ~ , ~~ ~%
~.i~z ~~ ~~ ~ f /~J ./J) ! ~rfl~ ~ ~
zz ~ r ~ ;
~ ~ ...fff ~' r
c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~/ 't~ r ~ /
9
~, ~ , ~ ~~ a~~ ~'
~ ~~ ~1 , ~ 1 - ~y
~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,
is ~';~/ (,"y,;' /~/~ \ {/ L i
e ,
~ }~ i~ t~ l , ~ ~ ~''
~,
{,~ ~ /,i i ~ , ..
T / i / i
ly ~,
c i ;~, _~ ~l`, ~' ~i~
I
~,~'~ ,a.,~ \~ y~ `, ~ ~ %!
~~~ ~~ ~
fr, ~ , ~ !, ~ ,il , z
-~~ ~ ~ ~.,~ , ~~, ',., ,~ i ~, H~
~ l ~ ~ i ~, 1
~y i a
~, , .
i ~~_l ~ ~~
a I t~ /.~ , , Y,
~~' , ~ i ~~ * ~-, ~( ~ I
~ i~ r ~
ll~ ~ '~ I-` I '~~~ ~~' `~
~ ~r ~
~.~ ~`, ~~, .A ~ ~ ~ iii ~~ ~ I '
d~~ ~a ~~ /~ ,n
~~ ~~. { , I~ ~ o
~ \ ~; - > „ ~ . r w
b '/ , ~ /~'~ ~~ ~ ~~1 \ ~ ~ r , ~ ~ F
I1
~. _
~ ~i
- _ ,
~ ~_
~.
~.. ~
_ ~ ~ ..
-,.~'
y
Z ° ~ t~
~~p~ ( "' a
App;
oa'"z ,
~ mp ~----~~ Crl
at
PHASE I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BULLETIN FOR: SCALE: 1"=150' 200 SWANNANOA RIVER ROAD
ASNEVR.IF, NC 28805
VERSANT G C YNONE (323)252•b368
FA% (828) 2525388
CIVIL DESIGN CONCEPTS PA
WOODFIN, NORTH CAROLINA ~P'~www•~~191+•~^

1
_~
e
s
~ ~ ~ t _ "~., ~--~- .
s ~( t
.. J" ` E ~ tl ,.~ 1
t
~ „-
'.,
a
..-~ - - _ ~ . r ~ ~l ,
~.. ti.
',
z,
...
li I' ~-~..~-'~~ °
,..
~ ~ -„ ' ,.v
~~ r
/M~ W i
t /
~~
/ Y
m
~E~
t ~ !~, t ~ ~~ ' ~ ~, ~t . ~- ~
r ~ -- ~- - ~,~ t,, ~~,
~~~ `~ ~~ _,r. ~ X11 '.~ "` ~~~' ' I
~.\ ~ €
t~ t . =ar ? f
~,. ~ r1, u'~~~~~
' 5 f~ 5 t~ N ~ ~~ i
~ ~ ~ . y .11Liii r .
,.
~' ra~-;tip ~;~'i~~(~i ~ ~_ ~~ ~_~ ~.
_ ~~'ra ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s t ~,
4 ~` ~~
~~ ~ ~~~ 1
z.
,, ;`~~,
ti ~ ,t r_ ~ .
~;
t
1
1
~._ -'
,~
.~ ~
.++'"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
to ~ ~y to
~v~/
i ~,yJ~/
~~%%'
\. __ l
-~ -
``\ ~
l
~ _
~e
.U
RES
q
~ ~-
~ ~~ ,~
` ~ r,n
~ ~~ ~
~~_~~~
4

__
_ _ `...~ ~
-- !"qtr
., --_ ~_
7 _
~.
._ ~ Its 1 ..
~/~ _
~ ~ _ v~C __ . 133 7t ~~
~ . ,/ -~~. _ t ~ ~.1/ '~ i err v.
~ ~ t :~ - ~ ~ '~~': ~ '~,1 ~ ~ .V
I -'I ~~ ~ ~ t 135 1 -..~"i~j,~,~ _ F_
r t , 1r
i ,. _ _
f ~:~r. / ~ 135. ~ f~ ~ _... _ --~ +~~~~ _L~
F- _ ~ J
i~ ~ ~ 1~
/~ / ~,.
.. 13s t~ I ~ __
i"[]; ~ ~~ ~ f i
'~
/ '` '~ 'D
ti _ ~ ~ _ 5
PRELIMINARY
NOT RELEASED
FOR

1
1
~~
_,--~~"~
r ` ~, '~
~~~
f~
_ ~:; _ A
-~~
.`,` ` t
'~I
~~`
-1::,
,,
~l
~ ~~' ~ ~~
~ ,~' ~ ' 1
i ~ ~ /'~
~ 1
/. I
~~ ~~
~ L '
>~
~, ~
l ~ ~ ~ '
i / ~~ ~ '
i

1
1
Versant
Woodfin, Buncombe County
North Carolina
Jurisdictional Determination Information
Prepared For
Mr. Robert L. Richey
Versant Properties, LLC
225 E. Worthington Ave Ste 102
Charlotte NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]

t
1
1
1
1
SITE
r
~.~ , r:'=
4' + I
~ ~ ~~
~~ Hllf a 5t '
~~ r~'°.
~~ w ~
25 ,, ,,
~ ~i
~~`~° _
~..
i`f
--„~_ ~' .
•\
~~p ~ta,~~ zaaa~ ~e~x~vi
VICINITY MAP -VERSANT SITE

`' Ir ~ Jrr i' 'ti nr t ,-~-~ ~ ~~ f t e ~ i ~ c-,~=~'~'I i ~ • ~~,ti~~ r _
1 ~ l Vj YY -~...•~ ~~ L__`~_. ail r~~~ J IIJ ~I f~•' Lfr-"!' ~ ~+~J'~~ if t~~ ~ f
r, 'J ~ ¢~r,,,.
_ r =.~, .~,, _ S ~~,
~' ~~ ,~,,~.`v,~ ~``r tii SITE ~ ~'~ ~`~ I~~4 -'-~. f~_ .~~
,, _ _
~~ ~.
_ ~.' II ~- ~ r
~~ Lam., ,~r,~ t
f ~
rte--- ,~. ~I ~ ` ~ ,} ,,. ~-:.~
~, ~ ~.~ ~ , ,~-- /~~ ~~~ y ,, ~, ~ ~ ~.
.~ , ~ r; ,
~;rti. I
~~ -='
y ,~ .
~~ t \ t ~~ ~ ~' * ~~ L_A - • A~ ~^}"'~ `' ~.~~"4 III.
~'' `~, r-t--'fir{ ~i . i L-. i+ ~- -/
r t ~~ ~ '~ r f~f ~ f~`. ~ I +~ ~ ~ l ~ ;fir \` -
~ ~ ~ ~~t
r
~ ~ 4
- 4 r ~ ' 'SCALE 1" =1000'
USGS WEAVERVILLE QUAD.

.., :..
fi
kC. fr T .~,__
\\ ~l 1'' ~t - - ~ s sF
`C ' ~ i I- ~ -•-_^• /r y _ ~' Z n ~ ~•~` ~ ~`s fit' _ ~ J ~ `°~j ~ ~ ~ -
E f ~ n i II~ -~- ,Y ~.''( -!\~ ~h - L ti ~P a ~ ~ r '=-"C,,~ `*- s+Y1~111L..,..
'~~ ~~ ~ x ~~ a. 1 ~_ 1 11 .5---• ~T '~ ~ ~~/ ~ \ i ~2=~ ~ ~,~ i~. o: fy~~.~J~~ "~~ ~'~:I ill i+
I ~ ~r Y ~ \ ~ ., J~,.~~ I \ ~ ~ \._ L-- nF ^ + I! ~' J f _ .Q/l I . ~ I I
` ~, -fir ~ ~ ~ -' ~1A.' o TS.-1 a.-{ ~ '~~~~„~,~2- ~ ~~~r fop' i -~ i 1 I~c:, ~1YT~'' I ,t,
t Ts -~'t. ! s ~ : r ~ y7 ~~;ti ~ I Y ~ 1t'
`` r _' ~ .$' 4 y 1.z_- ~? ~+~ 4 -,~~~~~ ~ ix t ~ ~ -'\~1~ ~ as-_{ P f\~ ly_•fi ~ 1-' ~ ~-^~ ~f ~ J 1 ~ --
R 1'
~ `f
,~ j ~ . I
_- ~. ,-
] _ ~ ~ ~..
TRIBG2 PRPW 9 ~ r~: l ~ f~r '~ N ~ .~ ~~ .~~~'~~" •~~-=---tea,.
j :~~ ~ ~ J~-~~-f ' 1RIec-PRPw
,~ ,~ - ~ _
E - r ~ ,.. r
'- •'~ ~~ _ ra~ttes tcm } ~71~~ t~t :}'~~ '~ ~: ~~'~~,~
-_~: -~ 'fi~ ..,,,~+ ,~ ,t~ ,~,~ , ~ ~{\~ ETLANDA%B~ ~Z~k~~~l- - - -- ,
~F 4 ~~ n ~..e ~. 4e "~ t ~" +r4 ~ ~ f"_ ~ ~ ~~~~' ~~a I~ t.~ 'f ' I / ~~~-
~1 _ v ~~~.>~ J ~ ~~ ~ -~/~_F ...e ..-..<_ ~.~.- ¢;~.-+~_ -+~ib-ere.'=-~-~. _ ~ ,~{J!
t '"WETLANDBB ~ ... T
-~ ',< ~ ,r____- 0 300 600 FEET
'~ .,''; ~ ~<: _ ~ LOCATION:
.. --~ ? t ~ ~ LATITUDE LONGITUDE
EPF~MERAL CHANNELIDRAINAGE ~~ t ~ 35.65 N 85.56 W
BAIRD COVE -VERSANT SITE APPROXIMATE MAP -WATERS OF THE U.S.
FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
JDFORMMAP-9/2012007 SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION

_.._.
T.,_ , _ - _ __ - CF2 (BEGIN CASCADE FALLS) ~ = ' CF1 (END CASCADE FALLS) ' ' ' - " """'
~~ ~`~ ~ with boulders - - I - j -- _ •. ti
~, ~_- ~__
\.. ,( ~ '=" CF2 (END CASCADE FALLS) ~ s `, ~ „" ~: % :- CF1 (BEGIN CASCADE FALLS)
~ ~ ~ ~ .' R1 (w) SPRING ~~ , ~ _
~;~" '' .,.!. S1 (SPRING/BEGIN INTPER m ~L ~titi ~.. -+r ~~ -~\~, o .3~~ ~~ Y ".`.,~.~, ; ~- . ;uiS '1-" _.._
Y~<< - _ o . IMP. STREAM) _ ~, ~ ~~r _ ;~`~,~ ~Z: - _~ ,` ~a ,~ ~,~.4 .. ~`~ Q i ~
.•~ ~'
`.,a. - ._ _, '. ^"f„ .:_, ~.t. s., ~~4 f ?^ _~..",~~+,.,i~, .r~ ~ ~ 6 ~°~ ~ 11~`1!r ~~¢~I ~ i ,.
~'~.t,,, :=-y' '~.., '` ..'t. y `, f' '~ / 'f ,r - P1-3(W) _ ~ ,~ ~~ i - .,, i--. "1~ IAt'Ila::1{ i
~~ \ ~ ~-~ r ~^- ~ T 1 - 6 ~~-~" ' c, ~ _ ~1• SPRING l¢ F~ ~; . ~ ~;~" . ~- f ~',I r.~~~ Iry 1f3~.' ~~i~ ~, `~
z ~..• t. e _ 'Vi'n -t~ t~ :~~.t ~~ _ ~_7~,~,} __
< <_ :- / m
'. :" r n. I ~ .ire----~ 1 ~ \ - ! o ' ( , - /i~r ~ ~' '.~ n.~ 4 t e - 1t` _
a '~.
' U1 (BEGIN INT/PER IMP. STREAM) ~,` ~ ' ~ ~•~~ ~ \~~ -'` , ~ ~ ~ •~
,+, r ~' ~, ,. ' '~ 1 1 _ 7 .. ~.,z;., 9 ~-tea ~.
~~'~+ ~~ i ~ ~.: J..._ j y ~ -,i ~i ~,~ ~ r' /IIf j ~• -. ~ ~.0_U ~' tom.: 1'f, ~_ "'
~. _ .,
_ a \ ~`~"-° ' fi. -, -~ '~ _= ~ ; ~•_ '~ ("_/ _' ,r . ~G1 (BEGIN PER. IMP. STREAM)
- '~ - _
...-~ j' a , 7 1~-, r'l M ,--1~~ ~.
.~ -
_ -~_ r~ r /
`r
' AREA IN~ \~ . , : __-- ~ ; t ~ O 1 - 4 ~ ~ ~ --t {t
PROGRESS ,~ ---( ~ ~'' i~`:r~.o; ~ - .I '~_ ~ ~.J 1 ~ '
_= _ ;~ t f ~ h ~- _ i~
~ ~ - ~ ~. ~ .
_. ~...... . •. may"" ~• • . ;~ *,- ~7~ r_ -~' N 1 - 9 ~~ - ~, H 1 4 , °''V1
` `J.._.:: -'~ .~T +. ~ ~ ~ ~ p~:. M 1 5 _ J 1 8 -roh.- t~~ ~~
' j ~ - ~/ / ~ -~1 a n.
., ..~\ Sy
_ l ~ {•~ ~ `\sl
'_- `Y1 (BEGIN INT/PER IMP. STREAM)
'~~ m
a, -
y_ _ - r /
~' : ~ ~:
D1-25/E1~^33
-'-----
~••A1-4/B1-6
Ilr
LSI I.f
~C1 (BEGIN INT/PER IMP. STREAM)
- 'S,
. ... ~.~ ~ .. 'i 3 i
7 rp
•F1 (BEGIN INT/PER IMP. STREAM)
.rr.r EPHEMERAL CHANNEL/DRAINAGE APPROXIMATE MAP -WATERS OF THE U.S.
FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION

- ~ ~"'TSS1-SPRINGBEGIN _ -
~, ~, _ ~ - - - t~ I-, --? ` PERSTREAMSECTION - _ ~PP1 - 7JQQ1 -7
•,,.. .. y 7Jf J ,r ~ f~ 1 ~J• SEEP/SPRING
! .. r
a`Yw L x j`•`'+~"'7... ... 4. lz ^ ,~ e •` ;Y? n ~'~``'~ ~ f '~' 1y -' '~ LL1-SPRING/BEGIN
-~„^ t' ~ ~, r' i ~~ s~ ~ ><ti ~ ~RR1 -SPRINGBEGIN ~ -a ~. ~_ ,~ ';. PER STREAM SECTION
~m ~` ~+ ,~ ~ ~--_,.~,. ~^ f "'PERSTREAMSECTION ~~ a f
! ~ F
` / ~~ ; i _ .--, 1~ '- w / ~ ~` ~ ~ ~~ Y f\ f ~-, : ~ 001 -SPRING/BEGIN
'`~,t ~ ,~ y ' ~ "''`~ 1' ~ ~ ~ ~ \ n '~ ~ J ~ J : '~ - ~ a F ' - PER STREAM SECTION
,~~< , ~''~ . i%~~ ~ r _y I'` - :e . ~ ~; s fv. ~r~, ~r^~• ~ r is -t ~ . f `E" - -
M ( ,7~
~,`S", ...>j .-' ~ r~ tl ,'.y •r'y 11; m ~-:.~ fr ~ -I; ~1~. ar.-. i:t _:_' ~ .~ f :1: ~~I.}, 1 Ila ~ ~ I
-~ a ~, , ` ~ \ x EE1 SPRING/BEGIN PER ` ' ~ II
t -~'; - ~., , 3.: `~~.tt~ _ _.~~ tt'~ ''3 STREAM SECTION ~ ~' ~' rte, o Jj ''
Y F-
~. ~. • ~ ~ ' ' r ~~. ,`~' /. as f. f \..~ Y~~~~~~' , a, r 3::. ~ ''t`,y~ 1'~. 1 '+`.~c <
~~,~~ ,`'-. .~ _J ..' a ~ . 1 _~~ mil! '-~ ,,,~.~ ~,~ f--,.fi ,` w ,. ~..
.. ~ 'I A - ;~.; - ~ > ~ _ `~~,: '`/ ~ I~ ~ ~__~~~ nom-" 6
~`1 \ ~\~~ `~ -'~/~ -ei CEL'1 ~_L .yam ~ ~Ji-.. 'k ..
t
-~ ~ `' ~ ~'~ 17-SPRING/SEEP ~ ~I
' r~T
f ~'
-~ #.` ;<
w~ -0 s. wa 1
y4 .i
CI ~
/6 ] F ~_ mid { 9\..
_ "- ~ ~
.. ','1
~;~ r.c
EPHEMERALCHANNEUDRAINAGE
~_
li ~ ~-~ - ~~ - m
~, ~! o .
~~~~~ <~ -
`!+
~ ~ ,a `GG1 HH1 111 SPRINGBEGIN
°'-'~ -'~ PERSTREAMSECTIO$9NS ..~~'
.. :~ _:` - aka,. it r~.it~ ~ ~ n
--
~~,.
~~
- . ~. -_

'u' \~~ l t LJJ1 5 ] ~.
_..._~I`--=-. `_rKK1 -SPRING/BEGIN tP
PERSTREAMSECTION -.,ys~ fa
NN1 -SPRING/BEGIN
PERSTREAMSECTION
BAIRD COVE -VERSANT SITE APPROXIMATE MAP -WATERS OF THE U.S.
FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
updatedosJlsrzoo5 SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION

WETLAND PP,RR,TRIB. RR

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 I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Regulatory Field Office, Applicant:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Versant Site : WTLD "PP/QQ" and Trib "RR"
State:NC County/parish/borough: Buncombe City: Woodfin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.6590° ~T, Long. 82.5524 ° ~.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Baird Cove Creek
' Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUG): 06010105
~( Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
' d i fferent J D form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
. Q', Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
© Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION Il: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There r ~~~"~' "navi able waters o the U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act RHA urisdiction as defined b 33 CFR art 329 m the
~:EI g f ( ) J ( Y P )
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 ; "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): ~
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters'` (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
~~ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
~~~"~ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
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: ~ 130 linear feet: ~ 1' - 3' width (ft) and/or .0051 acres.
Wetlands:.0308 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
' Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ I3oxcs checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and [hat typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

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 III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TN'W, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section I11.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 IILD.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 waterbody° 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 111.6.1 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.C below.
. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
' Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: '.Pick List
Average annual raintall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
' (ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
' ^ Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters arc Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are. Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' ° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
` 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.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
i Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
i Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
'
Average side slopes: ~
~~st.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
i ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
a .r
Tributary geometry ~
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ~~;
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: "l~~'~ik
Describe flow regime:
Other information nn duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick.L` ist. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: .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 ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
~ne lateral extent of CWAjurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
' Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
i °A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH WM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH WM 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 tlow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ 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: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Explain:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: .Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands arc Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: ci{ List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ~ ,. floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics: '
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain tndings:
^ 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 ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

i~

1

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
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:
I. 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 IILD:
2. 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 IILD:
3. 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 al] of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT ,APPLY):
I. 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.
2. 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: Tributary ("RR") was observed to have geomorphology, biology and hydrologic flow characteristics
consistent with perennial streams. See NCDWQ Stream Identification form ("C") for typical on-site perennial tributary.
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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

~1

i~
1
i~
i~
i~
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: ~ 130 linear feet ~ 1' - 3' width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss 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 IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
[] Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
[Q 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 IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland ("PP/QQ") meets the criteria of the 1987 COE Wetlands Determination manual
(See Routine Wetland Data Form WTLD QQ/PP). Wetland ("PP/QQ") is the headwater seep and empties directly
into, and is not separated from tributary ("RR") .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area:.0308acres.
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 IILC.
' Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. 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 IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters v
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 (I-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
~? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
,~.! from which fish or shellfish are or could betaken 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:
KSee Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IlLD.6 of the instructional Guidebook.
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.

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).
Vii! Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPL1~:
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 waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
s Lakes/ponds: acres.
~:~ I 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/consultant:
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:1:24K, Weaverville (NC) Quad.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
?': FEMA/FIRM maps:
:; 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
~' Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
r. Applicable/supporting case law:
~~ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

TRIBUTARY

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 I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Asheville Field Office Applicant:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Versant Site : Trib "U"
State:NC County/parish/borough: Buncombe City: Woodfin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.6590° N, Long. 82.5524 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Baird Cove Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) lnto which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUG): 06010105
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
^ 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):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
^ Field Determination. Dates):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Axe no "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 ~ "ti7~aters of the U. S."within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Reguiredj
1. Waters of the U.S.
' a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
^ 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 TN Ws
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
' ^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) si7x of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
' Non-wetland waters: ~ 150 linear feet: ~ 3' - 6' width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on ~:~i~tetttiaiD tttt~l
' Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentiallyjurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
1 Explain:
' ~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(c.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

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 II-.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. 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 ([F 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 IILD.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 waterbody° 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 IILB.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.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions
Watershed size: ~ :sl}
Drainage area: '; jT
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly inu~ TNW.
^ Tributary flows through PickrList tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List. river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters arc Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which slows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(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: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick'List.
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:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: ''~ , .
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ~ _e „' ,~ ,
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: ~~ Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ~„ ~ 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 ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
1 Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily tilm; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH WM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH WM that is unrelated to the waterlx~dy'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.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ 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: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
' Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
' Flow is: .` ,, ,. Explain:
Surface flow is•
Characteristics:
' Subsurface flow: Fl' Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacenc~Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationshi ~ to TNW
' Project wetlands arc Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters arc Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from Fick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ~ floodplain.
' (ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
' Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
' ^ Riparian buffet Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
' ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain tndings:
^ 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 ( )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/N1 Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
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 arc 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 IILD:
2. 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 IILD:
3. 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 IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
' THAT APPLl~:
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.
2. 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: Tributary ("U") was observed to have geomorphology, biology and hydrologic flow characteristics
consistent with perennial streams. See NCDWQ Stream Identification form ("C") for typical on-site perennial tributary.
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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
' seasonally:

1
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: ~ 150 linear feet ~ 3' - 6' width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss 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 IILC.
Provide estimates forjurisdictional 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:
' 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
QI 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:
Q Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data mdicahng that tnbutary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
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 arejurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
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 I[LC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. 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
[] 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:
"See Footnote # 3.
~''fo complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA IIQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

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 APPLI~:
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:
zap} 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:
k 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 waters (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):
' j Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
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:
"~i Corps navigable waters' study:
~~~~' U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
I' ^USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24K, Weaverville (NC) Quad.
', ; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
~~~ ~ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
'', ~ + State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
~`' FEMA/FIRM maps:
~~ + 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
`; 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:

TRIBUTARY C, WETLAND A/B

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.
I' SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
' B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: ASHEV-LLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE,
APPLICANT:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Versant Site : TRIB "C", WETLD "A/B"
' State:NC County/parish/borough: Buncombe City: Woodfin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.6590° ~, Long. 82.5524 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Baird Cove Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105
® Check if map/diagram of review area andJor potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are retarded on a
' different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION I[: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Eire uu "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 "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): ~
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
' ~ Relatively permanent watersz (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 TN Ws
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
' ^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
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: ~ 3300 linear feet: ~ 2' - 4' width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands:.0359 acres.
c. Limits boundaries of 'urisdiction based on `~~ ~ ~~
( ) J ._~ .1
'' Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
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 111 below.
z F'or purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e. g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

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 III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section I II.D.1.; otherwise, see Section I II.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OFTRIBUTARY (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 Rapa~os 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 III.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 waterbody° 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 Il1.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 I II.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: ':Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into "I~N W.
^ Tributary flows throu!.;h Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters arc Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
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.

II
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
' Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artiticial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
' Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
1 ~ F
Average side slopes: PG~Llitt.
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:
Presence of run/riftlc/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: PiiekList
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
...............
Tributary provides for: J('~ck List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ~'`~c'
' Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: pi~k>~t. 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 ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terresMal vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
' ~A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH W M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH WM 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.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ 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: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: ~1C#t~Sst. Explain:
Surface flow is• c
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ~'. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/bamer. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands arc Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick Lfst floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ 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 any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: ~;~~~~
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

i~
i~

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
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 TN W?
' • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for tish 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 IILD:
2. 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 signitcant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. 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 nn the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section Il1.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLI~:
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.
2. 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: Tributary ("C") was observed to have geomorphology, biology and hydrologic flow characteristics
consistent with perennial streams. See NCDWQ Stream Identification form for tributary ("C") .
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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

~~

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: ~ 3300 linear feet ~ 2' - 4' width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWs 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 IILC.
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:
' 4. 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 IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland ("A/B") meets the criteria of the 1987 COE Wetlands Determination manual
(See Routine Wetland Data Form WTLD A/B). Wetland ("A/B") empties directly and is not separated from
tributary ("C") .
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
' Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area:.0359acres.
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 IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNV1's.
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 [ILC.
' Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters v
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
1 ^ 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
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which tish 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:
"See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section Ill.ll.b of the Instructional Guidebook.
1° 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.

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 ($).
,~'~ - Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
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 waters (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/consultant:
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.
a 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:1:24K, Weaverville (NC) Quad.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
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:

~1

WETLAND BB

1
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 I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE,
APPLICANT:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Versant Site : WTLD "BB"
' State:NC County/parish/borough: Buncombe City: Woodfin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.6575° N, Long. 82.5620 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Baird Cove Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
^ 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):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
^ Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Art sq "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 ACE "waters orthe U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Requires/]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
' ~ Relatively permanent waters'` (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
' ^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ 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: ~ 500 linear feet: ~ 3' - 5' width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.1095 acres.
' c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on ~~~~`~itCBtj(gtt 1~TA1ilt1t11(
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
' Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be notjurisdictional.
Explain:
' ~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically Flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
~ Supporting documentation is presented in Section Il1.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNV1's. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OFTRIBUTARY (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 III.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 waterbody° 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 II1.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section II1.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
' (ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
' ^ Tributary flows directly mto TNW.
^ Tributary flows through P~~~~ tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick Li t aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' ° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
`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.

~~~
' (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: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick ~.i~t.
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:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: PickT.,iist
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ~C~t Li9t
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pickfs'
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: PickList. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: i'~glcsf. 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 ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
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:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH W M does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH W M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH W M 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.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ 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: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick. List. Explain:
Surface flow is: P%ek List
Characteristics:
Subsurface tlow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
' Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pfck List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ 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 any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: i~ii~k Listi
Approximately ( )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)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
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 IILD:
2. 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 IILD:
3. 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 IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLI~:
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Cn, acres.
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. 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: See JD package and Trib "G2 -abutting BB wtld " NCDWQ Stream ID form. Numerous
springs/seeps/wetlands feed the perennial RPW and provide year-round flow. The tributary has the characteristics of a
perennial stream (substrate sorting, riffle-pool-run sequences, macroinvertebrates, etc.).
~] 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: ~ 500 linear feet ~ 3' - 5' width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss 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 IILC.
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:
4. 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: Disturbed wetland "BB" is not seperated from the RPW by an upland feature, or any
features. A direct connection exists. See JD package for data sheets (Plot ID: BB) and maps.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.1095acres.
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 IILC.
' Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. 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 IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters s
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-STATES WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPL~:10
^ 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:
"See Footnote # 3.
' ~~ "fo complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action [o Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

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.
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
judlnnent (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 waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
+, Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
'FS i 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/consultant:
~: 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.
i U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24K, Weaverville (NC) Quad.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
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:

1
1
1

1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: September 18, 2007 Project: Versant Latitude: 35.6590 N (NADS3)
Evaluator: T..Rindner, T , vi, P- Kealr Site: Trib "C " Longitude: 82.5524 W
Total Points: Other Weaverville (NC) Quad
S7ream is at least intermittent 32.25 County: Buncombe e. Qtrad (Jame:
if >_ 19 or rern~ial if >_ 30 ~
A. Geomo bolo Subtotal = 13.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strang
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soli texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic flaodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls D 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No Q
Yes = 3
-man-maoe altcnes are not rated; see Discussions rn manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 8 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 O 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 9.75 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthas (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 i.5
27. Filamentous algae: periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; 1=ACW = .7 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
~- items 1u anD ZT locus on the presence of uplantl plants, Item 2y focuses on the presence of aquatrc or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
3' - 5' width
Cobble, gravel, sand
Surveyed under drought conditions
26. High diversity, low abundance.

1
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: September 18, 2007 Project: Versant Latitude: 35.6575 N (NAD83)
Evaluator: f ..Rindner 1. T , .vi. P. Ke lv Site: Trib "G2 -abutting BB wtld " Longitude: 82.5620 W
Total Points: Other Weaverville (NC) Quad
Stream is at teast intermittent 37.75 County: Buncombe e g Qaad Name:
i1 >_ 19 or rennial if >_ 30
A. Geomor holo subtotal = 17.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/refit floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 0
Yes = 3
d Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
o u.,.~.,,i,...., is„ti..,.~~ = 10.5 ~
14. Groundwater flow/dischar 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2 O
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. liydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.5
C Rinlnnv rc~~i,r~~ai = 9.75 ~
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfrsh 0 0.5 1 1.
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = .7 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
° Items 2U and zT Locus on the presence or up~ano prams, tiem L~J IOCUSeS on Ule Nresence u~ ayunu~ ~i weuai~u Nicnu
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional rrotes )

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: VERSANTBAIItD COVE Date: 9/15/2006
Applicant /Owner: County: Buncombe
Irnestigator: L Rindner J Levi P Kealv State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: wtld
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Wo X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: A
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum T FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Fraxinus pennsvlvanica T FACW 10.
3. Sambucus canadensis S/S FACW_ 11.
4. Lindera benzoin S/S FACW 12•
5. Microstegium vimineum H FA + 13.
6. Impatiens capensis H FACW 14.
7. Pilea pumila H FACW 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Open, sparse canopy and understory with low diversity. Sambucus dominates.
Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are classified as FAC-OBL in the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
HYDROLOGY

_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of SurFace Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
~_Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ~ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

1

1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
0
12 A 2
SY 4/2 (Munsell Moistl AbundancelContrast Structure, etc.
2
SY 6/1 FEW/FA1NT SANDY LOAM
-
.
12-16 B 2.SY 5/1 .
2SY 5/4 FEW/DISTINCT FINE SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_Hi$tic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: This area at the head of the stream/ wetland complex is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria
set forth in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

1
' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

Project /Site: VERSANTBAIRD COVE Date: 9/18/2007
Applicant /Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigator: L.Rindner, J. Levi, P. Kealy State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: wtld
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: BB
(explain on reverse if needed)
' VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Lobelia cardinalis H FACW+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9. Erechtites hieracFfnlia ~ FAC-
2. Lobelia spicata H FAC 10. Acalphva rhnmhnidea H FAC-
3. Lobelia puberula H FACW- 11.
4. Mimulus ringens H OBL 12.
5. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 13.
6. Impatiens capensis H FACW 14.
7. Alnus serrulata H FACW+ 15.
8. Liriodendron tuli~i era H F~_ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 80%
Remarks: Vegetation has been previously cleared (~2-3 years ago). No tree, shrub/saplings, or woody vines. All
regen in Herbaceous layer.
Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are classified as FAC-OBL in the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
' HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
~ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
~_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0-2 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon fMunsell Moist)
A/i3 2
SY 3/1
0
12 (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrest Structure, etc.
TY CLAY LOAM
NA NA C T
.
-
_
12+ Rock .
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Mixed Rock/disturbed soil across 85-90% of wetland. Underlying rock at or near 12".
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: This disturbed area abutting Baird Cove Creek is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set
forth in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: VERSANT/BAIRD COVE Date: 9/15/2006
Applicant I Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigator: L.Rindner, J. Levi, P. Kealy State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: PP/O~
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Hvdrangea arborescens S/S FACU 9.
2. Osmunda cinnamomea H FACW+ 10.
3. Impatiens capensis H FACW 11.
4. Pilea pumila H FACW 12•
5. La~ortea canadensis H FACW 13.
6. 14.
7, 15.
g. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 80%
Remarks: Open canopy and understory with low diversity. Rocky, boulder seep with surrounding upland trees
providing canopy coverage.
Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are classified as FAC-OBL in the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
x No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surtace Water: 0- 2 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ~ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

1

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
finches) Horizon IMunsell Moistl
0
6 A lOYR 2/1 (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
N/A N/A SILTY CLAY
-
6-16 B GLEY 1 l0Y 2.5/1 lOYR 2/1 FEW/DISTINCT SILTY CLAY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in SurFace Layer in Sandy Soils
~Sulfidic Odor ~C-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Very rocky.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: This area functions as a headwater seep and is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth
in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY, HABITAT ASSESSMENT,
AND
AQUATIC STREAM SURVEY
VERSANTBAIRD COVE TRACT
SUBMITTED TO:
Leonard Rindner, PWS
BY
Jeffrey A. Levi
VIRONMENTAL Patrick J. Kealy
SSESSMENT AND 14 Botany Ct.
LAN N t N G Asheville, NC 28805
[e-mail]
828-699-3697

C. Reed Rossell, Jr
Certified Wildlife Biologist
239 Moody Cove Rd.
Weaverville, NC 28787
[e-mail]
828-658-3210

VERSANTBAIRD COVE TRACT
' EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is located at the end of Baird Cove Road, offof Merrimon Avenue, just outside
Woodfin Town limits in Buncombe County, NC. The mountainous site falls within in the Blue
Ridge Physiographic Province. The majority of the site has been logged and has resulted in mixed
' pine/hardwood assemblages. Numerous logging roads currently exist on the site. Natural
communities range from seep/wetlands associated with intermittent to perennial streams to
montane pine-oak-hickory forest along ridges and slopes. The site is mostly covered by montane
' pine-oak-hickory forest with low mountain alluvial forest and low elevation seeps along the
streams.
Elevations range from approximately 2400 feet along the main stream (referred to as Baird Cove
Creek) to 2960 feet along ridgetops. The topography is moderate to steep including most side
' slopes and valleys. The forest communities are successional with a mixed pine-hardwood canopy.
Areas along lower steep slopes, north facing slopes and along streams have a more natural
community assemblage, although past logging has also disturbed many of these smaller
' communities. The streams and their associated seeps and wetlands on the site have been
disturbed by past timbering as well, but not to the extent of the surrounding slopes and ridges.
The main stream running through the site, Baird Cove Creek, and its floodplain are of good
' quality (except in areas where logging roads have prevented vegetated buffers) and supports a
variety of habitat for flora and fauna. Plant species diversity is good within the alluvial forest and
associated seeps/wetlands. The wetland features associated with the streams are of high quality
' and include areas inundated and saturated, and covered with a diversity of hydrophytic vegetation.
Baird Cove Creek is a good quality, montane, perennial stream. The stream is in the Upper
' French Broad River watershed (06010105). Baird Cove Creek flows into Beaverdam Creek
before draining into the French Broad River. The French Broad River flows into Douglas Lake
and becomes the Tennessee River after its union with the Holston River in Tennessee. The
' Tennessee River flows into the Ohio River, which flows into the Mississippi River which drains
into the Gulf of Mexico. No evidence of high nutrient or chemical discharges was noted at Baird
Cove Creek and all parameters measured fell within acceptable levels. Numerous
macroinvertebrates, amplu~bians, and other wildlife were observed in the stream or adjacent to it.
' The uplands on-site are primarily dry with steep topography. There is a relatively low diversity of
community types and relatively low species diversity within the largest community type (especially
m pme dominated areas). Pine needle accumulations covering the forest floor have contributed to
' the lower species diversity. Species of pine (white, scrub, short-leaf, etc.) dominate most of the
site's canopy mixed with various oaks and successional species. Areas of less disturbance and
chestnut oaks dominating the canopy are of higher quality and have a higher species diversity and
' abundance. These potential communities are small and fragmented and have been recently
impacted by widening old logging roads. North facing slopes, especially along the northern ridge,
were of good quality and typically maintain a higher plant species diversity and abundance. The
' highest quality habitats on the site are the alluvial forests and seeps along Baird Cove Creek and
the other smaller tributaries and streams, and oak-hickory forest and chestnut oak dominated
areas along the northern ridge, and along north facing slopes.
Please refer to the full report "Protected Species Survey, Habitat Assessment, and Aquatic
Stream Survey -Versant/Baird Cove Tract "for more detailed information and results.

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY, HABITAT ASSESSMENT,
AND
AQUATIC STREAM SURVEY
VERSANT/BAIRD COVE TRACT
INVESTIGATORS AND AUTHORS: Jeffrey A. Levi, Botanist/Environmental
Biologist, a-mail: eap [e-mail]; Phone: [phone]; C. Reed Rossell, Jr,
Certified Wildlife Biologist; Patrick J. Kealy, Wetlands and Aquatics Scientist.
DATE SUBMITTED: August 6, 2006.
SURVEY DATES: May 29 -June 21, 2006.
LOCATION: Property located at the end of Baird Cove Road, off of Merrimon Avenue,
just outside Woodfin Town limits.
COUNTY AND STATE: Buncombe, North Carolina.
PROVINCE: Blue Ridge Physiographic Province.
WATERSHED: Upper French Broad (06010105).
ELEVATION RANGE: Approximately 2400- 2960 feet.
SIZE OF TRACT: 360 acres. USGS QUAD: Weaverville.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Field surveys were conducted in June of 2006 to assess
any potential protected species inhabiting the Versant/Baird Cove site in Woodfin, NC.
This included a thorough survey, habitat assessment, and development of observed
species lists, and descriptions and a map of the natural communities on-site. An aquatic
stream survey was also conducted to assess the perennial nature of Baird Cove Creek
(main stream flowing through the site) and its water quality and macroinvertebrate
populations. No protected species were observed at the site. A total of 181 plant taxa
and 59 animal taxa were observed during the surveys. The site is mostly covered by
montane pine-oak-hickory forest with low mountain alluvial forest and low elevation
seeps along the streams. Baird Cove Creek is a good quality perennial stream. No
evidence of high nutrient or chemical discharges was noted. Numerous
macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and other wildlife were observed in the stream or around
it during the survey. Areas along the streams and wetlands, ridges, and north facing
slopes should be avoided if possible to maintain the site's ecological integrity.

' PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES SURVEY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT
' Plant Species Surve
Methods: Field surveys consisted of walking the majority of the site and recording all
plant species observed. Survey emphasis was on the potential occurrence of state- and
federally-listed species and unique habitats. All major roads, ridges, slopes and
tributaries of the property were walked. Recorded plants were organized into natural
communities based upon species assemblages and physical characteristics such as
elevation and moisture regime.
' The plant species of concern can be found in Appendix E. This list was derived from
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Buncombe county -element
occurrences. December 16, 2005. http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html., and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Threatened and endangered species in North
' Carolina -Buncombe county. Updated February S, 2003. http: //nc-
esfws.gov/es/countyfr.html. Only those species with state or federal protection were
included in the revised list.
Results: No state or federally listed plant species, rare plant communities or habitats
were observed during the survey. Potential habitat does exist for several of the species of
concern (i.e. piratebush), but is typically disturbed from surrounding logging.
A total of 181 plant taxa were recorded (Appendix A). This includes 75 woody (trees,
shrubs, and vines) and 106 herbaceous (wildflowers, herbs, and ferns) taxa. The plants
range from typical piedmont species to more montane and ]ow elevation mountain
species. lnvasive exotics such as Oriental bittersweet, privet, multiflora rose,
microstegium, and Japanese knotweed have established across the site especially in open
canopy areas and along open edge communities (i.e. along roads). Typical plants
observed in their communities are listed in the Natural Community Description.
Habitat Assessment (Plant Perspective)
The majority of the site has been logged and has resulted in mixed pine/hardwood
assemblages. Natural communities range from seep/wetlands associated with intermittent
to perennial streams to montane pine-oak-hickory forest along ridges and slopes. The
Natural Community Description section discusses these communities in more detail.
Elevations range from approximately 2400 feet along the main stream (referred to as
Baird Cove Creek) to 2960 feet along ridgetops. The topography is moderate to steep
including most side slopes and valleys. The forest communities are successional with a
mixed pine-hardwood canopy. Areas along lower steep slopes, north facing slopes and
along streams have a more natural community assemblage, although past logging has also
disturbed many of these smaller communities. The streams and their associated seeps

' and wetlands on the site have been disturbed by past timbering as well, but not to the
extent of the surrounding slopes and ridges. The main stream running through the site,
Baird Cove Creek, and its floodplain are of good quality (except in areas where logging
' roads have prevented vegetated buffers) and supports a variety of habitat for flora and
fauna. Plant species diversity is good within the alluvial forest and associated
seeps/wetlands. The Aquatic Stream Survey section describes the water resources of the
' site in more detail.
The uplands on-site are primarily dry with steep topography. Surveys reveal a relatively
low diversity of community types and relatively low species diversity within the largest
community type (especially in pine dominated areas). Pine needle accumulations
covering the forest floor have contributed to the lower species diversity. Species of pine
(white, scrub, short-leaf, etc.) dominate most of the site's canopy mixed with various
' oaks and successional species. Areas of less disturbance and chestnut oaks dominating
the canopy are of higher quality and have a higher species diversity and abundance.
These potential communities are too small and fragmented to note and have been recently
' impacted by widening old logging roads. North facing slopes, especially along the
northern ridge, were of good quality and typically maintain a higher plant species
diversity and abundance.
' i
d
r
Cove
The highest quality habitats on the site are the alluvial forests and seeps along Ba
Creek and the other smaller tributaries and streams, and oak-hickory forest and chestnut
' oak dominated areas along the northern ridge, and along north facing slopes.
' PROTECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES SURVEY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Wildlife Species Survey,

Methods: Field surveys consisted of walking major roads, including old logging roads,
as well as newly constructed roads, and recording all faunal species heard or seen,
including all animal signs (i.e., tracks, scat, etc.). Survey emphasis was on the potential
occurrence of state- and federally-listed species and unique habitats. All major tributaries
of the property were walked, and many of the upland habitats were bushwacked. Road
' construction and logging were on-going during some parts of the surveys.
The animal species of concern can be found in Appendix E. This list was derived from
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Buncombe county -element
occurrences. December 16, 2005. http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html., and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Threatened and endangered species in North
Carolina -Buncombe county. Updated February S, 2003. http://nc-
esfws.gov/es/countyfr.html. Only those species with state or federal protection were
' included in the revised list.
1
1
1

1 Results: No state- orfederally-listed species or unique habitats were observed on the
property. A list of fauna recorded during surveys is provided in Appendix B.
t Habitat Assessment (Wildlife Perspective)
' Overall, the site contains good-quality wildlife habitat. Most of the property is forested,
however, much of the site is disturbed as many of the roads for the proposed development
have been cut in. The site contains primarily young stands of second-growth
(approximately 15-25 years old) trees dominated by a variety of oaks and hickories, white
pine, yellow poplar, black cherry, and sugar maple. Stands at the lower and mid-
elevations are generally single-aged and contain a larger component of white pine than
stands at the higher elevations. Stands at the higher elevations, particularly those on the
north-side of the ridge, where the topography is steep, are more mature (50-75 years-old),
and are dominated by chestnut oak, red oak, white pine and yellow poplar. In most of the
uplands, the shrub layer is moderately developed, and the herbaceous layer is sparse as a
' result of needle litter from white pines. As a result of past logging, the site is generally
depauperate of large, down woody debris, and contains only moderate levels of snags and
tree cavities, features important to many species of wildlife. A few rock outcrops were
observed, which contain crevices large enough for medium- and small-sized mammals.
' No evidence of woodrat activity was apparent at the rock outcrops. Many of the steeper
slopes, especially those on the northern-half of the property, contain some areas of loose,
' talus rock, which provide good habitat for snakes. Invasive non-native plants, including
are prevalent throughout much of the site
Oriental bittersweet and multiflora rose
.
,
Baird Cove Creek (1-5 feet wide, 1-6 inches deep) and a smaller feeder stream (6-8
' inches wide, 1-3 inches deep) are the two main water sources on the property. Both
streams are fed by several springs and contain small seep areas near their source. A few
vernal pools are associated with seep areas along Baird Cove Creek, as well as some
' small channels containing softball-sized rocks, which form good breeding habitat for
amphibians. Baird Cove Creek has a moderate gradient, with a sandy bottom
interspersed with some large rocks, and contains good-quality stream salamander habitat.
Stands adjacent to both streams are generally alluvial hardwood forests dominated by
' sweet birch, yellow poplar, and red maple. The shrub layer along Baird Cove Creek is
moderately developed, and the herbaceous layer iswell-developed and rich.
' The highest quality habitats on the site are the alluvial and adjacent forests along Baird
Cove Creek and the oak-hickory forest on the ridge and northern slopes on the
northeastern side of the property. The alluvial and adjacent upland forests along Baird
' Cove Creek provide high quality breeding habitats for a diversity of amphibians
including four species of salamanders, two species of tree frogs, and the American toad
(see list for specie's names). These forests also provide good quality breeding habitat for
many neotropical migrant songbirds, including acadian flycatcher, eastern pewee, wood
' thrush, ovenbird, hooded warbler, and scarlet tanager. The mature oak-hickory forest
along the ridge and northern slopes provide excellent upland habitat for many species of
' wildlife including ruffed grouse, wild turkey, gray squirrel, coyote, and black bear, as

4

well as many neotropical migrant songbirds including yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow-
throated vireo, blue-headed vireo, black-throated green warbler, ovenbird, black-and-
' white warbler, and worm-eating warbler.
' NATURAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Vegetation was identified and grouped into community classifications adapted from
S .h ale. M. P. and A. S Weaklev. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina. NCNHP, NCDEHNR. An observed plant species list can be found in Appendix
A. A map of the terrestrial plant communities can be found in Appendix C.
Montane Pine-Oak-Hickory Forest
' The pine dominated montane oak-hickory forest covers most of the site. The majority of
the uplands are of this forest type. The forest is in poor to fair condition with evidence of
past logging activities resulting in the mixed pine-hardwood canopy. The canopy is
generally closed with a sparse to dense shrub layer, and a sparse to dense herbaceous
1 layer. Small areas within this community type are less disturbed and have a stronger
hardwood component. Several small areas of chestnut oak dominated forest exist along
the north facing slope of the northern ridge. These areas are of higher quality including a
more dense and diverse understory.
The canopy supports white pine, scrub pine, short-leaf pine, chestnut oak, white oak, red
' oak, black oak, hickory, mockernut hickory, pale hickory, pignut hickory, yellow poplar,
tree of heaven, and a few princess tree, black walnut, and eastern hemlock. The
understory includes transgressives, flowering dogwood, red maple, sourwood, black
' cherry, sweet birch, cucumber tree, black locust, honey locust, hawthorne, black gum,
and white ash. The shrub layer supports mountain laurel, great laurel, rhododendron,
blackberry, vaccinium, rose, St. Johns wort, privet, coralberry, Japanese meadow sweet,
red mulberry, serviceberry, wild yam, sassafras, sumac, devil's walking stick, and wild
' hydrangea. Vines include Virginia creeper, greenbrier, Oriental bittersweet, poison ivy,
leather flower, and grape. The sparse to dense herbaceous layer supports false solomon's
seal, Solomon's seal, bloodroot, sweet Cicely, honewort, false goats beard, goats beard,
' aster, alumroot, black cohosh, galax, agrimony, New Jersey tea, white bergamot,
Canadian black snakeroot, microstegium, richweed, ]opseed, greater tickseed, marginal
woodfern, broad beech fern, maidenhair fern, hairystem spiderwort, nodding trillium,
' rattlesnake plantain, spotted wintergreen, cinquefoil, Christmas fern, whorled loosestrife,
mayapple, and ragwort.
' Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
' The low mountain alluvial forest is limited to the floodplain of Baird Cove Creek and its
associated small tributary streams, and small areas along the Northern ridge. The largest
1
1

' and most diverse example is along Baird Cove Creek. This community has a mix of
montane/piedmont species and characteristics. The upper areas along the stream are of
high quality with associated seeps, wetlands, and springs. Plant species diversity is good
' with the smaller habitats contributing to overall diversity. The lower areas near the main
road have been bush-hogged and denuded in some areas resulting in a lower quality
forest with little to no vegetated stream buffer. The smaller areas of low mountain
' alluvial forest along smaller streams are of good quality, but are more limited to areas
immediately adjacent to the streams. Many of these areas are less disturbed than upland
communities and should be avoided/protected in the development process.
'
The canopy supports red maple, green ash, sweet birch, red oak, yellow poplar, oak, and
various pine and hardwood species from surrounding communities. The understory
includes transgressives, ironwood, slippery elm, plum/cherry, black gum, black cherry,
and a few American beech, sourwood, buckeye, and eastern hemlock. Shrubs include tag
alder, witch hazel, elderberry, black haw, Japanese barberry, rose, sweetshrub, spicebush,
and privet. Vines include Oriental bittersweet, Virginia creeper, and summer grape. The
1 herbaceous layer includes ragwort, smartweed, jewelweed, wood nettle, buttercup,
Newyork fern, Christmas fern, glade fern, cinnamon fern, royal fern, rock polypody,
bedstraw, lopseed, squawroot, Japanese knotweed, windflower, bugbane, Indian
cucumber root, richweed, primrose willow, jack in the pulpit, thoroughwort, cut-leaf
coneflower, and whorled loosestrife.
Low Elevation Seep
Low elevation seeps are associated with small, steep streams along the valleys across the
site (typically fall within the low mountain alluvial forests or along small streams without
a definitive alluvial forest component). These small communities typically have an open
canopy with some trees from surrounding communities providing cover. The understory
' is often relatively sparse especially in inundated/ponded areas. The floodplain and
headwaters of Baird Cove Creek are good representatives of this community type with
seep features also along the smaller tributaries. The quality is higher than the
surrounding communities as logging in these areas can be difficult and is often avoided.
' Areas close to heavily logged areas and along logging road crossings are more disturbed
with more species establishing from surrounding communities.
The low elevation seep includes red maple, sweet birch, and green ash in the sparse
canopy. Shrubs include tag alder, elderberry, and spicebush. Vines include greenbrier,
and poison ivy. The herb/fern layer includes cinnamon fern, hay-scented fern, glade fern,
' wood nettle, jack in the pulpit, jumpseed, primrose willow, jewelweed, clearweed, cutleaf
coneflower, buttercup, asters, smartweed, soft rush, water horehound, violet, and rock
polypody on exposed boulders.

1

1
' AQUATIC STREAM SURVEY
' Methods: Three stations were chosen to accurately assess the entire Baird Cove Creek
within the project area. Methods for each of the following categories are listed below:
Physical Characterization
Land use was determined by observing whether the surrounding land use was urban,
industrial, residential, heavy agriculture, light agriculture, timber harvesting, or forested.
Widths and depths were measured in feet using a tape divided into tenths of feet. Stream
characteristics (sinuosity, substrate, floodplain, etc.) were assessed through the 3 data
forms completed at each station.
' Chemical Characterization
Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, and Conductivity were analyzed using a WTW
Multiline P4 water quality meter. These measurements were taken at the stream station.
. tream ~a ity & Habitat Assessment
' Data forms from the North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ), "Habitat
Assessment Forms: Mountain/Piedmont and Coastal Plain "and "Stream Identification
Form -Version 3.1 ", and from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE),
"Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet -Version 06/03 "were completed to assess the
perennial nature and water quality of Baird Cove Creek and its habitats.
Benthic MacroinvertebrateBfological Assessment
A modified version of the NCDENR (2001) EPT rapid assessment method and a Qua15
' method was used to sample benthic macroinvertebrate (BMl) populations. Kick samples
were taken from riffle areas using a kick net. Leaf pack samples were taken from random
areas within the ~ 300 foot section of stream. Sweep net samples were taken to get under
' root mats and undercut banks. Visual inspections of rocks, twigs, leaves, etc. were done
to cover any areas missed by the above mentioned methods.
' Samples were analyzed and sorted by station and order, placed in vials containing 70%
isopropyl alcohol, and transported to the lab. Each specimen within each vial was
identified to Order level and recorded. Abundance (#specimens) of each Order was
calculated and reported. Further taxonomic identifications can be completed if requested.
Results/Discussion:
Baird Cove Creek is the main stream/wetland complex on the site. Several small
tributaries and numerous seeps and springs supply constant flows with good ground water
recharge. The aquatic survey revealed that the stream is perennial with good habitat for
' benthic macroinvertebrates and various amphibians. The water quality is good with no
7

evidence of high nutrient/chemical discharges. The results of the physical, chemical, and
macroinvertebrate surveys can be found in Appendix D.
' Baird Cove Creek is a relatively small (1- 5 feet wide) stream with a moderate gradient
and good sinuosity. The banks are mostly stable, except in areas immediately adjacent to
the road. The substrate is diverse with a vari ety of rocks, boulders, and cobble rather
loosely embedded in the sandy/gravel stream bed.
The pH of the water is cicrumneutral with a relatively low conductivity (probably the
' result of underlying granitic bedrock). Dissolved oxygen levels and temperatures are
within acceptable parameters for supporting aquatic life. The turbidity of the water
increased as one moves downstream, most likely a result of higher construction and
' grading activities mid-stream to the bottom of the site. Sediment pollution was evident in
the lower reaches of the project area.
The macroinvertebrate survey revealed a relatively diverse assemblage of orders/taxa
given the small size and available habitat of the stream. Abundance within the orders
was fair to good showing the good health of existing populations and hopefully ensuring
a high reproductive success for these organisms into the future. Overall abundance
' decreased slightly at the lower station and is likely the result of higher sedimentation.
The overall quality ofthe Baird Cove Creek and its floodplain is good and is the highest
quality natural area on the site. Caution must be exercised when working and developing
around the stream as any major disturbance along Baird Cove Creek may significantly
reduce the habitat availability and degrade the existing good water quality.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
' • It is suggested that the forested areas adjacent to Baird Cove Creek and the ridge and
its northern slopes be left undisturbed to protect the water quality of Baird Cove
' Creek and to maintain the integrity of the wildlife habitat. Awell-developed logging
road follows the north side of the ridge through the mature portion of the oak-hickory
forest and would make an excellent hiking trail and protected area for residents of the
' proposed Versant development.
' • Smaller habitats including rock outcrops, seeps, springs, lower slopes, and small areas
of chestnut oak dominated forest should be avoided in the development process.
These sensitive communities provide refugia for unique species and do not respond
well to changes in land-use or impacts from development. Given the nature of these
' communities (difficulty in developing rock outcrops and steep lower slopes) and the
protection already in place for the wetland and stream areas, these habitats should be
have some protection already. These small, aesthetically pleasing habitats should be
showcased as unique ecological areas within the overall development.

• Access roads should be aligned to the current logging roads when feasible.
Especially the main arteries going along the ridges to future homesites. This will
prevent any further fragmentation of the forests and reduce the further establishment
of exotic/invasive species.
'
• Past management for timber harvesting has resulted in pine dominated forests where
hardwood species would be dominating. The overall ecological value of the site
would be improved through removal of dense areas of pine. This includes areas
' dominated by white pine, scrub pine, and short-leaf pine. Selective cutting of pine
species would accelerate the succession to hardwood dominated forests and lead to an
increase in species diversity. Left alone these communities may succeed to hardwood
dominated forests over a longer period of time.

' APPENDIX A:
OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES LIST
1
' 10

OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES LIST
Common Name Scientific Name
Woody Vegetation
American beech Fagus grandifolia
Black cherry Prunus serotina
Black gum Nyssa sylvatica
Black oak Quercus velutina
Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia
Black walnut Juglans nigra
Blackberry Rubus spp.
Blackhaw Viburnum prunifolium
Box elder Acer negundo
Buckeye Aesculus sp.
Buckthorn Rhamnus caroliniana
Chestnut oak Quercus prinus
Chinquapin Castanea pumila
Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Cucumber tree Magnolia acuminata
Devil's walking stick Aralia spinosa
Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Flowering dogwood Cornus Florida
Grape Vitis sp.
Great laurel Rhododendron maximum
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Greenbrier Smilax spp.
Hawthorne Cratageus sp.
Hickory Carya spp.
Holly Ilex sp.
Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos
Honeysuckle Lonicera spp.
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii
Japanese meadow sweet Spiraea japonica
Leather flower Clematis sp.
Mock orange Philadelphus sp.
Mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa
Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia
Multiflora rose Rosa mult~ora
Oak Quercus spp.

' Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus
Pale hickory Carya pallida
Pignut hickory Carya glabra
' Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica
Pine Pinus sp.
Plum/cherry Prunus sp.
' Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Princess tree Paulownaa tomentosa

' Privet
Red maple Ligustrum sinense
Acer rubrum
Red mulberry Morus rubra
Red oak Quercus rubra
' Redbud Cercis canadensis
Rhododendron Rhododendron spp.
Rose Rosa sp.
' St. Johnswort Hypericum spp.
Sassafras Sassafras albidum
Scrub pine Pinus virginiana
Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea
' Short-leaf pine Pinus echinata
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
Smooth sumac Rhus glabra
' Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum
Spicebush Lindera benzoin
Sugar maple Acer saccharum
Sumac Rhus sp.
Sweet birch Betula lenta
Sweet shrub Calycanthus floridus
' Tag alder Alnus serrulata
Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima
Vaccinium Vaccinium spp.
' Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
White ash Fraxmus ameracana
White oak Quercus alba
White pine Pinus strobus
Wild hydrangea Hydrangea arborescens
Witch hazel Hamamelis virginiana
' Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
' Herbaceous Vegetation/Ferns
Agrimony Agrimonia sp.
' Alumroot Heuchera americana
12

American bellflower Campanulastrum americanum
Aster Aster spp.
Beautybush Kolkwitzia amabilis
Bedstraw Galium spp.
Black cohosh Cimicifuga racemosa
Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis
Blue cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides
Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium sp.
Bowman's root Gillenia trifoliata
Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum
Broad beech fern Thelypteris hexagonoptera
Bugbane Trautvetteria caroliniensis
Buttercup Ranunculus sp.
Canadian black snakeroot Sanicula canadensis
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Cinquefoil Potentilla spp.
Clearweed Pilea pumila
Clustered black snakeroot Sanicula gregaria
Common grape fern Botrychium dissectum
Common plantain Plantago major
Cutleaf coneflower Rudbeckia lacinata
Day lily Hemerocallis sp.
Dock Rumex sp.
Ebony spleenwort Asplenium plaryneuron
Evening primrose Oenothera sp.
False goats beard Astilbe biternata
False Solomon's seal Smilacina racemosa
Fire pink Silene virginica
Fleabane Erigeron sp.
Galax Galax aphylla
Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata
Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida
Ginseng Panax quinquefolium
Glade fern Athyrium pycnocarpon
Goats beard Aruncus dioica
Goldenrod Solidago sp.
Greater tickseed Coreopsis major
Hairy skullcap Scutellaria elliptica
Hairystem spiderwort Tradescantia hirsuticaulis
Hay-scented fern Dennstaedtia puctilobula
Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis
Indian cucumber Medeola virginiana
Iris Iris sp.
13

' Jack in the pulpit Arisaema triphyllum
Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum
Jewelweed
Jumpseed Impatiens capensis
Polygonum virginianum
Lettuce Lactuca sp.

' Lobelia
Lopseed Lobelia app.
Phryma leptostachya
Lyre leaved sage Salvia lyrata
Maidenhair fern Adiantum pedatum
' Marginal woodfern Dryopteris marginalia
Mayapple Podophyllum peltatum
Meadow parsnip Thaspium barbinode
' Meadow rue Thalictrum sp.
Microstegium Microstegium vimineum
Milkweed Asclepias app.
' New Jersey tea Ceonothus americanus
New York fern Thelypteris noveboracensis
Nodding trillium Trillium cernuum
Orchid Orchis sp. (prob. spectabilis)
Oxe-eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Perfoliate bellwort Uvularia perfoliata
Pokeweed Phytolacca americana
' Primrose willow Ludwigia sp.
Ragweed Ambrosia artemesiifolia
Ragwort Senecio sp. (prob. aureus)
Rattle snake fern Botrychium virginianum
Rattlesnake plantain Goodyera pubescens
Rattlesnake root
Red clover Prenanthes app.
Trifolium pratense
Richweed Collinsonia canadensis
Rock polypody Polypodium virginianum
' Royal fern Osmunda regalia var. spectabilis
Skullcap Scutellaria sp.
Smartweed Polygonum sp.
Soft rush Juncus sp.
Solomon's seal Polygonatum bi florum
Spotted wintergreen Chimaphila maculata
' Stonecrop Sedum sp. (prob. ternatum)
Squawroot Conopholis americana
Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza claytonii
Sweet scented joe pye weed Eupatorium purpureum
' Thoroughwort Eupatorium app.
Tick trefoil Desmodium sp.
' Trillium Trillium sp.
1
14
1

1

1

1
Venus' pride Houstonia purpurea
Violet Viola spp.
Water horehound Lycopus sp.
White bergamot Monarda clinopodia
Whorled loosestrife Lysimachia quadrifolia
Wild geranium Geranium maculatum
Wild yam Dioscorea villosa
Windflower Anemone virginiana
Winged euonymus Euonymus alata
Wingstem Verbesina alternifolia
Wood nettle Laportea canadensis
Wood sorrel Oxalis sp.
Yarrow Achillea millefolium
Yellow crownbeard Verbesina occidentalis
Yellow mandarin Prosartes lanuginosa
Zigzag spiderwort Tradescantia subaspera
15
1

1

' APPENDIX B:
' OBSERVED WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST

1
1
1
1
1
1

t

1
1
I6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
OBSERVED WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
BUTTERFLYS
Great Spangled Fritillary (Speyeria Cybele)
AMPHIBIANS
Northern Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)
Mountain Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus)
Redback Salamander (Plethodon cinerus)
Spring Salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus)
American Toad (Bufo americanus)
Spring Peeper (Hyla crucifer)
Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)
REPTILES
Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus)
Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Black Racer (Coluber constrictor)
Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix)
BIRDS
Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus)
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris)
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)
Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)
Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)
Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus)
Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens)
Eastern Pewee (Contopus vixens)
Purple Martin (Progne subis)
Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica)
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata)
Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinensis)
Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor)
17

' White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)
Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus)
Brown Thrasher (Taxostoma rufum)
Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)
Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum)
Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus)
' Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons)
Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius)
Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia)
' Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens)
Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus)
Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina)
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus)
' American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis)
Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea)
Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)
' Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea)
Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
MAMMALS
Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus)
Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus)
' Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
t Coyote (Canis latrans)
Black Bear (Ursus americana)
' ]8

APPENDIX C:

1
1

1
1

APPROXIMATE NATURAL COMMUNITY MAP
19

~ ~ ~ ~

' APPENDIX D:
TABLE 1. CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF
BAIRD COVE CREEK.
TABLE 2. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES OF BAIRD COVE
CREEK.
21

Table 1. CHEMICAUPHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF BAIRD COVE CREEK.
Temperature (C)
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
%saturation
Conductivity (uS)
Turbidity
Mean Depth (ft)*
existing water
Mean Width (ft)*
bankfull
existing water
NC DWQ Habitat Evaluation Form Score
(Out of 100 possible points)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Score
(z19 =Intermittent; z30 =Perennial)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
(Out of 100 possible points)
Surrounding Land Use
BCV1 BCV2 BCV3

15.87 16.36 17.36
7.71 7.60 7.76
7.95 8.63 8.25
89.10 95.80 94.50
27 31 50
Clear Slightly turbid Slightly turbid
0.05 0.08 0.07
14.8 21.0 15.1
4.3 4.7 4.9
85 77 68
37.25 39.25 39.75
67 71 60
Forested Forested Forested w/open
road ROW

1

Table 2. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES OF BAIRD COVE CREEK.
' Order Abundance Abundance Abundance
station BCV1 station BCV2 station BCV3
' Ephemeroptera 7 11 18
Plecoptera 26 39 30
Trichoptera 32 14 11
Odonata 9 8 4
Diptera 3 3 3
Mollusca 11 13 9

Total # Organisms 88 88 75

' APPENDIX E:
' TABLE 1. PROTECTED SPECIES OF CONCERN IN BUNCOMBE
COUNTY (2005).
TABLE 2. EXPLANATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CODES.
' 24

TABLE 1. SPECIES OF CONCERN IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY (USFWS(2005), NCNHP-County (2005)).
Maior Groua Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status
Mammal Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat T FSC
Mammal Glaucomys sabrinus co/oratus Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel E E
Mammal Myotis grisescens Gray Myotis E E
Mammal Myotis /eibii Eastern Small-footed Myotis SC FSC
Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis SC -
Mammal Neotoma floridana haematoreia Eastern Woodrat -Southern SC FSC
Appalachian Population
Mammal Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat SC FSC
Mammal Puma concolor couguar Eastern Cougar E E
Mammal Sorex dispar Long-tailed Shrew SC -
Mammal Sorex palustris punctulatus Southern Water Shrew SC FSC
Bird Aegolius acadicus pop 1 Southern Appalachian Northern Saw- T FSC
whet Owl
Bird Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow SC FSC
Bird Certhia amencana Brown Creeper SC -
Bird Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon E -
Bird Loxia curvirostra pop 1 Southern Appalachian Red Crossbill SC FSC
Bird Poecile atricapilla practica Southern Appalachian Black-capped SC FSC
Chickadee
Bird Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis Appalachian Yellow-bellied Sapsucker SC FSC
Bird Thryomanes bewickii altos Appalachian Bewick's Wren E FSC
Reptile Apalone spinifera spinifera Eastern Spiny Softshell SC -
Reptile Crotalus honidus Timber Rattlesnake SC -
Reptile Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T T(S/A)
Amphibian Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander SC -
Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender SC FSC
Amphibian Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander SC -
Amphibian Necturus maculosus Common Mudpuppy SC -
Amphibian Plethodon ventralis Southern Zigzag Salamander SC -
Amphibian Plethodon yonahlossee pop 1 Crevice Salamander SC -
Fish Cyprinella monacha Spotfin Chub T T
Fish Percina burtoni Blotchside Darter E -
Fish Percina macrocephala Longhead Darter SC FSC
Fish Polyodon spathula Paddlefish E FSC
Mollusk Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian Elktoe E E
Mollusk Discus bryanti Saw-tooth Disc SC -
Mollusk Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel EX E

TABLE 1. SPECIES OF CONCERN IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY (USFWS(2005), NCNHP-County (2005)).
Maior Group Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status
Mollusk Medionidus conradicus Cumberland Moccasinshell EX -
Mollusk Paravitrea andrewsae High Mountain Supercoil SC -
Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen T E
Vascular Plant Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush E FSC
Vascular Plant Ca/amagrostis cainii Cain's Reed Grass E FSC
Vascular Plant Euphorbia purpurea Glade Spurge SR-T FSC
Vascular Plant Filipendula rubra Queen-of-the-prairie E -
Vascular Plant Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E-SC E
Vascular Plant Hexastylis contracts Mountain Heartleaf E FSC
Vascular Plant Hexastylis rhombiformis French Broad Heartleaf SR-L FSC
Vascular Plant Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal E-SC -
Vascular Plant Juncus trifidus Highland Rush E -
Vascular Plant Lilium grayi Gray's Lily T-SC FSC
Vascular Plant Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's Loosestrife E FSC
Vascular Plant Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap SR-T FSC
Vascular Plant Packers millefolium Divided-leaf Ragwort T FSC
Vascular Plant Pamassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus T FSC
Vascular Plant Rudbeckia triloba var pinnatiloba Pinnate-lobed Black-eyed Susan SR-T FSC
Vascular Plant Sagiftaria fasciculata Bunched Arrowhead E E
Vascular Plant Sarracenia jonesii Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant E-SC E
Vascular Plant Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina Saxifrage SR-T FSC
Vascular Plant Senecio schweinitzianus Schweinitz's Ragwort E -
Vascular Plant Silene ousts Mountain Catchfly SR-T FSC
Vascular Plant Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea E T

' TABLE 2. EXPLANATION OF CODES FOR COUNTY AND QUAD STATUS LISTS (NCNHP-
explanation codes (2005)).
' The county and quadrangle status lists provided by the NC Natural Heritage Program tally the elements of natural diversity (rare
plants and animals, rare and exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to occur in all North Carolina
counties and USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. The information on which these lists is based comes from a variety of sources, including
field surveys, museums, herbaria, scientific literature, and personal communications. These lists are dynamic, with new records
' continually being added and old records being revised as new information is received. As a result, a list cannot be considered a
definitive record of the elements of natural diversity present in a given county or quad and should not be used as a substitute for field
surveys.

1
1
1
1
STATE STATUS
CODE ! STATUS CODE STATLiS
E Endangered SR Significantly Rare
T Threatened EX Extirpated
SC Special Concern P_ Proposed (E, T, or SC)
C Candidate
NOTE: the definitions of state statuses of plants and animals differ. Below are summaries of the statuses for each group.
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage Program
(NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concem species are protected by state
law (Plant Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). Candidate and Significantly Rare designations indicate razity and the need for
population monitoring and conservation action. Note that plants can have a double status, e.g., E-SC, indicates that while the plant is
endangered, it is collected or sold under regulation.
ODES STATUS ? DEFINITION
'Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
E ' Endangered : etermined to be in jeopardy" (GS 19B 106: 202.12). (Endangered species may not be removed from the wild
xcept when a permit is obtained for research, propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the
peciesJ
'Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
T Threatened hroughout all or a significant portion of its range" (GS 19B 106:202.12). (Regulations are the same as for
ndangered species.)
'Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under
Special ? egulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B 106:202.12).
SC '
n
r
C Special Concern species which are not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from the wild
o
ce
n
~' nd sold under specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species which are also listed as ~'
` ndangered or Threatened may be traded or sold under specific regulations.)

1
1
pecies which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
ubstantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease).
ese species are also either rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total) or disjunct in North '
arolina from a main range in a different part of the country or world. Also included are species which may
C Candidate ave 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide. These are species which
ave the preponderance of their distribution in North Carolina and whose fate depends largely on their
onservation here. Also included are many species known to have once occurred in North Carolina but with no
nown extant occurrences in the state (historical or extirpated species); if these species are relocated in the state, '
hey are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened. If present land use trends continue, candidate species
e likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened.
` pecies which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
ubstantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease).
SR ~gmficantly` ese species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina
Rare '. eripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. Also included are
ome species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50-100 populations rangewide
dare declining.
e range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states (endemic or near endemic). These are
' pecies which may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide. The
_L Limited reponderance of their distribution is in North Carolina and their fate depends largely on conservation here. Also'
ncluded are some species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50-100 populations
angewide and declining.
_T ; Throughout ese species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total)
_D Disjunct a species is disjunct to NC from a main range in a different part of the country or world.
i
e species is at the periphery of its range in NC. These species are generally more common somewhere else in
_P Peripheral ° heir ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual ',
' n North Carolina.
_O Other e range of the species is sporadic or cannot be described by the other Significantly Rare categories
P Proposed species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has
- of yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
Animal statuses are determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, Threatened,
' and Special Concern species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, and freshwater and terrestrial mollusks have
legal protection status in North Carolina (Wildlife Resources Commission). The Significantly Rare designation indicates rarity and the
need for population monitoring and conservation action.

1
1
CODE ~ STATUS ~ DEFINITION f
'Any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the
E
' Endangered ~ tate's fauna is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild
'
imal determined to be an
endangered species' pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of
~ hapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987).
'Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within
T ~ Threatened he foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a
E hreatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
tatutes; 1987).
Special Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife
SC
Concern esources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the
rovisions of this Article." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987).

ny species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered,
reatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
etennined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring. (This is a N.C. Natural Heritage
SR Significantly ' rogram designation.) Significantly Rare species include "peripheral" species, whereby North Carolina lies at
Raze i he periphery of the species' range (such as Hermit Thrush). The designation also includes marine and
stuarine fishes identified as "Vulnerable" by the N.C. State Museum of Biological Sciences (Ross et al.,
1988, Endangered. Threatened. and Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. A Reevaluation of the Marine and
s arine Fi hes .
EX Extirpated species which is no longer believed to occur in the state.
pecies has been proposed by a Scientific Council as a status (Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern,
atch List, or for De-listing) that is different from the current status, but the status has not yet been adopted
P_ Proposed ' y the Wildlife Resources Commission and by the General Assembly as law. In the lists of rare species in
': his book, these proposed statuses aze listed in parentheses below the current status. Only those proposed
tatuses that are different from the current statuses are listed.
' FEDERAL STATUS
These statuses are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are
protectedunder the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise
noted,definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE STATUS DEFINITION
E Endangered taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all
r a significant portion of its range."
Endangered, nonessential he Endangered Species Act permits the reintroduction of endangered animals as "nonessential i
"
EXN
experimental population. xperimental
populations. Such populations, considered nonessential to the survival of the
; pecies, are managed with fewer restrictions than populations listed as endangered.
he Endangered Species Act authorizes the treatment of a species (subspecies or population
' egment) as threatened even though it is not otherwise listed as threatened if: (a) The species so
lowly resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforcement personnel would have
Threatened due to Similarity ubstantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of '
T(S/A)
of Appearance. his substantial difficulty is an additional threat to a threatened species; and (c) such treatment
. fan unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the i
ct. The American Alligator has this designation due to similarity of appearance to other rare
rocodilians. The Bog Turtle (southern population) has this designation due to similarity of t
ppearance to Bog Turtles in the threatened northern population.
C ';
Candidate taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing. This
. ategory was formerly designated as a Candidate I (C 1) species.
Federal "Species of Also called "Species at Risk"). Formerly defined as a taxon under consideration for which
FSC Concern" here is insufficient information to support listing; formerly designated as a Candidate 2 (C2)
' pecies.
r
PE Proposed Endangered ; pecies has been proposed for listing as endangered.
PD Proposed De-listed ; pecies has been proposed for de-listing.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Background Study of Cultural Resources
Associated with
Baird Cove Road Tract
Buncombe County,
North Carolina.
Compiled for:
Len Rindner
Environmental Planning Consultant
By:
Briece R. Edwards, RPA
CRAG Ref No. 06-149
Confidential Document
Cultural Resources Assessment Group:
P.O. Box 12107
Raleigh, NC 27605
A rc h a e o l o [e-mail]
g y (LLC) 919 828-8100 or 919 274-4458

1
INTRODUCTION
Project title: Background Study of Cultural Resources Associated with Baird Cove Road
' Tract, Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Location of the project: The tract reported here covers approximately 3 50 acres situated on
and between Baid and Killian Mountains approximately 1 mile northeast of Woodfin, in
central Buncombe County.
Contracting organization: Mr. Len Rindner, Environmental Planning Consultant, Matthews,
North Carolina.
Principal Investigator and Field Director: Briece R. Edwards.
Field Crew: Matthew Beazley
Dates of field visits: March 2006.
The following sections follow the format of the Guidelines for Preparation of
Archaeological Survey Reports Reviewed by the Archaeology Branch, Division of Archives
and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and the 1992 edition of the
style guide forAmerican Antiquity (volume 54, number 4). The sections include a
description of the project's physical environment and its probable influences on past
settlement choices and site preservation; an outline of the area's prehistoric and historic
background; a description of field techniques; an inventory of sites recorded during the
survey; a discussion of the archaeological significance of the sites recorded;
recommendations for archaeological management; and a list of sources consulted for the
background research, survey, and evaluation.
This report presents the results of a background search for known cultural resources
associated with the Baird Cove Road Tract (350 acres) on the behalf of Mr. Len Rindner,
Environmental Planning Consultant. Background research was conducted by Cultural
Resources Assessment Group of Raleigh between February and March, 2006 including a site
visit on March 23 at the request of Mr. Len Rindner. The initial due diligence undertaken by
the client demonstrates their concern for the potential sensitivities that maybe found. The
purpose of the background research was to identify all reported cultural resources in the
form of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic structures, and cemeteries on
and in the vicinity of the development tract. Of particular interest are those sites that are
potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, our
background research sought to present a history of the tract in order to identify areas with a
high probability for potential remains.

i~
Our background study of the tracts examined records and maps at the Office of State
' Archaeology, Office of Survey and Planning, North Carolina State Archives, and various
historic and modern documents and maps of the region.
The following report is comprised of four sections Landscape History, Background
Search Reszrlts, and Recommendations. Landscape history describes the prehistoric and
historic settlement of the region as it relates to potential archaeological remains.
' Background Search Results is a listing of sites identified and recorded in various offices of
the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. Recommendations present a
summary statement of the guidelines and criteria for registering a Site with the National
' Register as well as our suggestions for future archaeological investigations on these two
tracts.
~P of n/ r. ~ v I a ~Nlwiane -~ ~~ fE.
l E rsrt rrY 1 ~`\
,iL .rr P¢ 1., T fn, ~ Aonl. Lour leC A¢ :BPbn ~ s +CO. y~T~. ~fuallr#
.r' neY .,n
,/ ~. ~ ~~R.Ilal C` A..r ~ A V E R Y
cloee r~
't o s' Lt R 1 PI win
RY
.,,,,_„ __ f ~~ IIaw1~ Mall L I ne 1 }/ Ptln 1~
-,,... _ _.. _~ ~ ~ nc o.a L
.^- i e p1 A.rdi ~ .Bee Pam ertnwn ~°„ ~... Ar Ed n Rul ~.Y~
nta4ACd ', O Rook Yln Rnnennn 1~¢all•, i' ,o Rtl M tl -~ P Il •o '+" E'S ~~ I' ,.„,..
\ ~' ~ ` LOA .:1/AAlns ~' A rL n ~rB AP Y.Ntp ^IM• CP
Rnnn Lcd¢er CM1.st Mln Y -~W br~+ 1
{.6K L.eurN trr, ^C'yl .n e ~ \ ~F~I tinP ~,n .~ ~ A ~ ~ W E 1,,,,
Y A N G E Y ~'°~..~, 1.~ ~.
1.s,; f °- F f ~Swls Bu N I - WI m I C \ ~ a , ~ ` n t1 ti 1_la . V•Imea fv' _ qp 2rk q*,
ra; r r-`, G rd"rri,P• - s r~~d~. / \ IienYnernYm ` Leeoir~rr~ ~ {or 4
iaYOAi RBT ..YTS n+.annd': ~.~~, - 1 I \ ~,' ,.
~} It' S, ` ~P•{nIG _. BOwtl,ICn, c Allan~~~1,~h,'re , ~yy6Yi4 H~1'.
J O NBUFIn.~ l .VI.M J'~/ WhRn«
APnuY.r ~° ;' W.sxrhl CelO ~ ~ rth~ ~ `~ o~ v ~~ "r',
PMS.cO(d ma~~
P~wtAOrE~ .~ W E f~ nand ~~ - Irate eRa[k Hartl.n~ IY MI AMRg ~'~~ ~a ".
f `
..hush 1 ,y"-Democ.ret _ Project Vicinity.. Ch..t.eR.Id"'~ '`^,d.lon.~ M1U ~E: ~.
~~~~~~~ .:.. =B.mar le _ ~ " it Ltn M Gr.nfte F«
~'hrOB.~ rxr. QRusl h r v - O YNIIYI _,~ -N- ,1 w
' c r
Sffle.Milg ', ~' Pain: dRmAM1am`_ r - '~ _ \\ R1. 1 ~/` "'1 RW~Ii 4d~~seerY r
r. J LL Blyd y ~r1Yj ~.~ '
" 1 a.ch \ ~' , fJetr f.._.~`/`-r n~-~ i. JOf& fl G~Yd~O~'alprp~
d ' ~..
.v :an owu _. ~ . P not .
e e., G aM~ 1._ ~ B U R K,,,, ERIW.b. A _ k+
~._. i ~ h l'~,,,,.hr..L~ Sa. ~ {
i,tnrwsty ~ 1 r " ' Ft.rey~{w/-
U '` N C) M B . E M ~t~ ~ph is Greer` ~ A ~ ~ yem Cnob
ll°, M SZ~D O W
_. R. Rtl csf P Idn M;e Brindlvtow'n Grout
~ Jie ~IA Fnrt ~ - ~ ~~
[ ~ ASHEVILIE G 1orn-~~ Blacrh i t Mr n rr r ~ ~ o~ r+en eY ~
~ ~ ofn,. ~-'-"'s n u.l 1 ° ~ ~~~
i..r -Mat. nV P ~ d!' tv.ar ',.r ~r'! a~Y:. B vah t. <~
EnA•, 4 , •J a srr*^^."' .r,~ ~ . _ '~`' ' J s r, _ -- _
y~ 1 ~~ l ~ r ~ Ne fY
PMMI B;NrM.I /~ ~~ S~t ~ I j1~ ` ~
-~Ppr~tl't~ c .ow J ..~-~ - wh..n W/•'.- _ ~-- - ~ - ~y 1 .. 1 uv«e
A4)7Anue, „Buse. 1 LtUtP [. .R ~ Ilnnrnnl .^.rtv I T 1 1 Rul
Casa. e0\ Cross Cs ~'.R
nom! wep rs•..n, .. p y v,n. r n~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ B.r Pnd \ L
\ I
s
~' `~~~!q~.~ ~ r.rY.cce~Y ~R 1 r i -F ....,, Y ~~ ~ r.. -I ~ ~ - ~ Lwr ~
~'' W ~ MccW* 1 On Ir, nv ~r ~11 r' <: rlnllicl F 111 ~+
C. Polhville
~~. a fa„k. F ,,,.„e I1, ,+ ~ L,Y~r` R U T NI.1 E R~'E O R D ~ t neale ` `; _' _
1 Edn<y v.l e r ~~ \
~ .'r" ' nor ll 'WI
` '. ~ ~ 7M4YP4m !bloc / r ~ •`n11 ~ .. O al.
D R S O Y" Rwilnrrnryul,n t 1 shn 1.
SFt ~,~.I,o,. N , ,cn ~'~Rns ..rll
. E, 8,. ~dA, ,
s~rr . I f •,C L E V E L
'"'~ r one : e ,Sr . n oE~ rRl sl Li y~ w.
~ ':. r- X,eu+se e. ~ OndaAOnvtlf! / ~ B 1 E.1 boron / - WIIACUfn r
r+a „a ... ~ ~. ,
1. Project
3

TOPS! map printed on o2/O2JO6 from "North Carolina.tpo" and "Untitled.tpg"
5~oonmE, aSSoaomE, a59ooomE, NAD27 Zone 17S 361~oomE,
E
°o
rn
v
m
z
E
0
0
0
m
m
F
0
M1
7
m
m
Z
E
°o
d
m
t
E
O
O
C]
'" t
~ t I ~ tti
.~ y,~ ~;. r G,, i ~y III ~ ~~ ~\~ o
`' l \
~~ ~~. ~~~
.141 ~
-~ m
m
f~ Z
o
0
0
r--
m
r~
c
E
e
0
o
u
m
L
0
a .~
m
~~ M
Figure 2. Approximate location of Baird Cove Road tract.
357000mF 3SROOOm F 3FQ OOOmF
N~r7'J7 7nna 17C 3~1 OOOmF
MNI~ TN 0 S 1 MILE
d, Y O~t000 FEET 0 5~6 t000 METERS
Printed from TOPO! Cb~001 National Geographic Holdin~~. (unaw tapo.cont)
4

Landscape History
' PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The project area is located within at the western extent of the Elk Mountains in
North Carolina's Blue Ridge Belt Mountain physiographic region. The area is best
categorized as the "Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallus Falls Formation" (Daniels et al.
1984), which features narrow ridges with steep-sided (Daniels et al. 1984:35). In addition,
the landscape of the project area also resembled that of the "Low Mountain System" only a
few miles to the north and west: high, sharp ridges, steep to precipitous slopes, and narrow
stream valleys. Most of the tract is made up of steep-sided uplands with slopes exceeding 25
' degrees. Elevations within the tract range from a low of about 2400 feet above mean sea
level at the point where Baird Creek crosses the project boundary, up to about 2300 feet at
the peak of Killian Mountain at the southern extent of the tract.
Table 2. Soils associated with tract
i,,
S mbol Name Slo e
BrB2 Braddock clay loam, eroded 2 - 6%
BrC2 Braddock clay loam, eroded 6 - 15%
EvD Evard loam, slopes 10 - 25%
EwE Evard-Cowee Complex 25 - 60%
HaC Hayesville Loam 6 - 12%
HcC2 Ha esville clay loam, eroded 6 - 15%
HeD Hayesville-Evard Com lex 15 - 25%
TaC Tate Loam 6 -12%
' The landscape at the tract is largely defined by narrow ridges and steep-sided
valleys with several saddles and few flat terraces or steps on slope sides. Overall, the
' topography of the tract can be roughly divided into three categories.
Table 3. Tract area by slope (based on Mathis Jr. 1995).
Description Slope Percentage
of tract
Upland Slope (6 - 15% slope 20%
Stee Sloe 15 - 25% slo e) 40%
Ve Stee Sloe 25% and reater 40%
Erosion in the uplands has been severe, probably in the aftermath of logging and
forest fires. Based on inference from Tremble, this part of the state may have been subjected
to a cumulative loss of between seven and twelve plus inches of soil over the past two
hundred years (Trimble 1974). Most of the narrow ridgetops have been turned into logging
and access roads. This extensive system of dirt roads greatly aided the survey by creating
' excellent ground surface visibility, but the construction of the roads and their subseduent
erosion have probably destroyed or seriously damaged the sites that might have been found
on the rare level upland areas. Based on the presence of overgrown roads, bulldozed earthen-

1~
berms, and minimal topsoil and/or plow-zone within the forested portions of the tract, it is
' likely that there has been more than one timbering event on the tract. Comments made by
local residents support this. One neighbor discussed the last logging event happening m
1970s and that his father had been part of the logging team when he was a child.
~ ~ The area is drained by small tributaries of the French Broad River (Figures 2 and 3).
Under natural conditions, the local upland forests would include hickory, white oak, post
' oak, scarlet oak, southern red oak, yellow poplar, Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, dogwood,
black cherry, grape, greenbrier, holly, sassafrass, red maple, and poison ivy. The wetter,
lowland forests would include water oak, willow oak, shortleaf pine, sycamore, river birch,
green ash, yellow poplar, red maple, black willow, alder, greenbrier, grape, and hornbeam
(Ortosky 1989).
' Currently the tract is used primarily for hunting though there has been timbering in
recent decades. The majority of the upland ridges have been cut and are occupied by access
roads providing opportune conditions for identifying site loci through surface exposed
' artifacts.

~1
Figure 4. Example of logged and eroded uplands on the tract.
1
6

PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
The earliest recorded human settlements in the North Carolina Piedmont are Clovis-
period campsites that date from the close of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. Fluted
Clovis points are occasionally found in surface collections in the region, but no intact Clovis
sites have been recorded in the North Carolina Piedmont. It seems likely that the County
area was occupied by bands of Late Ice Age hunters 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The oldest
excavated site in the North Carolina Piedmont dates from the Hardaway period, about 10,000
B.C. to 8,000 B.C. (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976). We know almost nothing about these
earliest North Carolinians. They were probably nomadic hunters and gatherers, but we do
not know whether these eastern Paleo-Indians resembled their Paleo-Indian contemporaries
west of the Mississippi River and also hunted now-extinct big game animals such as
mammoth and bison.
The following Archaic period is somewhat better known, but still the subject of a
great deal of speculation because we lack information about major aspects of subsistence and
social organization. Overviews of the Archaic period have suggested that the Archaic
cultures of eastem North America show an evolutionary sequence in which nomadic or semi-
nomadichunter-gatherers, fishers, and shellfish collectors developed regional adaptations to
the warmer climates, expanding deciduous forests, and smaller game animals of the
Holocene (Willey 1966:60; Caldwell 1958). The Early Archaic period in North Carolina is
sub-divided into a Palmer phase (ca. 8,000 B.C.) and a Kirk phase (7,000-6,000 B.C.), both
characterized by corner-notched points (Coe 1964; Ward and Coe 1976:11-12). The Middle
Archaic period is represented by the Stanly phase (6,000-5,000 B.C.), the Morrow Mountain
phase (5,000-4,500 B.C.), the Guilford phase (4,500-4,000 B.C.), and the Halifax phase
7

~~~
(3,500 B.C.) (Coe, 1964; Ward and Coe 1976:11-12). The Late Archaic, or Savannah River
' period (4,000-500 B.C.) is characterized by large, triangular points with broad stems and by
large bowls carved from soapstone (Coe 1964:119; Ward and Coe 1976:1976).
,~, H ills6aro
Clari€s~rille ~
Caraway
Uwhame
~Yadldn
Swannanaa
~#
Hadin
Small
Sarrannah , ,~ ,
Rirrer
Guilford
II
I
Momow Nlourrtain
CyP~Y ~
Sterrrrred
~~ Sa+rannah
River
Halifax
~Stanly
Stemmed
IC iris
N iris Stemmed
Serrated
f{ iris
Gamer-Notched
Balmer
Comer-Notched
Hardaway
Side-Notched
Hardaway-Dalton
Hardaway
Figure 6. Chart depicting the most common projectile points identified in North Carolina.
From: A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of'Change, by H. Trawick Ward.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow. NC Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. 1983.
' The Woodland period in eastern North America is marked by the appearance of
farming, pottery, the bow and arrow, and in some areas by the construction of burial and
temple mounds. There were two mounds rn Buncombe County that were excavated in the
late 19th century by the Smithsonian Institution. Both mounds date to the Mississippian
period (about 1000 A.D. - A.D. 1450). In the North Carolina Piedmont, the first recognized
Woodland period is the Badin (about 500 B.C - A.D. 500), marked by sand-tempered, fabnc-

or cord-marked ceramics and large, often crude triangular points. Its successor was the
' Yadkin period (A.D. 500-1200), whose ceramics resembled its predecessor's, with occasional
linear or check stamping added to the decorative motifs (Coe 1964:55). Another difference
between the Badin pottery and the later Yadkin pottery is the tatter's use of crushed quartz
' temper (Coe 1964:30). After A.D. 1200, regional differences in the Piedmont appeared in
the form of Caraway, Uwharrie, Dan River, and Hillsborough cultures.
' ETHNOHISTORIC BACKGROUND
Although most histories of North Carolina tend to date the first significant Indian and
European contacts to the English coastal explorations and Roanoke settlements of the 1580s,
the Spanish had explored western North Carolina and had made an unsuccessful attempt to
' gamson the Piedmont over 20 years before. During the 1560s, the Spanish contingent at
Santa Elena (now Parris Island Marine Base in South Carolina) sent an expedition under Juan
Pardo into the western Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina. According to one
interpretation of the Spanish records of these expeditions, the Spanish soldiers visited Indian
villages in the Piedmont in the vicinity of the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton,
Hickory, and Maiden, and built a garrison on the French Broad River north of Weaverville(
' Cauchi) in Buncombe or Madison County. Another gamson was built in the vicinity of
Salisbury and Marion (or "Joara")near the Catawba River to the east of our project area.
(Joara might also have been the "Xuala" visited by Hernando de Soto in the expedition of
' 1539-1540). Unfortunately, the Spanish recorded little information about the Indians
encountered on these expeditions. These garrisons were short-lived because of hostilities
between the Indians and the Spanish, who burned several Indian towns, and because of the
fragile supply lines between the western Piedmont and Santa Elena on the lower South
Carolina coast (Hudson 1976:116-118; Hudson et al. 1981; Hudson 1990).
Even before the English and Spanish visits to North Carolina in the late sixteenth
century, the Indians of North Carolina may have felt the effects of contact with the Old
World in the form of devastating diseases such as smallpox, measles, chicken pox, influenza,
' whooping cough, bubonic plague, typhus, diphtheria, amoebic dysentery, and tuberculosis.
The worst of these diseases was smallpox, which first broke out in the New World as early as
1518 or 1519. Resistance to these diseases was so low that a single outbreak of a disease
could destroy half the population of a village, and some tribes were probably wiped out in the
span of one or two generations (Hudson 1976:104-105; Denevan 1976:4-6).
From John Lawson's description of Indian cultures in the early eighteenth century, we
obtain a picture of small, scattered groups of Indians, often living in palisaded villages of 17
houses or less (Lefler 1967:50,55,56). Although these villages were often associated with
large fields of maize, the Indians also relied heavily on wild plants (especially the acorn) and
on game for much of their food. They followed a seasonal round, divided roughly into a
winter phase and a spring and summer phase. During the winter, adult men and women left
the main villages to the elderly and the children and formed satellite camps in the "hunting
quarters." From these camps, they hunted and foraged until spring, when the members of a
village returned to it to plant maize, squash, and other crops. To judge from the comments of

Lawson and other travelers, North Carolina abounded in game: white-tailed deer, turkey,
' bear, beaver, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, squirrel, bison, and passenger pigeon. The larger
rivers, such as the French Broad River and its tributary streams, provided many species of
fish, including the spring runs of anadramous fish, which the Indians caught with weirs
' (Lefler 1967:216-218,182).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Eighteenth -Twentieth Century
Like much of the western region of the state in the eighteenth century, this region was
`the frontier'. Early Euro-American settlers began making their way into the area by
following the French Broad River. Early settlements extended from the main river valley
into the basins of the larger tributaries.
Buncombe County was formed in 1791 from Burke and Rutherford Counties. It is
named in honor of Colonel Edward Buncombe who was a Revolutionary war hero. A patriot
force took the land, originally occupied by the Cherokee, from them during the
Revolutionary War because of their alliance with the British. One of the first settlers in the
region was a Colonel Samuel W. Davidson in 1784. Indians soon killed Davidson but that
did not stop other settlers from arriving in the years to come. In the immediate vicinity of the
project area a John Weaver and his family were the first to settle in 1787. There are many
Weavers living in the county to this day, in fact the town of Weaverville derives its name
from them. Weaverville was founded in 1832 with the original name of Salem. It would not
be until 1873 that the town's name would change in honor of Montraville Weaver. Sometime
in the 1820's David Crocket came to Buncombe County and married Elizabeth Patton.
Asheville was chartered as the county seat in 1794 under the original title of Morristown. It
would grow to be a large resort and spa town, with the Battery Park Hotel and Grovepark Inn
among others, starting in the 19th century on into the present.
One of the first industries in the county was livestock herding. Starting around 1800,
hundreds of thousands of hogs, cows, and other livestock followed the French Broad River
through the county every month on their way to South Carolina markets. Feeding the
multitude of animals became a prosperous business for a while, until the local soil became
exhausted. Many fields were left fallow and the arrival of the railroad shortly after ended the
need for droving. The railroad did not reach the county until 1880 due to geographical,
financial, and political difficulties. This was decades behind the rest of the state.
Local agricultural industry began with Flue-cured tobacco in the 1850's. But the
' tobacco industry would disappear by 1900 due to countywide bankruptcy. The tobacco
grower's demise was due to competition with eastern Carolina's strain of bright leaf tobacco,
which was apparently more popular at the time. But growing tobacco would return in the
' 1920's with the burley strain and it still thrives alongside poultry and dairy farming to this
day.
1
10
1

RESULTS OF BACKGROUND SEARCH
' Background research on the project areas included a review of maps, aerial
photographs, land grants and secondary historical sources in the North Carolina State
Archives. In addition, sources were consulted at the Office of State Archaeology, and the
Office of Survey and Planning.
' Cemetery Survey-
TheNorth Carolina Cemetery Survey (North Carolina Division of Archives and
History) had no files indicating cemeteries within the project area or its vicinity.
Office of Survey and Planning
A review of files and maps at the Office of Survey and Planning found no structures or
remains to be recorded within the Baird Cove tract. The closest structure recorded is the
Swain home on Beaverdam Creek a couple of miles away.
' -The Swain home is the birthplace of two North Carolina Governors. David L. Swain
and Joseph Lane were cousins bom in the same year of 1801.

Archaeological Research in the Project Vicinity
A review of the site files in the Office of State Archaeology shows that no
' archaeological sites have been recorded within the project area. Currently approximately 7
sites have been reported in the area m Buncombe County, all of them from the 1940's.
Systematic archaeological investigations in Buncombe County began with Cyrus Thomas of
the Smithsonian Institution. In the 1880's he recorded archaeological sites, primarily
"Mound Sites" in the American Southeast. In his published catalog (Thomas 1891:156) he
reports two sites on the Swannanoa River and Hominy Creek, four miles from Asheville.
There is evidence that the sites were excavated leaving us with a small description:
' This mound...100 yards from the river, is circular, 80 feet in diameter, and 9 feet high.
A wide trench cut through it from side to side and down to the natural soil brought to light
the fact that it was built partly of stone and partly of earth. The core or central portion, to
the height of 4 feet above the original surface and covering a space about 30 feet in diameter,
was built of irregular blocks of stone, heaped together without order or plan. The remainder of
' the mound was made of dark surface soil. The top layer of earth being removed down to the
rock pile, the entire surface of the latter was found to be covered with charcoal and evidences
' that it had been burned here. Among the coal were numerous joints of charred cane. The
stones were all removed, but no remains or relics, save a few arrowheads, were discovered.
(Thomas 1891:350).
Also reported in the same Smithsonian volume:
1
11
1

This mound is on the farm of Mr. J.B. Throsh, 1.5 miles from Hominy creek...It is located on a
ridge, is circular, 33 feet in diameter at the base, and 4 feet high. No remains or vestiges of art
were found in it. Its composition was as follows: First, a top layer, 18 inches thick, of red clay
similar to that around it, conforming to the curve of the mound and entirely covering the
bottom layer of black earth which rested on the original soil. The latter had evidently been
carried from the creek, a mile distant. (Thomas 1891:350).
There has not been much archaeological research conducted in the region up to this
point in time. This is mainly due to the lack of large-scale development in the area, which
would motivate research to be conducted. The 7 sites that have been excavated in the region
were done under the supervision of a Mr. Johnston. This fieldwork was discovered on
microfiche and no field report was written so the reason for the undertaking is unknown.
We define a prehistoric site as an area where we find at least one artifact dating to the
prehistoric period (for example, a flake from manufacturing or repairing stone tools, a stone
projectile point, or a potsherd). We define an historic site as an area containing patterned
evidence of settlement (house foundations or concentrations of building debris and domestic
' artifacts, for example) or industry (a mill or still site, for example) dating between colonial
settlement in the mid-eighteenth century and 1956 (the minimum age for National Register of
Historic Places eligibility is 50 years). Practically applied, we would classify, for instance,
' the remains of a foundry, a bridge, a mill, or a house dating before 1956 as an archaeological
site. An isolated fragment of whiteware or bottle glass would not be recorded as a site.
Regionally, many of the larger area surveys have been to the south-east in the Pisgah
National Forest in mountainous terrain similar, though with a greater percentage of very
steep slope, compared to that found in the project area. Those upland surveys have reported
a low density of prehistoric sites (ranging from a maximum of one site per 25 acres to as low
as one site per 100 acres), usually small, lithic sites on ridgetops, ridgetoes, and saddles
(Radisch et al 1989; Snedeker et al 1988; Snedeker et al 1989; Burchett and Snedeker 1994).
The report of one of these surveys suggested an upland site distribution model, in which
some the systems of ridgelines and saddles were used as prehistoric travel routes. The ridges
serving as preferred travel routes would have a higher density of prehistoric sites. "Dead-
end" ridges that did not provide easy access to other areas should have a much lower density
of sites (Stephenson 1985). This "travel route" model might help to explain the low density
of prehistoric sites in the project area's uplands (in spite of good to excellent survey
conditions).
During the background research of the region, seven sites were identified in the
vicinity of the project. They were located on microfiche and there is very little information
about them.
Site = 31BN-6
PPK, Sherds, Flakes
1940-1964
Site = 31BN-7
PPK, Sherds, Flakes
1940- Johnston
12

Site = 31BN-11 1940- Johnston
Graves- PPKs
Heavy erosion
Site = 31BN-16 1940- Johnston
PPK, Sherds, Flakes
Site = 31BN-18 1940- Johnston
PPK, Scraper, Sherds, Flakes
Site = 31BN-19 1940- Johnston
PPK, Scraper, Sherds, Flakes
Site = 31BN-56 1940- Johnston
PPK, Scraper, Sherds, Flakes
13

T,~Ft=~! rnap prnted m !~3;'2?;i~E~ frorn'Yac~ttt ~:.s•?InS.[G.?- ,rfd -unntl7•].¢~7
is?ifwrv.t :rail ri r,r .I•~~ruircnE wt'!°' :. f' ri"G,_ Grua 1: %r_ •, "r
- -- ,1 xa~ a L'~ ~~ III r ~. ~ ~~,~ ~~` ,~;, ;~',"_f~,-~ i,= ~,' 1~...~-Y - ~'+~~,-` s~~ •-~ k'~ ,
:. 1, t .. +
-1 I I ~ ~ A
t
~ p! ~I
I 1 ~' j1~
1
J'41~ `~ 1 +w II ~
~
,
l _ rrl ~,^F~
1 J r ~ 1 1 ~' ({}J
,I p
}
)
~
+ r
~frf ~
=? t
~-s7
f 1 w
@
9
~ .
~
E~ t. f f
, ,vl ' ~,. II
1 j :.~i11i~'~`II, 4V~ ~yt li }
~ i,c ~ }
~ rh I j I ,1
1 1
r ,,~}--r
I f 3i ,;;
~ A
,t I SI ~ f~iOF
i I~ I I,}Irlr` r y ~T ~f,~ ,
I Yr'~.
r ~i,J _
J
11
.
r
y
p
,`!-..i 1 ~ ~~I~ ~ - ~~
~R,..
`;
~ I1 <'~""i •F-
!
b- 1.
s_
.
:~ _:~~.I,rp bar-
,..
J~ .4
G .: f:
~
f-

r 4 li
~

5
f L 4r~f 1 ~1
~'t ~' +i'.-~ ~.Ya,~wy 1
I
1. I~F

~
I~~ ~
r7y6~91t 6'111ft r
ti .'ti .r f;

". •~-.~C{'~~ Y. x
- ,
-'M1S ~
! f}
~ '
I F S
i~
~"~~ • '''
+' - # ~'a1'r~, q~) '~ w. I!- }
r ~. ~
f 1
'~'
I
:1
~ p f S
-,
r]I
1'ry .~ ~~II'
,
rii ~
..>~
_ r~ ... ~
:e"r F--. ..~.;~{~p _
~
~~Y ~ ~ ~r
4 .+ I
~
+
J
Y
' .!. ~ ,
~.
~-
I
~r~ y .^I ~~w ~ ~;~, ~
L ,., {I ~~ Ir ii7
~" I _ t~ ~'~ j
7
,~ x ~, ~ I 1
,1
+~
4,,
I
{ 'W`~ '~ 4fiy Y~ 4
ail
}:;:a:l r
~. ~I
~, : ~.
F'X h
=:f'i
_. .. _2''° ~ -`.:
r F x.' t ! L JF
t
1y" }
`n~
y_,~
f
~
e a
'7+r
^~'~
tK70yr
~ ~
I 2
! l-~. :
~
i'i { f
-4 ~
-,,
r
T
fry...7
1 '~' l~
+ t
IVM I
'~LL.
`~
*
'
~
1 ~~~~
~
~
~
n~
( ~P ~.1 , ~,+.,~~ip~{+~r.' y?~
l ~ V
1 ~
~•
t
7 ~'•+ ~ ~-r
~ }
l
r ~ L ~~1MCr•3aiF x~lil t • )' ;~
A ' pr
'
`
~

~5
'a3 r ~
Y ~~
~~~ ,
G
~~ f
i1
~ )
w,~ ~
f ~ "~~'
t
'
~
~ :. ~
`'~*' "..
~' ~ ~
'
I '
t
~
~
I ;
Y ,
y
r -i ,
~jc
4 !Yw ~ .~
{
~ Y -."
asses!!!!!
+• +~. 7
!~VV .fi
r
~
-.. p
.
~ i .S ;5
`
~
' F
~' 4 ~ I
F_ Y
~'
i
a o
~I 1 ~
~n~^
~.~,
D~:'=~ I~ 1 M
J '.j
`
f_-"'r
.ff_rn,. rl .• Z
1 ~ J
{'
L:~ ~
ym.,~ `I. t•
l
d
:~...~ ~-kr - Y
~i t ~
~,
I
,Gp~hl^ ..' .p; r
7t': iOivr,F ~
:r,yoii r„f= .'rc yin:.i rr,p 3r,!'~f•i ur,F t~~G' ~(a ip 7?_ r.~ .rr,j=
UN~TI7
R'
wwre
I~i(EI' f~ N _._ _. IYS+NIl11G
Pltit~~i Ot+r TtiFl?19D?]I ta3lWrd r.~i~:pK F17kIryY luirv ICjrJ rri~i`
14

Aerial Photographs and Maps
As part of our background research of the tract aerial photographs, historic and
contemporary maps were consulted in an effort to identify areas of minimally impacted or
disturbed soils, and possible historic structures or cemeteries. The maps below exemplify
what was found on the Historic maps; that the region was unreported for much of the 18~h-
19~' century. This does not suggest there were no residents in the area, only that they were
not recorded on the maps examined at the NC Archives.
15

16

17

II
' Aerial photographs of the region were not available for review from the North Carolina
Archives.
The Landscape -
Based on the site visits to the tract it is evident that most of the tract has been subject
' to extensive erosion and cycles of timbering.
Areas of sheet erosion with exposed clay sub-soils were evident in several places,
' mostly associated with upland flats and saddles. No prehistoric materials were identified at
the time of the site visit. The majority of the upland flat surfaces are very narrow and
generally disturbed due to current and previous road ware.
r
sire Visit -
The site visit to the tract in March 2006 identified two structure remains. Both in close
proxirruty to Baird Creek.
Site No. 1 is characterized by stone foundations and a standing chimney. The small structure
once spanned the narrow creek. With the approximately'/4 of the structure and Chimney
(Figure 13) on the north side and the remaining on the south. Today the chimney is standing
and appears to have been re-pointed and converted to a `roadside cook spot'. The banks of
the creek at this point have been shored and channeled with dry stone construction (Figure
14). Based on the maps his site likely dates to the 1930s and may be one of the `huts'
identified on the 1938 county road map.
l8

i~
ii
I~
I~

' Site No. 2. is located a roximatel 150m north of Site No. l . Like the revious site it likel
PP y P y
dates to the early 1900s and may be indicated on the 1938 County Road map and the 1920
Soil Survey Map. It is located on the South side of Baird Creek and appears to have been
heavily damaged by flooding. Local residence describe these sites as having been temporary
or seasonal residences during the summer months. This one in particular was described as
having been a `hut used by the loggers the last time the area was cut over' according to one
local resident.
' STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our evaluations of archaeological significance come from the published criteria of the
National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1991) for establishing historic
significance for structures, sites, or objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, craft, feeling, and association and that:
19
Figure 15. Foundations and conditions at Site No. 2

A. are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction or that represent the work of a master,
or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinctions; or
D. have yielded, or maybe likely to yield, information important
in prehistory or history.
Some types of properties are usually not eligible for National Register status:
properties less than 50 years in age; churches; cemeteries; commemorative items, such as
public monuments; and structures moved from their original locations or substantially
' altered. If these types of properties are an integral part of a larger National Register district,
they might qualify for National Register status (National Park Service 1991).
For prehistoric sites, the most relevant criterion is "D." Do these prehistoric sites
have the potential to produce significant information and new insights on the region's
prehistoric past? .
' In spite of the technological problems for research on disturbed, low density upland
sites, these resources should still be incorporated into a regional research context, but in ways
that recognize our current limitations in extracting information form them. As other
archaeologists have illustrated (Canouts and Goodyear 1985:181), uplands form the vast
majority of the Carolina Piedmont and Mountain terrain, and thousands of prehistoric upland
settlements there must have played an important role in the overall settlement and
subsistence pattems throughout prehistory: Data from these disturbed upland sites can be
used to study trends in settlement location choices, rising or declining numbers of sites in
different periods, raw material use (especially for diagnostic stone points), reoccupation of
particular locations, and other research questions (Canouts and Goodyear 1985). Some of the
data from this survey may eventually be useful in studies of the late prehistoric early historic
' settlement patterns for instance. In many cases, most of these data can be recorded during
the initial survey and analysis.
In the case of historic sites the most relevant archaeological criterion is also "D", and
we must ask whether these historic-period sites have the potential to produce significant
information and new insights on the region's history.
20

SUMMARY
1 Based on the review of records at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology,
Office of Survey and Planning, State Cemetery Survey and North Carolina Archives it is
evident that settlement and related activities spanning several millennia are present in the
' vicinity of the Baird Cove Tract. The landscape is consistent with site location models
indicating that prehistoric archaeological sites are likely to be identified on upland flats, and
terraces near the confluence of creeks and rivers aswell asspring-heads. The flood plain and
' adjacent terraces are landforms frequently associated with Woodland period remains. Several
sites of this period have already been identified near by adjacent to the French Broad Ri>>er
and its tributaries. The majority of sites are likely to be identified on the upland ridges and
saddles.
This same tract highlights the settlement pattern of the region by Europeans and
African-Americans beginning in the mid-18`h century. The availability of land grants and
' patents give an opportunity to reconstruct the likely owners of potential remains on the tract.
Though no mills have been previously recorded on this tract it is possible that small family
operated ones may have once been present.
Recommendations
' Since the sites identified are relatively recent in age and heavily impacted by flooding
we do not feel they are eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
However, detailed recording may be beneficial. In addition, these sites and any others in
' identified along this stretch of Baird Creek are likely to be protected by falling within the
stream buffer.
' The limited availability of geological survey information in the area, specifically
Buncombe County, make it difficult to identify potential areas. By undertaking this as a
`Due Diligence' study the majority of sites will be identified and development plans can take
them into account from the outset.
If illegal excavation or vandalism of archaeological sites is observed, or if unrecorded
cultural resources and remains are encountered during project clearing and/or construction,
the developer and/or its agents should immediately contact the following representatives of
' the NC Office of State Archaeology:
Human Remains and /or Unmarked Graves - Dr. Steve Claggett, State Archaeologist, NC
' Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, 919.733.7342
21

Tt~Pia! map printed on 0?/02/06 from "North Carolina.tpo" and "Untitled.tpg"
ooomE. sSBooomE, a59ooomE. NAr)77 7nna t7S a~7 oo
=z ~ ~ rti; =areas of potential site identification
v°. ~-'~' f 'erg fi
1 ~ I M

~~ ~ ~~ f/~~K 1 ~~ ~ C1
a
Figure 16. Approximate location of Baird Cove Road tract.

~!
~~ i,
~~,~~u~~~~, 35~uuumt, :~5yooomE, NAQ27 Zone 17S 361000
hitd TN ~ S 1 MILE
de ~ ®000 FEET 0 500 1000 METEti$
Printed from TOPOI ©2001 National Geograplric Holdings (vnaw.topo.com}

of
O
Q+
M
Z
E
0
(p
d'
m
M
E
0
0
0
f`
d'
m
M

E
.D
T
Z
E
7
7
n
7
22

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Percy G.
1980 Travelers and travel liars, 1660-1800. Dover Publications, New York.
'
Anderson, David G.
1989 The Mississippian in South Carolina. In "Studies in South Carolina
' Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson." Edited by
Albert C. Goodyear, III, Glen T. Hanson. University of South Carolina,
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies 9.
'
Anonymous
n.d. a The Garden of the Waxhaws and the Historic Waxhaw Settlement. n.p.,
n.p. North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
' Anonymous
n.d. b Waxhaw, North Carolina.• Historic Southwest Corner of Union County.
n.p., n.p. North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at
' Chapel Hill.
Brown, Jane Douglas Summers
' 1966 The Catawba Indians: the people of the river. University of South
Carolina Press, Columbia.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern United States.
American Anthropological Association, Memoir 88.
Carpenter, P. Albert
1972 Gold resources of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Information Circular 21.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 54(5):1-130.
' Cooper, P. P., II
1977 Historic and prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of Union
County 201 Facilities Plan Sites, Interceptors, and Other Lines, Union
County, North Carolina. Ms. On file with the Museum of Anthropology,
1 Catawba College, Salisbury, North Carolina.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips
' 1984 Soil systems iri North Carolina. North Carolina State University,
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Bulletin 467.
23

Derrick, B.B., and S.O. Perkins
' 1916 Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture.
' Edwards, B. R.
2003 Site extent Identification and Delineation at 31UN203, Twelvemile
Creek, Union County, North Carolina. A report submitted to GS Carolina
' (LLC), Charlotte, NC
Edwards, I, B. and B. R. Edwards
' 2001 An Archaeological Survey (Phase I) of the development tract on
Twelvemile Creek and Waxhaw-Marvin Road, Union County, North
Carolina. A report submitted to Starwood Carolina (LLC), Charlotte, NC
' Fisher, F. W.
1976a ArchaeologicallmpactAssessment..• Sewage Treatment Plant, Twelvemile
' Creek, Union County, North Carolina. Ms. on file with Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
1976b Archaeological Impact Assessment: proposed Wastewater Treatment
Plant Site, Twelvemile Creek, Union County, North Carolina. Ms. On file
with Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North
' Carolina, Charlotte.
Gheesling, F.A., Jr., P.H. Garrow, G.M. Watson, and D. Ettman
' 1979 Archaeological, Botanical, and Wildlife Survey: Proposed 201
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Waxah (Union County), North Carolina.
Ms. On file with the Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.
' Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An archaeological survey of proposed improvements on the Gastonia
sewer system, Gaston County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and
' Associates.
1996a An Archaeological survey of the proposed Twelvemile Creek interceptor,
' Waxhaw vicinity, Union County, North Carolina (ER 95-7342). Ms. on
file with the Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.

1
1996b An Archaeological test excavation of 31UN203, Waxhawvicinity, Union
County, North Carolina. Ms. on file with the Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh, NC.
24

1
Derrick, B.B., and S.O. Perkins
1916 Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture.
' Edwards, B. R.
2003 Site extent Identification and Delineation at 31UN203, Twelvemile
Creek, Union County, North Carolina. A report submitted to GS Carolina
' (LLC), Charlotte, NC
Edwards, I, B. and B. R. Edwards
' 2001 An Archaeological Survey (Phase I) of the development tract on
Twelvemile Creek and Waxhaw-Marvin Road, Union County, North
Carolina. A report submitted to Starwood Carolina (LLC), Charlotte, NC
' Fisher, F. W.
1976a Archaeological Impact Assessment: Sewage Treatment Plant, Twelvemile
' Creek, Union County, North Carolina. Ms. on file with Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
1976b Archaeological Impact Assessment.• proposed Wastewater Treatment
Plant Site, Twelvemile Creek, Union County, North Carolina. Ms. On file
with Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Charlotte.
Gheesling, F.A., Jr., P.H. Garrow, G.M. Watson, and D. Ettman
' 1979 Archaeological, Botanical, and Wildlife Survey: Proposed 201
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Waxah (Union County), North Carolina.
Ms. On file with the Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.
' Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An archaeological survey of proposed improvements on the Gastonia
' sewer system, Gaston County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and
Associates.
1996a An Archaeological survey of the proposed Twelvemile Creek interceptor,
Waxhaw vicinity, Union County, North Carolina (ER 95-7342). Ms. on
file with the Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.
' 1996b An Archaeological test excavation of 31UN203, Waxhaw vicinity, Union
County, North Carolina. Ms. on file with the Office of State Archaeology,
' Raleigh, NC.
24

Hobbs, Samuel Huntington, Jr.
' 1930 North Carolina: economic and social. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Hofmann, Margaret M.
1982 Colony of North Carolina, 1735-1764: abstracts of land patents.
Roanoke News, Weldon, North Carolina.
Holm, Mary Ann, and Lautzenheiser, Loretta
2000 Cultural resources assessment and archaeological survey, proposed sewer
line, tributary of West Fork Twelvemile Creek new Newtown, Union
County, North Carolina. Ms. on file with the Office of State Archaeology,
Raleigh, NC.
Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Hudson, Charles, Chester DePratter, and Marvin Smith
1981 The route of Juan Pardo's exploration in the interior southeast, 1566-1568.
Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
H.Y.G.
1989 Waxhaw: 1889 - 1989. Waxhaw Centennial Committee, Waxhaw,
North Carolina.
Keel, Bennie C.
1990 Salvage archaeology at the Hardins site, 31Gs29, Gaston County, North
Carolina. SouthernlndianStudies39:1-17.
Keeler, Robert Winston
1971 An archaeological survey of the upper Catawba River valley. Honors
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Lederer, John
1672 The discoveries of John Lederer, in three several marches from Virginia,
to the west of Carolina, and other parts of the continent: begun in March
1669, and ended in September 1670. Reprinted by Readex Microprint,
1966.
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina (by John Lawson). University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
25

' Louder, Darrell
1964 Appendices to the Survey and Classification of the Catawba River and
Tributaries, North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
' Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
May, Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavations at the Crowders Creek Site (31GS55): a Late
' Woodland Farmstead in the Catawba River valley, Gaston County, North
Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 38:23-48.
1991 An Archaeological Survey Reconnaissance of Lake Park Subdivision,
Crooked Creek Watershed, Union County, North Carolina. Report
' submitted to Mathison Land Company, Indian Trail, North Carolina.
Mountjoy, Joseph B.
1989 Early radiocarbon dates from a site on the Pee Dee -Siouan frontier in the
' Piedmont of central North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 38.
Munsey; Cecil
' 1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, New York.
' National Park Service
1991 Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms. National Register
Bulletin 16.
' Nitze, Henry B., and George B. Hanna
1896 Gold deposits of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey,
Bulletin 3.
North Carolina Geological Survey

' 1985 Geologic map of North Carolina. Department of Natural Resources and
North Carolina
Raleigh
Development
Communit
,
.
y
,
Perkinson, Phil H.
1973 North Carolina fluted projectile points -survey report number two.
Southern Indian Studies 25.3-60.
Pickens, Suzanne
1990 "S'weet Union: " An Architectural and Historical Survey of Union County,
North Carolina. Union County Board of Commissioners, et al., Monroe,
' North Carolina.
Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

26

Redwine, John M.
1925 Union County Rich in Historical Heritage. Monroe Journal, October 23,
1925.
Reid, James Jefferson
1967 Pee Dee pottery from the mound at Town Creek. M.A. thesis, Department
' of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Simpkins, Daniel L., and Roy S. Dickens, Jr.
1985 First phase investigations of late aboriginal settlement systems in the Eno,
Haw, and Dan River drainages, North Carolina. Ms. on file, Research
Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel
' Hill.
Sharpe, Bill
1958 Anew geography of North Carolina (vol. 2). Sharpe Publishing
Company, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Soil Systems Incorporated
1979 Archaeological, Botanical, and Wildlife Survey, Proposed 201 Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Waxhaw, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc.,
Marietta, Georgia.
Stephens, Ronald B.
' 1996 Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture.
' Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 137.
Roberts, Bruce
1982 The Carolina Gold Rush, America's First. McNally and Loftin Publishers,
' Charlotte, North Carolina.
Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man-induced Soil erosion on the Southern Piedmont, 1700-1970. Soil
' Conservation Society of America, Iowa.
Walden, H. Nelson
' 1964 History of Union County. Heritage Printers, Inc., Charlotte, North
Carolina.
27

1
' Ward, Trawick
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3.
t 1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of
Change. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: an Archaeological
' Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
' Ward, Trawick, and Joffre L. Coe
1976 Final report: an archaeological evaluation of the Falls of the Neuse
reservoir. Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University
' of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Willey, Gordon
' 1966 An introduction to North American archaeology: volume 1, North and
Middle America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.

1

1
1

28

rn
N