20141129 Ver 1_Application_20141027

i Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name
Creekside Village
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Serrus Creekside, LLC
3. Name of Consultant /Agent: Atlas Environmental, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): none
5. Site Address: 31 Loftin Street, Weaverville, NC
J
2 0 1 4 1 1 2 9
6. Subdivision Name: Creekside Village
7. City: Weaverville
8. County: Buncombe
9. Lat: 35.686684 Lou: - 82.573520 (Decimal Degrees Please )
10. Quadrangle Name: Weaverville
11. Waterway: UT to Reems Creek (Class 'C')
12. Watershed: Reems Creek (HUC: 060101050903)
13. Requested Action:
❑ Nationwide Permit # 27/29 R C�'�ED
❑ General Permit # OCT 2084
❑✓ Jurisdictional Determination Request sTO ENR -LAND QNALIiy
0 Pre - Application Request RMWATERPERITTING
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
Section 404
Begin Date

r �,, 7 WTI,
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mrs. Tasha Alexander
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
October 22, 2014
NC Division of Water Resources, WQP
Wetlands, Buffers, Streams -
Compliance and Permitting Unit
Attn: Mrs. Karen Higgins / Mrs. Jennifer Burdette
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Re: Creekside Village — Residential Development
Nationwide 27/29 Permit Application Request
Weaverville, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Tasha and Karen /Jennifer:
Serrus Creekside, LLC is requesting approval of the enclosed Nationwide 27/29 permit application.
The permit application request is for 202 linear feet of culvert for lot development and one road
crossing, as well as 0.037 acre of wetland fill within the proposed Creekside Village Development
(NWP 29). Another impact request is for 470 — 500 linear feet of stream restoration and
enhancement (NWP 27). This activity will include the removal of a pond and in -line sediment basin,
the restoration of 390 linear feet of stream, and 80 -110 linear feet of enhancement where the
stream connects to the existing stream below. The requested construction schedule will commence
immediately upon permit approval.
We are not aware of any previous permits that have been issued for the Creekside Village property.
Enclosed are the necessary permit documents and additional project information. Feel free to
contact me with questions.
Best regards,
Jennifer L Robertson
Copies To:
Mr. Tim Fox — NC DWR Swannanoa Office
Mrs. Andrea Leslie — NC WRC Swannanoa Office
Mr. David Earley — Sundog Development Company, LLC
Mr. Mike Anderson — Civil Design Concepts
ATLAS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
775 Haywood Road, Suite D; Asheville, North Carolina 28806
828 - 712 -9205 (m) / 980 - 819 -7780 (o) / 980 - 819 -7876 (f)
www.atlasenvi.com

I- NMENTAL
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attn: Ken Jolley, Chief, Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 -1890
-and -
NC Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Program
Wetlands, Buffers, Streams – Compliance and Permitting Unit
Attn: Karen Higgins, Supervisor
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
I, the current landowner, lessee, contract holder to purchase, or right to purchase holder of the
property identified below, hereby authorize Atlas Environmental Inc to act on my behalf as my
agent during the processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Waters of the US that are
regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. Federal and State agents are
authorized to be on said property when accompanied by Atlas Environmental Inc staff. Atlas
Environmental Inc is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for delineation
approval and /or permit processing at the request of the Corps or WQP.
Project Name: 'd� VdIct e
Property Owner of Record: �6*AA✓ S C A6'6- K- s 1 1045 , L., L G
Contact Name: ��u�s7� lA le U
Address: _ &225 v . W7
Address: ,�il�— r�t°.A9(�, 2-0923
Phone /Fax Number: _ –293 – lc 00 //ICX5
Email Address: d�a� 1 @w . SuJ�r LACLa . 60M
Project Address: f Piev nm Aw
Project Address:
Tax PIN:
Signature:
I'i�) 0•, p'01P-4.1I
Date: (� N —L� sl leA4A-V
I ATLAS Environmental Inc
9700 Research Drive, Suite 142
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
828 - 712 -9205 (m) / 704 -512 -1206 (m) / 980 -819 -7780 (o) / 980 -819 -7876 (f)
[e-mail]
www.atiasenvi.com

Jurisdictional Determination Request
r�
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Wilmmqton District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on -line at: http: / /www.saw.usace. army. mil /Missions /Re ug lato!3 PermitPropram aspx , by
telephoning: 910- 251 -4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
General Number: (828) 271 =7980
Fax Number: (828) 281 -8120
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: (919) 554 -4884
Fax Number: (919) 562 -0421
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: (910) 251 -4610
Fax Number: (252) 975 -1399
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910- 251 -4633
Fax Number. (910) 251 -4025
Version: December 2013 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization /notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address:
Loftin Street
City, State:
Weaverville, NC
County:
Buncombe
Directions:
From Asheville 1 -26 W/US- 19/23/70 N to Exit 21 (New Stock Rd) Right onto New Stock Rd, then left onto
US -19 BUS N/Weaverville Rd Travel 10 mile, then left onto Aiken Rd, then first right onto Loftin St
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 973293098700000
973293718600000
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address'
Jennifer Robertson
775 Haywood Rd, Suite D
828 - 712 -9205
[e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Serrus Creekslde, LLC
Mailing Address: 2 David Keats Drive
Greenville, SC 29630
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address3:
❑✓ Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS /Parcel /Tax Record data)
1 If available
2 Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property /properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
See Agent Authorization
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
Date
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property /project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS5 and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property /project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property /project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT /USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. ALL REQUESTS
❑— Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
❑✓ Size of Property or Project Area 36.89
acres
I v I I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
G. JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
❑ Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form6.
❑ Project Coordinates:
Latitude
Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11 x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08 -02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets8
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
Landscape Photos, if taken
Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
❑✓ Project Coordinates: 32.686684 Latitude - 82.573520 Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑✓ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑✓ Aerial Photography of the project area
F✓ USGS Topographic Map
❑—V Soil Survey Map
❑✓ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
http: / /www.usace.army.mil/ Missions/ CivilWorks/ RegulatoryProgramandPermits /reg supp aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
http:/ /portal ncdenr.org /c /document library /get file ?uuid= 76f3c58b -dab8- 4960- ba43- 45b7fafo6f4c &groupld =38364 and,
http: / /www.saw.usace.army.mil/ Portals /59 /docs /regulatory /publicnotices /2013 /NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318 pdf
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
Wetland Data Sheets9
Tributaries:
❑v USACE Assessment Forms
0✓ Upland Data Sheets ❑v Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑✓ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑e Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage /linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑v Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland /community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
I. REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF,SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard -
copy submittals include at least one original Plat to scale) that is no larger than 11 "x17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "x 17 ", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e -mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
❑ Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
❑ Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
❑ Must be legible
❑ Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
❑ Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings /metes
and bounds /GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
❑ Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
❑ Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
❑ When wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
❑ all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project /property boundaries
❑ Must include the location of wetland data points and /or tributary assessment
reaches
❑ Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands ", "non -
jurisdictional waters "). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
❑ Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
When the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary, is depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USA CE Action ID No.:
When uplands maybe present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundary
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Date:
USA CE Action ID No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
❑ be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
❑ include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property corner, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross - referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
❑ include a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

ot \NArFgQG
O T
Office Use Only.
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27/29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes NX No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
N Yes ❑X No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project-
Creekside Village
2b County
Buncombe
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Weaverville
2d. Subdivision name:
Creekside Village
2e NCDOT only, T I P or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Serrus Creekside, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
P011 /130
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Stephen Mudge and David Earley
3d. Street address:
2 David Keats Drive
3e. City, state, zip:
Greenville, SC 29630 e�
3f. Telephone no.:
828- 293 -1000 t
3g. Fax no.:
828 - 293 -1100 2' 201
3h. Email address:
dearley @sundogplaces,com D
STORMWATER PERiVIII TiNG
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify -
4b
Name:
same as above
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no
4g. Fax no..
4h
Email address
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name.
Jennifer Robertson
5b
Business name
(if applicable):
Atlas Environmental
5c.
Street address:
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
5d. City, state, zip-
Asheville, NC 28806
5e
Telephone no.:
828- 712 -9205
5f.
Fax no.:
980- 819 -7876
5g
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID).
973293098700000, 973293718600000
lb
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude 35.686684 Longitude: - 82.57352
1 c.
Property size
36.89 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Reems Creek
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water-
C
2c
River basin.
Upper French Broad (06010105)
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Approximately 7 acres has been disturbed and /or developed into townhomes. Remaining +/- 30 acres is'mostly forested There is only one mayor
topographic draw on the property It contains a jurisdictional channel that flows into a 0.17 acre in -line storm basin, and then into a 0.35 acre pond
The channel is low flow and connects to Reems Creek at the northern property boundary. Forested area has mature hardwood with some invasives
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.042
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 817
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project.
To develop a residential community and provide homes to meet the needs of the North Asheville and Weaverville Community.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
Heavy earth moving equipment will be used to remove the pond /dam and storm basin as well as any related culverts Significant grading will also be
done to create build -able lots and one road crossing the upper end of the channel will be filled and replaced with 202 feet of culvert below the
culvert, the pond and dam will be removed and restored to natural channel.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all riot phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company -
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b
If yes, explain
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply).
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.009
W2 P
Culvert
Unknown
Yes
Corps
0 028
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.037
2h. Comments:
Wetland "W2" exists due to backwater from the existing storm basin
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b
Type of impact
3c
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Ch -100
INT
Corps
2
202
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
202
3i Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S. then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 P
Pond 1
Other
Pond
0.35
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
0.35
4g. Comments: This pond will be removed and restored to natural channel
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k. Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require miti ation, then vou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other-
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance,and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Plans were adjusted to require only one road stream crossing The impacts from the road crossing and lot grading were minimized by shifting them as
far to the top of the drainage as possible A large section of the culvert placement occurs through an existing in -line storm basin Below the one
culvert in the upper reach, the stream is completely avoided Where possible, pockets of mature canopy will be preserved throughout the property
lb Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be used in all stages of construction. After the pond removal, natural channel design techniques
will be used to ensure stability and success
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S or Waters of the State?
Yes ❑ No
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ X❑ Corps
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ ro Payment to in -lieu fee ram
y p g
X❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type- Choose one
Type Choose one
Type Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested.
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature.
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)-
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested-
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Removal of on -line pond, re- establish a natural valley, restoration of 390 linear feet of new channel, and enhancement of 80 -110 linear feet where the
new channel ties into the existing channel below All mitigation standards will be followed including establishment of riparian buffer and monitoring.
all
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
35%
2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑x Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The proposed storm water runoff will be collected into a storm water collection system The collection system will take storm water runoff to bmp
devices that will provide water quality protection and storm water detention in accordance with the Town of Weaverville's storm water ordinance
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Buncombe County
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Buncombe County on behalf of Weaverville
X❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)-
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
[]Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑X Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes
Q No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes
Q No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes
0 No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
El Yes
Q No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered 'yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed pproJJ'ect, or available capacity of the subject facility.
All wastewater from Creekside Village will be treated as part of the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NCDENR - NHP Database Search (see attached table)
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat.
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA EFH Mapper
In
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC HPO GIS Web Service (see attached map)
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
No disturbances will occur within a FEMA designated 100 -year floodplain
go
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer overlay (see attached map)
In
Jennifer L Robertson
jennit" e xo&wboa
October 22, 2014
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided
Page 10 of 10

CHANNEL
' IMPROVEI)(IENTS
80�� I�.k�
J'
I P �
\ PE �qAl
Legend: —J
I
Jurisdictional Stream(s)
,0200.
418 0 1. :Stream Impacts)
: Proposed Culvert(s)
Channel Restoration
Jurisdictional Wetland(s)
Jurisdictional Open Water(s)
Wetland /Open Water Impact(s)
Total Stream Impact(s) :
202 linear feet
Total Wetland Impact(s) :
0.037 acres
Total Open -Water Impact(s) :
0.35 acres
Total Stream Restoration :
470 - 500 Linear Feet
Creekside Village
?
Impact Map
R ,'�►
Close -Up
N
Cz
11%
~�
6 °5y
\ V/
,1
,1
,
\ 1
1 \
r
PROPOSED
TRAIL
V
NEW
CHANNEL
390 I.f.
1
1 1
BRIDGE NJ
`` ST RM' BASIN
/
i
I
I
I
p
►..B!°!��N k___"No Impact
0..17jac. { I
\ y !J 1
I
IMPACT 3
A�4 -2000
0.028 ac.
�Ak IMPA T \\ \
Ch -1 0 \\ \\
�., 20
• 1 1
1
f I
II
I
I I
IMPACT 1
WL -1000
0.009 ac.
1 �
1 �
I L
n
K ONMENTAL
775 Haywood Road, Suite D AshemUe, NC 28806
980 9-7780 wwwatLsenvicom
Scale: 1" = 75' sheet: Date: 09-10 -2014
Map: Impact Map
Project: Creekside Village
Location: Buncombe County, NC
Client: Serrus Creekside, LLC Code: SC -1000

I y.
a
t 1
1 CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS
80 10
PROPOSED
1 TRAIL
LED 1
/ 1 I
I 11
NEW
CHANNEL
� 3901.f.
I P I II I
E - TE I II 1
.3 c.
1 I ET tt
RIDGE I t t 1
1 t :v fihi j a 8* N Ct I
f�..... ...C..
1 1.... ...I t_ ' 1
1 IMPACT 3 1 1
1 ' L -2000 Ch -1 0
0 028 20 \
F-1 ac.
Legend:
Jurisdictional Stream(s)
.•���'••.��.•� : Stream Impact(s)
� � — : Proposed Cutvert(s)
Channel Restoration
Jurisdictional Wetland(s)
Jurisdictional Open Water(s)
-i-i-i- . • - .
Total Stream Impact(s) : 36.89 acres
Total Wetland Impact(s) : 202 Linear Feet
Total Open -Water Impact(s) : 0.35 acres
Total Stream Restoration : 470 - 500 Linear Feet
Creekside
Impact Map
Overall
zo
V41246
r
x Z'
0
xCZ
>
G7
F-
X
M
0
I I
�I
O IMPACT 1 I I U
WL -1000
0.009 ac. r
rr r
D Lj
L�
1
U3 �:
F
o' 76 o'
25' 150,
SCALE: 1" = 150' CONTOUR INTERVAL= 2 FT
--
(IVONMENTAL
775 Haywood Road, Suite D Asheville, NC 28806
980 - 819 - 7780 - wwwatbseWcom
i
t
\\'�
0
o�
z�
•
a
J�
t`
�w
oZ
�
Scale: 1" = 150' 1 Sheet: I Date: 09 -10 -2014
Map: Impact Map
Project: Creekside Village
Location: Buncombe County, NC
Client: Serrus Creekside, LLC code: SC -1000

UT to REEMS CREEK
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Plan
Town of Weaverville
Buncombe County, NC
Prepared for:
CRE�E� KS DE VILLAGE
Serrus Creekside, LLC
2 David Keats Drive
Greenville, SC 29630
Prepared By:
(:!JVIRONMENTSAL
Atlas Environmental
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
October 2014

Introduction
Atlas Environmental proposes to restore a section of channel currently impounded for a pond and in-
line stormwater basin. The channel is an unnamed tributary (UT) to Reems Creek near Weaverville,
North Carolina. This restoration plan is being developed to mitigate for impacts to the headwaters of
the same tributary. Specifically, this plan will remove two impoundments and all pipe related to an
existing 0.35 acre pond and a 0.17 acre stormwater basin. 390 linear feet of new channel will be created
through a restored natural valley. Approximately 100 linear feet of existing channel immediately below
the pond dam will also be restored to proper dimension with stable banks and grade control structures
to reduce stream bank erosion and ensure a stable transition from the new channel to the existing
channel below the pond. This valley and stream restoration plan will improve stream habitat by
restoring a continuous aquatic connection and riparian corridor, as well as allowing a more natural flow
regime.
The impounded and unstable reach lies within an unnamed tributary which flows directly into Reems
Creek, and then into the French Broad River as part of the French Broad River Basin. This plan is to be
submitted as part of state and federal permit applications and will meet the conditions of 404/401
permits.
Stream work will include pond and basin excavation, re- grading of a natural valley, creation of natural
channel with bankfull benches, installation of grade control structures (rock and /or log vanes or steps),
and bank stabilization with proper slopes, matting, and vegetation.
Goals and Objectives
The goal of this project is to provide a natural channel design for the creation and restoration of +/- 490
linear feet of impounded and /or unstable stream to improve water quality and habitat within the
subject drainage and watershed below. Specific objectives of the project include: 1.) Replace pond and
storm basin with a more natural valley and stream channel. 2.) Create a stable stream channel that
neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining its dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to
transport the watershed's water flows and sediment load. 3.) Improve aquatic habitat with restored
flow regime, and in- stream structures for more channel diversity with step -pool or riffle -pool complexes.
4.) Establish and protect a riparian buffer and corridor along the proposed design reach.
Project Description / Existing Conditons
The UT to Reems Creek restoration project site is located one mile south of Weaverville, Buncombe
County, NC with boundaries along the western side of BUS 19/23 Merrimon Avenue and Reems Creek.
The drainage area of the proposed restoration reach is approximately 0.056 square miles (38 acres).
The subject reach is presently impacted by two impoundments, and in a state of instability immediately
below the impoundments due to excess sediment and erosion resulting from a non - functioning outlet

pipe and erosion of the dam. Because of the impoundments interruption to the streams natural flow
regime and mobilized substrate, and the introduction of sediment from the dam erosion, the channel
substrate below the dam is primarily silt, sand, and fine gravel. With further investigation and minor
excavation, historic gravel and cobble, which is more appropriate for a channel with this slope, becomes
apparent.
Existing channel morphology above and below the impoundments suggests a natural transition from an
A channel to a B channel according to Rosgen stream classification methodologies. Below the
impoundments, the presence of embedded historic gravel and cobble substrate, slope approaching 0.05
and small well established bankfull benches within the confined valley all suggest that a B4a /B3a
channel best fits this location.
Reference reach information was gathered upstream and downstream of the subject reach. Additional
comparison was also made to a reference reach surveyed in Madison County. Existing bankfull
indicators were utilized to propose design cross sectional areas and bankfull bench elevations. The off-
site reference reach was also used to compare and validate these design dimensions.
Topography in the watershed consists of two soft ridges surrounding one major drainage which flows
down to alluvial bottomland along Reems Creek. Vegetation communities in the watershed consist
primarily of upland hardwood forest dominated by poplar, various oak species, and red maple. Ridges
contain clusters of white pine. Exotic invasive multiflora rose, microstegium, and chinese privet are
present along the stream corridor. Soils in the restoration area consist of sandy clay loam and clay loam,
and most resemble Evard -Cowee and Tate loam soils as described in the USDA -NRCS Soil Survey for
Buncombe County.
Detailed Site Plans
The proposed design and stream work are included with the attached Figures of this report including
data for existing and reference conditions, as well as the proposed design. NCSRI Regional curve
equations for rural mountains were referenced, but because of the small drainage area of the project
reach, the design was based more on the surveys above and below the impoundments, as well as the
Madison County reference reach with similar drainage area. The project was broken up into 3 separate
reaches due to valley and construction constraints. The first reach (STA 0 +00 — 2 +70) will be a B4a
stream type with target dimensions of: Wbkf = 5 ft, Dbkf = 0.4 ft, Abkf = 2 sqft, W/d = 12.5, and a slope
of 6% - 6.5 %. Due to valley width constrains, Reach 2 (STA 2+70— 3 +70) becomes a steeper (9% slope)
step -pool section (see Typical Cross - Section Figure for specific dimensions). Also at the beginning of
Reach 2 are outlets for stormwater wetlands needed for the proposed Creekside development. The
step -pool structures are designed to handle the additional storm flows. Reach 3 quickly transitions back
down to 7.5% and finally 5% slopes as the new channel ends at STA 3 +90 and restoration begins. The
final 100 —110 linear feet of channel will be restored to proper dimension and grade control will used to
prevent any incision or head - cutting below the project area. The channel slope continues to reduce and
the flood prone width increases as it enters the Reems Creek valley. The confluence with Reems Creek is
approximately 550 linear feet below the end of the restoration reach.

Restoration Techniques
Dimension
The proposed design reach will maintain a similar Wbkf and Abk of the existing channel below the
impoundments. Dbkf will be reduced slightly to avoid future incision and allow for expected vegetation.
An inner berm feature will be included to improve function and sediment transport during low flows.
The entrenchment ratio will be increased for the new channel to provide maximum bankfull relief.
Where the new channel approaches and transitions into the existing below the dam, the entrenchment
ratio will return to <12 due to valley constraints. This entrenchment ratio does, however, fall within the
typical range for this stream type.
Pattern
The proposed pattern was created by starting with the predetermined endpoints (proposed culvert, and
existing channel below dam), then creating the necessary sinuosity to naturally transition from 7% slope
down to 5% slope. Because the valley will be reshaped, there are no known existing conditions that will
control the path of the channel. Establishing the new channel as close as possible to the original valley
location and utilizing log and /or rock structures will help to maintain the pattern location.
Profile
Similar to developing the pattern, known endpoint locations and elevations were the start of the design.
Next, target slopes and sinuosity were based upon existing conditions above and below the disturbed
area. Valley width constraints did create the need for a short section with steeper slopes. These
conditions were compared to common ranges published for similar stream types and the reference
reach. Grade control structures will be used to establish and maintain the design profile. Specific
structure placements include immediately below the proposed culvert, immediately below proposed
stormwater outlets, and where the new channel ties into the lower existing channel. Otherwise, the
structures are placed based upon appropriate pool locations approximately 50 linear feet apart to
maintain grade and prevent incision. Minimum pool -pool spacing is 10ft.
Stream Structures
In- stream structures will be utilized to provide grade control, develop scour pools, protect stream banks,
and create habitat. Rock and /or log vanes and steps will be installed in the new and restored channel to
help meet the overall objectives of the project. (See construction typicals)
Construction
The construction sequence will consist of using excavators, bulldozers, loaders, or some combination of
the three machines as well as manual labor to; 1.) Remove pond and basin dam and fill material, 2.)
Reshape a natural valley as close as possible to the original elevation, 3.) Create a natural channel to the

specified dimensions, pattern, and profile, 4.) Install stream structures, 5.) Stabilize soil with seed, straw,
and coir matting, 6.) Plant woody plant material (potted plants, bare root, livestakes, or transplants).
Monitoring Plan
An as -built report and two annual monitoring reports will be submitted that include physical monitoring
data, vegetation plot data, photographs and a written summary. Details of this monitoring plan are
described below.
Stream Channel
A physical monitoring plan for the new stream and restoration is proposed to ensure the success of the
project. Monitoring will include detailed channel geomorphology data for dimensions, pattern, profile,
and channel materials. Physical monitoring will include: 1.) Permanent cross sections, 2.) Longitudinal
Profile, and 3.) Pebble counts. Photographs at each cross section will also be recorded and included
with the as -built survey and monitoring reports.
Vegetation
A minimum 30 foot riparian buffer will be established along the stream restoration reach. This buffer
will be seeded with temporary herbaceous. Next, appropriate native woody species will be planted at
the spacings and densities shown in the table below. Larger potted trees may also be used to enhance
the stream bank vegetation and provide immediate coverage. Vegetation plots will be established and
monitored to ensure survival of the required density of stems per acre.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percent of
Plantings
Spacing
(ft.)
Container Species
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Dog - hobble
40%
2.5
Cornus ammomum
Silky dogwood
15%
3
Clethra acuminata
Mountain sweet pepperbush
15%
3
Rhododendron maximum
Roseby rhododendron
10%
3
Betula lenta
Sweet birch
10%
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
10%
6
Live Stake Species
Cornus ammomum
Silky dogwood
30%
3
Salix nigra
Black willow
20%
3
Salix sericia
Silky willow
20%
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common elderberry
30%
5

Photographs
Permanent photo locations will be used to document the success of the stream stabilization project.
Locations will be selected to show good representation of bank stability, plant survivability, and
improved habitat. The permanent locations will be marked with rebar or PVC poles.
Conclusions
This project was designed to meet the objectives of improving water quality and habitat within the
Reems Creek watershed. Though the project is small in scope, the long -term gains of removing the two
impoundments, reducing erosion, and preserving a riparian buffer is significant. The stream design uses
the methodology of natural channel design to create and maintain stable stream dimension, pattern,
and profile while also improving aquatic and wildlife habitat.

FIGURES

FIGURE: 1
"
^ f � •,t � 1 ti + ! J � • ,. r , • • • + • r•1 : •? ;' ' r; M' . • Yet° �''
E Y $iii titi'r'1',�P ..f • r . • �; • .
' ova M
1
_,
' RESTORATION '
� � _ '..?pill • :: �••b'._
REACH LOCATION , ice!. ' ` • `"�• a •
•
4 #�
/ • :` f (( %4 \ / I r [ 1 *n, �") t _., • • y r *' • V im+ i • /�i •+� A
ti.! • OgLufley
JON nub }
q! Hill
-.b 0•.. "�� • •'••f •••• • • _ ... a� r,0 <_1 it • KNQ IM • ' te•r .e ��va _ ,
, �,�"'�..� ,�,,� • - ' l:••• ••� • • • •_�.," • •'1r 1, "� �% `•• ,�� •R`Y qty. • • � M�, ���"r • A. 1`.. • 1't � 1 °/,
Prepared By:
Site Location Map
Scale in Feet:
C
Atlas Environmental
Restoration Reach
500 2500
Asheville Office
Creekside Village
0 1250
ONMENTAL
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
YW
Figure created using Google Earth
/ A'
Asheville, NC 28806
Buncombe County, NC
Sources: Digital Globe, U.S. Geological Survey
I V

EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROFILES
Distance along stream (ft)
400 450 500 550 60U
• EXISTING PROFILE
+ PROPOSED PROFILE
I
X
�
N
X
M
X
�
2045
EXISTING
u$
POND
i
2036
2030
t
2025
+
2020
+
DESIGN
PROFILE
zoos
z010
+
zoos
--
2000
0 fin
inn
i5n
Distance along stream (ft)
400 450 500 550 60U
• EXISTING PROFILE
+ PROPOSED PROFILE

_ d
W
LL /
LL
D 0O.S
Co b13 `
0 6/ sv J
/ a
dS
a ' /
i •s
i
� n
s oo <
Ios +Ee�s (�
N
Y M
I '
' 1
W \ N
1
� N
b
1
G � �
� +e vis I
Y3 •\ n
3 Z HOVB'd
OL +Z V1S L HTov r
Or
' NN(
y I 1 I
s t�
O�
r
a
m
Op +Z bLS
a � a
I r �
I , �
a
g � n
I I
I
y oo + vls
Q
C�
z �
J I
tz
I � I N
II
a b
f+ N
I M
N+p b1S m L)
la'Is
M
Un I
G
i
n z
O
N
; Y
Lf'
z
Q
J
Lu
o
IJ
LL
CO
z
O
O
V
G\2
iL
W
w
■
f/jqij
/v
V )
JO
U
W
W
U
.i.0
ter•
O
W
� o
O
z
Cl)
U
Q°
w
c J_
H
_J
>
z
0 0
0
o
0
U
O
O
Lf'
z
Q
J
�
U
o
�
Q
CO
z
O
z
U
''Zn
/v
V )
JO
U
W
W
U
QJ
O
Z
z
Cl)
U
Q°
w
c J_
o°
M
_J
>
Q
0 0
0
W
U
v
�a
Y
q
E0
o
w
W1
1{ ^UJ
O QZ/
: J
o
c�cnma
U
N
O
O
N
.
...
...
...
N0N
....
...
................
......
/6L
LL
0
L_ZL
`r`^
V/
w
Uo
W
+
w
LL
0
Z
(D
U)
w
2
Uo
W
O
Lf'
z
Q
J
�
U
o
�
Q
CO
z
O
z
U
''Zn
/v
V )
JO
U
W
W
U
QJ
O
Z
z
o
c J_
o°
M
_J
>
Q
0 0
0
W
U
v
O
Cl)
+
''Zn
/v
V )
U
W
W
0
U
QJ
LLJ
Z
Z
c J_
o°
M
_J
>
Q
0 0
W
U
U �
�a
Y
q
E0
o
w
W1
1{ ^UJ
O QZ/
: J
o
c�cnma
U
N
O
O
O
O
+
N
0
+
U
J
J
W
�
+
:
o
U
O
O
N
O
.1��
Z
O 00 (D V' N O W tO ,T N O O W d' N O O CD ,T W
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O z
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O
O
N
N
Ln

WfP Wbkf Wf
COIR
MATTING
TYPICAL RIME-
REACH ABKF WBKF DBKF W/D
1 2 5 0.4 12.5
2 2.2 5 0.45 11.1
3 2.3 5.25 0.44 11.9
WfP Wbkf Wf
COIRre "
MATTING
TYPICAL POOL
REACH ABKF WBKF DMAX
1 2.55 5 0.9
2 2.55 5 0.9
3 2.6 6 0.9
V W
ONMENTAL
775 Haywood Rd, Ste D Asheville, NC 28806
L 828 - 712 - 9205 • www.atlasenvi.com
Typical Channel
Cross - Section

LAS
RONMENTAL
775 Haywood Rd, Ste D Asheville, NC 28806
828 - 712 - 9205 • www.atlasenvi.com
Typical Channel
Pattern and Profile
Scale: Not to Scale Sheet: 1 of 1
Construction Typical
Channel Pattern and Profile
Drawn By:
*Conceptual Plan - Not For Construction

Morphological Summary: Creekside Village
VARIABLES
Unit
UT Reems
Reference
Design
Typical
Reach
County
Buncombe
IN
Madison
INBuncombe
Notes:
so
In
me
IN
Stream Type
134a
134a
134a
Drainage Area
sq. mile
0.056
0.05
0.056
Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
ft
4.80
115.00
IM5.00
min /max
3.5/4.8
in
5.00
4.0 / 5.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
ft
0.50
110.40
IN10.40
min /max
0.4 / 0.58
IN
0.40
04/05
Width /Depth Ratio (Wbkf /Dbkf)
9.00
111112.50
111250
min /max
69 9.2
1912.50
9/12.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (Abkf)
sq. ft
2.00
W12.00
2.00
min /max
1.8/2.45
1.11 / 2.2
2 / 2.4
Wetted Perimeter (wet perim)
ft
5.00
10,5.80
1015.28
min /max
4.1/5.3
1111
IN]
Width Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
ft
8.00
6.30
116.30
min /max
6.0/9.1
JW6.30
119.0/15.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.90
1.26
112.00
min /max
1.7/1.9
Ol
151.8/2.2
Sinuosity (K)
1.20
J11.18
111.17
`
01101001011001
Valley Slope (VS)
0.06
110.09
IM
0 07
Channel Slope (S)
0.05
NJ
0.08
U-6-06-5
Mumma=
In
D 16
mm
083
FAJO.31
IN
D 35
mm
1 52
163.00
In
D 50
mm
16.00
IN
6.50
gravel
D 84
mm
113.40
1192.00
D 95
mm
17897
NO
150.00
IO-RINEWAROMMINNINNIMIffix WE,
'"

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Reems Creek
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: DESIGN XS - 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
2018.0384
1
0
2017.004
1.25
0
2016.61 BKF
1.6
0
2016.2185
2.25
0
2016
2.75
0
2016
3.5
0
2016.125 IB
4.55
0
2016.15
6.25
0
2016.61 BKF
8.75
0
2016.9123
9.5
0
2018.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0.065 0.065 0.065
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft) 1.54 1.54
Movable Particle (mm) 209.0 209.0
Channel
Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
2017.22
2017.22 - - - --
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2016.61
2016.61 - - - --
Floodprone width (ft)
8.16
- - - -- - - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
5
5.48 - - - --
Entrenchment Ratio
1.63
- - - -- - - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4 - - - --
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.61
0.61 - - - --
width /Depth Ratio
12.5
13.7 - - - --
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
2
2 - - - --
wetted Perimeter (ft)
5.28
5.28 - - - --
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.38
0.38 - - - --
Begin BKF Station
1.25
1.25 - - - --
End BKF Station
6.25
6.25 - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0.065 0.065 0.065
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft) 1.54 1.54
Movable Particle (mm) 209.0 209.0

EXISTING CHANNEL DATA

Worksheet 5 -3. Field form for Level II stream classification ( Rosgen, 1996; Rosgen and Sllvey, 2005).
Stream: UT to Reems Creek, Existing Reach 1
Basin: French Broad Drainage Area: 35.84 acres 0.056 mil
Location: Creekside Village Property
Twp. &Rge: Weaverville, NC Sec. &Qtr.: ;
Cross - Section Monuments (Lat /Long): 35.686684 Lat / - 82.573520 Long Date: 08/27/14
Observers: McSwain, Isner Valley Type: II
Bankfull WIDTH (Wbkf)
NIDTH of the stream channel at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle section 4.76
Bankfull DEPTH (dbkf)
clean DEPTH of the stream channel cross - section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a
Ae section (dbkf = A / Wbkf) 0.52
3ankfull X- Section AREA (Abkf)
AREA of the stream channel cross - section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle
section 2.45
Width /Depth Ratio (Wbkf / dbkf)
3ankfull WIDTH divided by bankfull mean DEPTH, in a riffle section 9.15
Maximum DEPTH (dmbkf)
vlaximum depth of the bankfull channel cross - section, or distance between the
)ankfull stage and Thalweg elevations, in a riffle section 0.87
NIDTH of Flood -Prone Area (Wfpa)
twice maximum DEPTH, or (2 x dmba) = the stage /elevation at which flood -prone area
NIDTH is determined in a riffle section 9.07
ntrenchment Ratio (ER)
fhe ratio of flood -prone area WIDTH divided by bankfull channel WIDTH (Wfpa/ Wbkf)
riffle section) 1.91
-hannel Materials (Particle Size Index ) D50
fhe D50 particle size index represents the mean diameter of channel materials, as
sampled from the channel surface, between the bankfull stage and Thalweg
Elevations 16
Water Surface SLOPE (S)
,hannel slope = 'rise over run" for a reach approximately 20-30 bankfull channel
widths in length, with the 'riffle -to -riffle" water surface slope representing the gradient
it bankfull stage
0.05
Channel SINUOSITY (k)
3inuossty is an index of channel pattern, determined from a ratio of stream length
iivided by valley length (SL / VL), or estimated from a ratio of valley slope divided by
;hannel slope (VS / S) 1.2
Stream g 4a (See Figure 2 -14)
Type _>
ft
ft
ft2
ft/ft
ft
ft
ft/ft
mm
ft/ft
Copyright © 2006 Wildland Hydrology WARSSS page 5 -29

Stream UT to Reems Creek I I Location ( Reach - Reach 1
Date. 8/27/2014 1 Stream Type. B4 Valley Type-
Observers: I McSwian, Isner HUC: T 60101050903
INPUT VARIABLES OUTPUT VARIABLES
Bankfull Riffle Cross - Sectional
2.45
A(fb)f
11
Bankfull Riffle Mean DEPTH
0.52
I
db
AREA
3.56
ft /sec
(ft)
- (2 * d bkf ) + W bkf
(ft)
Bankfull Riffle WIDTH
4.76
W bkf
Wetted PERMIMETER
0.37
17:1
3.56
ft /sec
(ft)
- (2 * d bkf ) + W bkf
(ft)
D 84 at Riffle
I
113.40
Ala'
L
D 84 (mm) / 304.8
0.37
Dsa
3.56
ft /sec
(mm)
Abkf / Wp
(ft)
Bankfull SLOPE
0.0500
1 Sbkf
Hydraulic RADIUS
0.47
R
3.56
ft /sec
(ft / ft)
Abkf / Wp
(ft)
Gravitational Acceleration
32.2
9 I
Relative Roughness
1.26
R / D 84
3.56
ft /sec
(ft / sec2)
R(ft) / D84 (ft)
(ft/sec)
Drainage Area
LOA
DA
Shear Velocity
0 870
u*
3.56
ft /sec
(mil)
u* = RS
(ft/sec)
1 11 ESTIMATION METHODS Bankfull Bankfull
VELOCITY DISCHARGE
1. Friction Relative u= 2.83 + 5.66 * Lo R / D
FactorZRoughness 9 { 8a } ] u
2.92
ft / seC
7.16
cfs
Roughness (Figs. 2 -18, 2 -19) u = 1.49 *R213 *S 1121 n n = 0.056
3.56
ft /sec
8.73
cfs
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's n from Friction Factor / Relative
ft /sec
8.21 T
cfs
0.00
Roughness (Figs. 2 -18, 2 -19) u = 1.49 *R213 *S 1121 n n = 0.056
3.56
ft /sec
8.73
cfs
2. Roughness Coefficient: u = 1.49 *R213 *S 1121 n
b) Manning'sn from Stream Type (Fig 2 -20) n= 0.056
2. Roughness Coefficient: u = 1.49 *R2J3 *S 1121 n
c) Manning'sn from Jarrett (USGS): n = 0.39 *S038 *R -o 16
Note This equation is applicable to steep, step /pool, high boundary
roughness, cobble- and boulder- dominated stream systems, i e , for n
Stream Types Al, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2 & E3
3. Other Methods (Hev. Darcv- Weisbach. Chezv C. etc_1
Wolman and Mil
3. Other Methods (Hey, Darcy - Weisbach, Chezy C, etc.)
Chezy C
4. Continuity Equations: a) Regional Curves u = Q / A
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q = 0.0 year
3.56 ft / sec 8.73 cfs
1.41 ft / sec F3.46 cfs
3.35
ft /sec
8.21 T
cfs
0.00
ft /sec
0.00
cfs
0.00
1 ft / sec 11
0.00 1
cfs
4. Continuity Equations: b) USGS Gage Data u = Q / A I� 0.00 ft / sec 0.00 I cfs
Protrusion Heiaht Ontions for the D... Term in fho Raintivp Rnnnhnccc Role +inn /Rfn_ .1 _ Fc4imn4inn Mn4hn'i 1
Option 1
p
For sand -bed channels Measure 100 "protrusion heights" of sand dunes from the downstream side of feature to the top of
feature Substitute the D84 sand dune protrusion height in ft for the D84 term in method 1
Option 2
For boulder- dominated channels Measure 100 "protrusion heights" of boulders on the sides from the bed elevation to the top of
the rock on that side Substitute the D94 boulder protrusion height in ft for the D84 term in method 1
Option 3
For bedrock - dominated channels Measure 100 "protrusion heights" of rock separations, steps, joints or uplifted surfaces above
channel bed elevation Substitute the D84 bedrock protrusion height in ft for the Ded term In method 1
Option 4
For log- influenced channels- Measure "protrustion heights" proportionate to channel width of log diameters or the height of the
log on upstream side if embedded Substitute the D84 protrusion height in ft for the D84 term in method 1

� o
c
O
a �
�+ a
m
't
d
m
3
� n
w
1 A
o
X0
U
11 C
I w
Y
X
W
x
3
N
C
O
a
v
0
0
m
r
N
U
C
�6
S2
0
N
C
N
C
0
a
o
0
rn rn m m m m rn m m
(4) u011ene13

River Name: UT to Reems Creek
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross section Name: EXISTING XS - 1
Survey Date: 08/27/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1922.9915
1.56
0
1921.1831
4.52
0
1920.7722 BKF
5.82
0
1920.4193
6.61
0
1919.9568
6.61
0
1919.9138
7.24
0
1919.9018
7.92
0
1919.9087
7.92
0
1919.9647
8.9
0
1920.417
10.66
0
1922.0187
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
slope 0.05 0.05 0.05
shear stress (lb /sq ft) 1.47 1.06 1.12
Movable Particle (mm), 201.5 158.8 165.6
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1921.64
1921.64
1921.64
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1920.77
1920.77
1920.77
Floodprone width (ft)
9.07
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
4.76
2.83
1.93
Entrenchment Ratio
1.91
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth,(ft)
0.52
0.47
0.58
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.87
0.87
0.87
width /Depth Ratio
9.15
6.02
3.33
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
2.45
1.33
1.12
wetted Perimeter (ft)
5.27
3.91
3.09
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.47
0.34
0.36
Begin BKF Station
4.53
4.53
7.36
End BKF Station
9.29
7.36
9.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
slope 0.05 0.05 0.05
shear stress (lb /sq ft) 1.47 1.06 1.12
Movable Particle (mm), 201.5 158.8 165.6

N II
C W
CL
A
d a
U
t6
i
J
N
d
t0
3
J
N II
w
� x
A
` v
X�
rn U
V C
Zw
Y
I—� C
VJ.
X
W
II
x
A
3
N
C
O
a
v
c
J
O
U
N m m aD aD r r O
m m m m m m m m
(4) UOIIEA913
N
U
C
f6
Q
N
�L
0
a
M
N
O 10
O 10
O 10
O
O �O
N m m aD aD r r O
m m m m m m m m
(4) UOIIEA913
N
U
C
f6
Q
N
�L
0

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Reems Creek
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: EXISTING XS - 2
Survey Date: 08/27/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1918.4976
1.57
0
1917.7962 BKF
2.45
0
1917.1581
2.89
0
1917.132
4.31
0
1917.0597
4.3
0
1917.1821
5.04
0
1917.7591
6.17
0
1918.6564
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------7-----------------------------
Entrainment calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields curve
channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0.05 0.05 0.05
shear Stress (lb /sq ft) 1.37 1.03 1.06
Movable Particle (mm) 191.9 155.3 158.8
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone'Elevation (ft)
1918.54
1918.54
1918.54
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1917.8
1917.8
1917.8
Floodprone width (ft)
6.02
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
3.53
1.77
1.76
Entrenchment Ratio
1.71
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.51
0.49
0.53
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.74
0.69
0.74
width /Depth Ratio
6.92
3.61
3.32
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
1.81
0.87
0.94
wetted Perimeter (ft)
4.09
2.67
2.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.44
0.33
0.34
Begin BKF Station
1.56
1.56
3.33
End BKF Station
5.09
3.33
5.09
----------------------------------------7-----------------------------
Entrainment calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields curve
channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0.05 0.05 0.05
shear Stress (lb /sq ft) 1.37 1.03 1.06
Movable Particle (mm) 191.9 155.3 158.8

H o
O Y
O. p
d a
U
t0
i
J
N
d
>l0
M
`X
Z'
_ Y
'^ C
U) m
X
W
1
`s
a
v
c
J
Q
m c2 a2 n n <c <c 12 �n
m rn m m m m m m rn
(4) UOIIBA913
IF-

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Reems Creek
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: EXISTING XS - 3
Survey Date: 08/27/2014
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
1917.3692
1.45
0
1916.0109
1.86
0
1915.558
2.1
0
1915.4541
2.96
0
1915.5
4.23
0
1915.4682
4.26
0
1915.621
4.63
0
1916.1837 BKF
6.59
0
1916.6345
8.11
0
1918.1827
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
i
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0.05 0.05 0.05
Shear stress (lb /sq ft) 1.50 1.09 1.12
Movable Particle (mm) 204.6 162.2 165.6
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
1916.91
1916.91
1916.91
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
1916.18
1916.18
1916.18
Floodprone width (ft)
6.36
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
3.36
1.68
1.68
Entrenchment Ratio
1.89
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.58
0.56
0.6
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.73
0.73
0.71
width /Depth Ratio
5.79
3
2.8
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
1.95
0.94
1.01
wetted Perimeter (ft)
4.08
2.65
2.79
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.48
0.35
0.36
Begin BKF Station
1.27
1.27
2.95
End BKF Station
4.63
2.95
4.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
i
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0.05 0.05 0.05
Shear stress (lb /sq ft) 1.50 1.09 1.12
Movable Particle (mm) 204.6 162.2 165.6

U)
X
2 P
w _0 A
o °
v
W.5
U'
Y
Z`
NW
I..L
W
Li-
W
(4) UOI;Bn813
U
C
(6
_y

River Name: UT to Reems Creek
Reach Name: Reach 1
Cross Section Name: REFERENCE REACH XS - 1
Survey Date: 03/15/2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------
0
2.05
3
3.44
3.85
4.61
5.01
5.59
5.83
5.99
6.44
7.06
8
8.62
9.23
11.07
11.43
11.49
13.34
-------------------------------------------------------
3581.4305
3581.2106
3580.9884
3580.7644
3579.954
3579.1685 lew
3579.0806
3578.9806
3578.97
3578.9559
3579.0197
3579.0431
3579.0535
3579.1089 rew
3579.56 BKF
3579.8623
3580.4034
3581.9434
3583.0362
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0.07 0.07 0.07
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft) 1.88 1.66 1.49
Movable Particle (mm) 241.7 220.7 203.3
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
3580.16
3580.16
3580.16
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
3579.56
3579.56
3579.56
Floodprone width (ft)
7.53
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
5
2.52
2.48
Entrenchment Ratio
1.51
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.46
0.48
0.43
Maximum De th (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.53
width /Depth Ratio
10.87
5.25
5.77
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
2.29
1.21
1.08
wetted Perimeter (ft)
5.34
3.24
3.16
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.43
0.38
0.34
Begin BKF Station
4.23
4.23
6.75
End BKF Station
9.23
6.75
9.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0.07 0.07 0.07
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft) 1.88 1.66 1.49
Movable Particle (mm) 241.7 220.7 203.3

Construction Typicals

W
NOTES:
1. Experiments
have shown
(Johnson . etal.
2001) that
vanes force the
flows to
separate from
the channel
bank, reducing
velocities and
shear stresses
at the bank,
and increase velocities in the
center of the
channel.
2. Optimum a= 25 ° —JO*
J. Two or more structures
provide greater flow control
than a single structure.
4. The optimum distance (d)
SCOUR between structures (with
POOL relatively gentle bend curvature)
is given
by d s2W.
W�
_W 3
L A C
ONMENTAL
775 Haywood Rd, Ste D Asheville, NC 28806
828 - 712 - 9205 • www atlasenw com J
Rock Cross Vane
and J -Hook
Scale Not to Scale Sheet. 1 of 1
Construction Typical
Rock Vane / J -Hook
Drawn By
*Conceptual Plan - Not For Construction

Weir Toe of
Notch Bank Header
/-Log
: x After construction, stabilize banks
with seed, straw, coir matting,
/ivestakes and other plantings
Footer
Log Rebar
Use logs with a minimum 12" diameter that are straight
and with sufficient length to meet designer specifications.
Header Log
Toe of
Bank Header
Ring V Log
Shank
Noi /s
3
8 oz. Weir p
Non -woven Notch
Filter Fabric
Scour
Hole
F/ow> � Rebor
Weir
Backfil/ with Notch Rock sill
cobble Scour sets Poo/
— Poo/ water elevation
P O
>2H
Geotextile
Rock Cobble
- Boulders
(5-IFOLNMENTAL
775 Haywood Rd, Ste D Asheville, NC 28806
828 - 712 - 9205 • www atlasenvi com
Log Step -Pool
Small Stream
(Less Than 12ft.)
Scale: Not to Scale Sheet 1 of 1
Construction Typical
Log Step -Pool
Drawn By
*Conceptual Plan - Not For Construction

RUN CO /R ROLLS PARALLEL
TO THE STREAMBANK
o O o
� y
0
o TRIANGULAR LIVE STAKE SPACING
STAGGERED I' — X APART
NOTES:
1. Run two rows of coir matting beyond the top of bank
2. Harvest and p lant live stakes during the dormant season
J. LiVeStGkes should extend down into mid — summer water table
4. Stagger live stakes and space them I' — Y apart
5 Use o rigid steel pilot bar to prepare planting holes in firm soils
6. Soak live stokes for 24 hours prior to installation
7. After installing, tamp soil securely around the stake
TRENCH AND BURY
EDGES OF COIR FABRIC
I !'
'\—ILIVESTARE � INSTALLED
WITH 759 BURIED
\— MATTING SECURED WITH
12" HARDWOOD STAKES
F /N /SH GRADE IS SEEDED,
LIVE STAKES — PROF /LE AND COVERED WITH STRAW
AND CO /R MATTING
(AM)A
tQ o
' ONMENTAL
775 Haywood Road, Su!te D Ashe\nge, NC 28806
[phone] • wwwattasenw.com
Live Stakes and
Coir Matting
Scale Not to Scale Sheet. 1 of 1
Construction Typical
Live Stakes / Coir Matting
*Conceptual Plan - Not For Construction

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Creekside Village Restoration Plan - Site Photographs
Upper existing channel above basin
Existing channel above basin
Existing channel above basin
Existing basin, looking up valley
Top of existing pond looking up towards storm basin
Back side of existing pond dam

., � � � ��� �•• .�$"�''� .. ,Far ,,s. ,
R
.
� x 1
h
K ti 1'
Ale
w i ' °'fit a �\,:.. q ,,`OY. 47 •y },. +4X � .�y`,*
♦
was '
t
a a J
'.At
•r e
i a1R °°tea •..
w -'
1� r
�+^
a
r.
^
t

y
Qti 4
r
V
as
O
0
P
z
�,•... -,... � ,,..�' .�. ..yid' t ��r, " �� �k,._.
u cu
_N
VQ
M
4
i
I �

FIGURE: 02 Drive 7.7 miles, 10 min
Directions from 151 Patton Ave to 31 Loftin St
O 151 Patton Ave
Asheville, NC 28801
Get on 1 -26 W /US -19 N /US -23 N /US -70 W
0.7 mi / 1 min
t 1. Head west on Patton Ave toward S French Broad Ave
0.4 mi
2. Keep right at the fork, follow signs for US -19 N /US -23 N /US -70 W /Weaverville and merge onto 1 -26 W /US-
19 N /US -23 N /US -70 W
0.3 mi
Follow 1 -26 W /US -19 N /US -23 N /US -70 W to New Stock Rd in Woodfin. Take exit 21 from 1 -26
W /US -19 N /US -23 N/US -70 W
A 3. Merge onto 1-26W/US-19 N /US -23 N /US -70 W
1* 4. Take exit 21 for New Stock Rd
Take US -19 BUS N to Loftin St in Reems Creek
1 5. Turn right onto New Stock Rd
*1 6. Turn left onto US -19 BUS N /Weaverville Rd
0 Continue to follow US -19 BUS N
*1 7. Slight left onto Aiken Rd
f 8. Take the 1st right onto Loftin St
O 31 Loftin St
Weaverville, NC 28787
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map
results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices
regarding your route.
5.8mi /6min
5.6 mi
0.2 mi
1.2mi /3min
151 ft
1.0 mi
0.1 mi
0.1 mi

Buncombe County Parcel Map
42821 1 T 9138
3027 6051 7080 9948
4316 ��� Lake Loua,
pa Commuruh=
Park
2819
9380
RP
v
570 �o
2429
3287 6223
1 2006
2149
7413
0 250 500 1,000
FPAt
3657
0987
0
co
6485
8311
9982
1470
z o
o m
9Ty 2555
�2
718
0
8176
gi'Fcc oe
�'QO v2i
t 2
1827 3819 m W
8825
0 1741
3639
0603
0680
3514
4215 8381
0029

COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH CAROLINA
Web Property Record Card
'�i110l4
9732-93-0987 -00000
Date Printed: 9/11/2014
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 200,800
Units
28.18 Acres
Status: �
Active
Owners: SERRUS CREEKSIDE LLC
Deed Date:
2/26/2014
Address:
Deed Book /Page:
5188 / o635
2 DAVIS KEATS DRIVE
lat Book /Page:
0000/0000
GREENVILLE SC 29607
Legal Reference:
NON WARRANTY DEED
ropeM Location:LOFTIN ST
Location:
lass:
LOFTIN ST
UNDEVELOPED TRACT
Taxing Districts
Seller Names
eighborhood:
CREEKSIDE VILLAGE
County: Buncombe County
ubdivision:
ity: WEAVERVILLE
3ub Lot:
ire:
choor
oning:
onservation /Easement:N
uthoity:
lood:
N
Land Data Total Acres: 28.18 Land Value:
' 20o,800
Other Value: o
Improvements
Ownership History
Units
28.18 Acres
Transfer
Legal
Deed
Vacant
Date f
Price
Reference
Book /Page
Qualified
When
Account
Seller Names
Sold
NON
SERRUS REAL
02/26/14
$0
WARRANTY
5188/o635
No: C
Yes
826537o
ESTATE FUND II
DEED
LLC
NON
MOON-
109/23/13 '$677,000
WARRANTY
5147/1093
No: P
Yes
8235342
MCMANUS LAND
DEED,
HOLDING CO
LLC
Assessment History
Year
Account
Acres
Land
Bldgs
Imprr
Assessed
Desc
Exemptions
Deferred
Taxable
2014
8265370
28.18
2oo,800
o
0
2oo,800
0
0
2oo,800
2013
8235342
28.18
2oo,800
o
0
2oo,800
0
0
20o,800 I
2012
8235342
28.18
435,000
0
0
435,000
0
0
435000
12011
8235342
28.18
435,000
0
0
435,000
0
0
435,000
2olo
8235342
28.18
435,000
0
0
435,000
0
0
435,000
Land Data Total Acres: 28.18 Land Value:
' 20o,800
Other Value: o
Improvements
S
1
Units
28.18 Acres
Description
LOT
Total Building Value: o

COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE, NORTH
CAROLINA
Web Property Record Card
�n.mw
9732-93-7186 -00000
Date Printed: 9/11/2014
Owner Information
Parcel Information
Total Property Value: 603,900
Units
Status:
Active
Owners: SERRUS CREEKSIDE LLC
Deed Date:
2/26/2014
Address:
Deed Book /Page:
5188/o615
2 DAVIS KEATS DRIVE
Plat Book /Page:
0124/0179
GREENVILLE SC 29607
Legal Reference:
PLAT
Prop_ rM Location:5 LOFTIN ST _
Location:
lass:
5 LOFTIN ST
MULTIPLE RESIDENCES
Taxing Districts
Neighborhood:
ubdivision:
CREEKSIDE VILLAGE
CREEKSIDE VILLAGE
County: Buncombe County
City: WEAVERVILLE
Sub Lot:
c e:
hool:
oning:
I
onservation /Easement:N
thority:
lood:
N
Ownership History
No Owner History
Assessment History
Land Data Total Acres: 6.87 Land Value: Other Value: o
Acres _ — 98,000 Improvements
Segment# Units — Descriptions
1 .87 Acres ILOT
Building Structures
Res. Building Style Sq Bsmt Bsmt Year Grade Condition Value
ID Feet SgFt Finished Built
1 CONVENTIONAL 1822 0 0 2014 B N 126465
Refinement
Description
Built -Ins
Units
Foundation
SLAB
Full Bath(s)
2
Roof Type
GABLE W/ COMP. SHGL.
Fireplace /Gas Log
I
HVAC
HEAT WITH A/C
Bedrooms(s)
3
Section
SgFt
# Stories
LIVING AREA LEVEL 11
1.00
ATIO
16o
1.00
GARAGE
440
1.00
OPEN PORCH
148
11.00
LIVING AREA LEVEL
228
1.00
I
r
Building Structures
Res. Building S le Sq Bsmt Bsmt
ID ty Feet SgFt Finished
zoom
Year Grade Condition Value
Built
2 CONVENTIONAL 1822 0 0 2014 B N 126465
Refinement Description Built -Ins Units

Foundation ISLAB JIFull Bath(s)
Roof Type GABLE W/ COMP. SHGL. Fireplace /Gas Lc
HVAC HEAT WITH A/C Bedrooms(s)
Section
SgFt
# Stories
LIVING AREA LEVEL 11594
Foundation
1.00
PATIO
160 ,
1.00
GARAGE
440
1.00
OPEN PORCH
48
1.00
IVING AREA LEVEL
228
i.00
Q
zoom
2
1
2
1 Building Structures
Res. Building Style Sq Bsmt Bsmt Year Grade Condition Value
ID Feet SgFt Finished Built
3 CONVENTIONAL 1822 0 0� 2014 B N 126465
Refinement
Description
Built -Ins
Units
Foundation
SLAB
Full Bath(s)
2
Roof Type n
GABLE W/ COMP. SHGL.
Fireplace /Gas Log
1
HVAC
HEAT WITH A/C
Bedrooms(s)
2
Section
SgFt
# Stories
LIVING AREA LEVEL 1
1,ri94
1.00
GARAGE
440
1.00
PATIO
160
1i.00
PEN PORCH
48
1.00
LIVING AREA LEVEL 2228
11.00
zoom
Building Structures
Res. Buil ,ding St Sq Bsmt Bsmt Year
ID yle _ Feet SgFt Finished Built Grade Condition Value =
4 CONVENTIONAL 1822 0 0 2014 B N 126465
Refinement
Description
Built -Ins
Units
Foundation
SLAB
Full Bath(s)
2
Roof Type
GABLE W/ COMP. SHGL.
Fireplace /Gas Log
1
HVAC
HEAT WITH A/C
Bedrooms(s)
3
Section
SgFt
# Stories
LIVING AREA LEVEL 11594
1.00
GARAGE
440
1.00
PATIO
160'
1.00
OPEN PORCH
48
i.00
LIVING AREA LEVEL 2228
ji.00
Q
zoom
Total Building Value: 505,900

FIGURE: 04
%,� n \ w
Ca
(1IRONMENTAL
Prepared ay:
Atlas Environmental
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
Aerial Map
Overall
Creekside Village
Buncombe County, NC
Scale in Feet:
zoo soo
^'
I V
o 400
Figure created using Google Earth
Sources: Digital Globe, U.S. Geological Survey

FIGURE: 05 -a
%1JE NM NTAL
Prepared By:
Atlas Environmental
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
YW
Asheville, NC 28806
USGS Topo Map
Overall
Creekside Village
Buncombe County, NC
Scale in Feet:
200 800
A'
' V
0 400
Figure created using Goa le Earth
s s
Sources: Digital Globe, U.S. Geological Survey

FIGURE: 05-b
VV
A.
0
e LOW ift
#
N,
—7
ney 0
7
t H i
J
N
4.
0
-A
• •WO
•
•
j
Prepared By:
LISGS Topo Map
Scale in Feet:
A Q
Atlas Environmental
Vicinity
500 2500
-
to
Asheville Office
Creekside Village
0 1250
ARONMENTAL
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
County, NC
Figure created using Google Earth
Asheville, NC 28806
Buncombe
Sources: Digital Globe, U.S. Geological Survey

-
f '` • 1
1 IC11-100_
Underground - —,,, . •�
132 Lf.
1 WL -3000
0.005 ac. ! ��- _ -- ,__ '� ` ♦>
' rr
Ch -100
' 615 I.f. \\ t 1
•
\0",
7 \
f Ch -100
Underground
761.f. 11
OON 11
\ \'.. j1
1 \ ............
` � f
n i
jjj
\ �'81iS1N {� I
r N
WL -2000 I
NJ
Ir
STORM
I0.028 ac. 1
1
f
Ch -100 ••-'•No
• 202 I.f. •
Leaend:
�. - - --�
: Jurisdictional Stream(s)
Culverts)
zz? : Jurisdictional Wetland(s)
Jurisdictional Open Water(s)
Total Acreage of Site : 36.89 acres
Jurisdictional Stream(s) : 817 Linear Feet
Jurisdictional Wetlands) : 0.042 acres
X
m
Creekside Village � m
rr.
Jurisdictional Featurese Ffoap
FIGURE: 06 0
WL -1000
0.009 ac.
NJ
r
i'
j
r
rY o�
en =
5
25' 15 '
SCALE: 1" = 150' CONTOUR INTERVAL= 2 FT
(7IFKONMENTAL
775 Haywood Road, Suite D Ashulie, NC 28806
980 - 819 - 7780 - wwiatlasemkom
Scale:
Map:
Project:
Location:
(i'-'
oq
�f
b
a
0
m�
q
J�
4
0
'�ucr
1" = 150' I Sheet: I Date: 08 -28 -2014
Jurisdictional Features Sketch Map
Creekside Village
Buncombe County, NC
Client: Serrus Creekside, LLC I code: SCLLC -1000

35o 41' 21" N
350 40 56" N
FIGURE: 07
M Soil Map — Buncombe County, North Carolina 5
� �t
357410 357500 357590 357680 357770 357860
3
M
Map Scale: 1:3,790 if printed on A portrait (8.5'x 11 ") sheet.
— — Meters
N
AN 0 5o 100 200 300 Feet
,1 0 150 300 600 — — — 9000
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
2im Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
350 41'21"N
0
ry1
y�y
r+i
�i
350 40'56"N
357950
3
b
9/10/2014
Page 1 of 3

@
C_
O
cu
U
L
0
O
Z
T
c
0
U
m
a
E
0
C
7
m
c
O
UI
Z
O
L
O
LL
Z
a
0
Z
W
CD
W
J
a
a
p
C O)
C
N
N
N N
7 @
U p C c4cpp>
N 0.
U @ 0
p> U N
a cm ai m co -
a 0 m
U @ O Co
U) E @ N p
Yp 0) N E O
_ N E
OR
@ U @ .L @
N E 3 m
. r O U) 0 C
— o
'C m O N
° O> p C C
C
a w-0 N
E m 0 m
@ E c> E r
O -OL a
O c �- 0
m E L.
@ 7 U y
� w E o. m
>
>
Oj
@
O
L)
O 0
U
a C
LL
C
U
In
�6
C m
L CL
U °
m
N @ @
m
C
m
-°
C
m
E
U°) -0 O
C6
p L N
M O
L
LL
.a C
O
U) (n
CU
U
n
V7
N E
w
C
O
O
(n
@ -
N
>
O
w0
° Lo
N -0
L
U
@
Q
@ c ao
M
m@ v)
O- N 7
U)
U
C
N @U
OL N
Z
CL
C 7 d
0 1
W
O a y _O .�
7p 0'
@ @
Z N
E
U=
N@ 4>
3
T V
L
y 0
V) O
.0 O- L
C N
(n
C
U
a@i
, 3`
M CD
@ o Y D m
w
o
U
CO
0 z @
N .� cO V N
N
Oi
4)
L
7 N U@
O N
E O
7
N
O
U) O O a 0
-O L
OU `
U)
7 >
O N `O ° O
NQ
O
7 0
m�
a)
z�
E
o m
°
U (n
�.n
c m
>�> M
@stn
°
a@
o c
�E
�cna
3 p—°
0
�0
��
E�m�c
)
` '�
N° C 5
Q 4>
U) O
@ @
7 L p
d.� @ O V
Vl >
-
a E
U)
`°aD< 0
—
U) U)
>
>
Oj
�
N
L)
3� o
a C
LL
C
U
3
m
r
C m
L CL
CL m O
Q
U)
T
C
a
m
C
m
-°
C
m
E
U°) -0 O
= N
O
0 0
m
O
M O
L
LL
.a C
O
U) (n
N
� >N L_
>> O
U
n
V7
m
Y! �>
(n
to
C O
g�
)L> w
N U)
5 D
O
O
N m
U
J Q
N
p
>
L
m
JID
v
C
Q
�;A
�
y
LL
w
t
y,
c
7
t
Y
0 a
N
3
tTj
@ @
s
m
>
>
Oj
C
>
L)
3� o
>
>
C_
� O
3
N
C m
L
s
U°) -0 O
._
U
N N
O
�L0
L j
N
p
>
L
>
JID
3
O_
@
N
O O Q
s
o
m °
a
@
0 a
N
3
CL
@ @
s
N
O N
E
3
am
w u)
N
L N C .4>
?
m
0.N ° m
O
N
O � d�
n.
@
a@
)
L
S CD
7
N
p a @
m @ E E
i
O
@ o
Om N
L p
H U O
a
Q T N C 0 m V)
o ° o n
N a a N E m m
y N O O Z' N n o
c c c m n a 3 m o o D-
D ° > > ° w m ° d o o w o
0 _ n n n Q. O- G d T 30 O O N m 7 U) U) T a) n
m m m
Q° ti O 3 d a w LL r O a> c O m T �> ° °
m 3 > U > > ° m N a) U a) Y C a) L N U
_O m _O U > Y
m Q U) U) U) -� m m U U U' 0 J J � 2 :3 d d' U) (n U) 0 U) 0
a) a
S
N
2! i a •O t O U)
Q N
It Cl)
O O
N N
O N
Q) @
a
0
Z
7
U)
Z �
7 @
Co
0-
O
3:U
cu
c
0
@
Z
m
v
w Z
d4)
i (n
7 C
y O
d
tv
7
N
0 0
Z U
G

Soil Map— Buncombe County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Buncombe County, North Carolina (NCO21)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CkC2
Clifton clay loam, 8 to 15
11.1
30.5%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
EvD2
Evard -Cowee complex, 15 to 30
19.4
53.3%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
EvE2
Evard -Cowee complex, 30 to 50
2.6
7.1%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
RsA
Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3
0.7
2.0%
percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
Tate loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
TaB
2.5
7.0%
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
0.0
0.1%
Totals for Area of Interest
36.5
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/10/2014
r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

e
3 0) CL
N
US
O
V y C C
Q
C
UJ LL c c
O
W
# 'C C C
W
O
C
C .9;
r r W C
N N y m m s
LL LL W W LL J IX
Sao
! R L
8E
a
m
tLm
'vas
3�d
a ° d
mo5
c do
LL
d
♦ fit. �
r O
ad
odam
u ?
d
Log .
� n d
3
p"a d
d _ m
na
c � d
0
n-°
i
1
cc
1
cc
■
NOu
z
Ad
m
E
L
N

0
W
C�z
0
0
o T
2
m
U
0
t O
O
co
W N
00 m
LL) O
(� N
0 0
C �
N C�
C) m
LO a
CN N .�
� mO
LL d
LL U N
C y N
0 70
U LL Ln
U)
U
z
a
ca
O U
O N
n E
a Y
LL o U m
0
a�
m •-
d U 00
m £ co N
O OU
OL _N z
Q C O
N W t
0 •>
m Q (0 N
a =a
z
w
z
0
_t
9

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0304 FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
Class
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Brooks Branch
From source to Newfound
C
07/01/73
6 -84 -2
Creek
Round Hill Branch
From source to Newfound
C
07/01/73
6 -84 -3
Creek
Gouches Branch
From source to Newfound
C
07/01/73
6 -84 -4
Creek
Sluder Branch
From source to Newfound
C
07/01/73
6 -84 -5
Creek
Parker Branch
From source to Newfound
C
07/01/73
6 -84 -6
Creek
Dix Creek
From source to Newfound
C
07/01/73
6 -84 -7
Creek
Blue Branch
From source to French Broad
C
07/01/73
6 -85
River
Jenkins Branch
From source to French Broad
C
07/01/73
6 -86
River
Reems Creek
From source to U.S. Highway
C;Tr
04/01/58
6- 87 -(1)
23
Sugarcamp Fork
From source to Woodfin
WS -I;HQW
08/03/92
6- 87 -2 -(1)
Reservoir dam
Sugarcamp Fork
From Woodfin Reservoir dam
C;HQW
08/03/92
6- 87 -2 -(2)
to Reems Cr.
Bee Branch
From source to Reems Creek
C;Tr
07/01/73
6 -87 -3
Laurel Fork
From source to Sanitary
WS -I;HQW
08/03/92
6- 87 -4 -(1)
District Water Supply Dam
Laurel Fork
From Sanitary District
B;Tr
07/01/73
6- 87 -4 -(2)
Water Supply Dam to Reems
Creek
Maney Branch
From source to Reems Creek
C
04/01/58
6 -87 -5
Ox Creek
From source to Weaverville
WS -I;HQW
08/03/92
6- 87 -6 -(1)
Water Supply Dam
Ox Creek
From Weaverville Water
C;Tr
07/01/73
6- 87 -6 -(2)
Supply Dam to Reems Creek
Jimmy Branch
From source to Ox Creek
C;Tr
07/01/73
6- 87 -6 -3
Mundy Cove Branch
From source to Reems Creek
C
04/01/58
6 -87 -7
Eller Cove
From source to Weaverville
WS -I;HQW
08/03/92
6- 87 -8 -(1)
Water Supply Dam
Eller Cove
From Weaverville Water
C
04/01/58
6- 87 -8 -(2)
Supply Dam to Reems Creek
Herron Cove Branch
From source to Reems Creek
C;Tr
04/01/58
6 -87 -9
Reems Creek
From U.S. Highway 23 Bridge
C
07/01/73
6- 87 -(10)
to French Broad River
Lake Louise
Entire lake and connecting
C
07/01/73
6 -87 -11
stream to Reems Creek
Gill Branch
From source to Reems Creek
C
09/01/74
6 -87 -12
Wagner Branch
From source to Reems Creek
C
09/01/74
6 -87 -13
2B .0300
Page 35 of 64 2013 -12 -09 10:47:17

U)
(D
0
n.
L)
Z
04
T-
Lii
U-
pw it
U)
0 (0
0
CL
m
Z
At
04 V4AVM 41n"S
)(I P00m)(0 a
Oak Dr
'OWN
ECEIVED
XT 2 7 2014
IR-LAND QUALITY
VVATER Ptj RMI-
TTING
>1
C:
0
'G mope
o
04
C)
Q)
.0
C5
E
(L
a)
W
✓
�t
it C1k
E
m
LD
co
aLu
00
C5
C14
U)
JgW
ri
41
A
41
Im
Lr)
�
0
LU
:3
0
V)
O
C5
LU
J
LLi
K 2
LLJ
VA
W
LU
Z
20
Z
U)
(D
0
n.
L)
Z
04
T-
Lii
U-
pw it
U)
0 (0
0
CL
m
Z
At
04 V4AVM 41n"S
)(I P00m)(0 a
Oak Dr
'OWN
ECEIVED
XT 2 7 2014
IR-LAND QUALITY
VVATER Ptj RMI-
TTING
>1
C:
0
'G mope
o
04
Q)
.0
E
a)
CL
U) Q)

2
J
L
L (j)
^� LL
�✓ L
(n 0
O
R c�E
Ina
O
a_o CL
Z
O
46 ,
0 ca
LL Z
a�
m
m
m
m
m
m
0 r
a
v
o
V
0
L
0
N_
_N
N
J
J
7
J
7
7
vYi
vYi
N
F- to
U
2
x
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
2
2
C
�n
_
al
0
L
>
m
V
>
9
y
0
3
0
C
CO
O
v
0
c
v
N
L
O
a)
a
C
N
C
y
L
>
E
O
n
7
a
E
00
L
�
3
3
v c
C
=0
0
7
N
v
E m
a
v
u
o
N
v
O
O
>
a c
3
c
m
n
v O
N
E C
O
Y
i O
N
O
a1
;
O
u
-a y
w
�
L
in
>
_
O
N
L
N
C
.2
C
C
7 C
o
C
d0
a)
C
O
C
-O
^
C
Y
a) CD
O
3
c
m Y
m
v
a c
O
r
a
L
N
O
�
N C
N
0
v
O
W
CD
U
c
C
CO
'6
n)
a) 3
v^
w
a
c
L
u
C
w
+' .�
3 v
+' al
3 c
C
a
j
N
-o N
_
�a
v
>o
v
c
r
ai
o c_
O
3
c
u
V
v
LL
7
O
F"
o E
o
v
O
r
c
�n
V
c
>
u
C
L
c c
L
c
C
m
c >
m
>
a1
>
E
Y
O>
E
O
V
U
=
O
u
O
O
>
O
u
v
O to
3 s
JI
M
¢
CC
C7
co
O Z
C7
l7
Z
U
l7
F-
J Q
V
M
V1
M
M
V
V1
M
c-1
N
M
V
V1
C7 GL
C7
C7
C7
(7
l7
l7
C7
C7
C7
l7
l7
lJ
C7
w Y
r Z
cn
V
r¢
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
c-I
N
Ln
N
M
x
co
V1 1'
V7
VI
V)
VI
VI
V)
VI
V)
V)
VI
VI Z
V)
VI
JI
V1
W r
W
LL
U. VI
LL
LPL
LNL
W
IN1
INL
LPL
LPL
LL
I fA
W
Q Q
>
>
N
to
VUi
VUi
w
iUif
v�j
vUi
w
Vi
VV)
VUUi
w
w
-
c
ro
O
N
130
L
cc>
N
�
N
L
V
C
w
>
v
3
v u a
oD
v
o
u
u_
3
o
a
m a
L
u
o
v
o
-
o
m
Z
LL
m
m
a'
_
m
L
`"
E
>
2
)
N
O
m
m
Q .—
-p
E
VI
0j,
Vl
`
_N
C
L
of
—
L
C
U
V
C
ad
al
'O
C
aJ
M
E
UJ
U
t0
L
E
al
N
C 7
L
a
>
✓
O
0
E
E
o
v
J
Ln
0
u
v
o
v
a
a
x
°
w
z
m
a
a
v
E
j
E
OA
Q
txo
7
W
v
N
C
L
C
V
Q
°
mo
cz
v
o
-0o
c
?
t
u
ac
0
>
Z
U
to
J
ra
v1
C .—
C
_
�
u
N
4
c
Q
al
.�
al
X
y
L
m
C
O
C
W
E
a
c
O
N
x
aj
m
a
]
E
o
0)
O
O
O
�
>
-o
v
O
X
m
U
V
U
w
a
a°
r
L
0
H
L
U
C
C
C
LL
LL
LL
O
m
E
L
E
E
E
0 O
J
7
7
E
L
a
L
E
E
E
L
l7
m
m
m
N
N
I
%
i
%
C
Q
LL
LL
C
c
c
m
LL
m
N
Tr
O)

Creekside Village - Site Photographs
Non - Jurisdictional ditch above WL -1000
WL -1000 data point
WL -2000 looking downstream towards storm basin
Top of WL -1000
Upper Ch -100 looking upstream
WL -2000 looking upstream

Creekside Village - Site Photographs (continued)
Storm Basin looking downstream
Storm Basin looking upstream
Top of pond looking upstream
Pond looking downstream towards dam
Existing dirt road - looking east from pond dam
Channel nic -point below pond dam — looking upstream

.
ft"t
Ffi
K
wo
yc
.earn► '"� .. 'z,'' ; + +rte /� "���,�n, �
,..�y. fig,.; •. - "•
x.
%• Y - b
r
. L y y, � �•
r
3

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 08/27/2014
Project/Site: Creekside Village
Latitude: 32.687033
Evaluator: J. McSwain, P. Isner
County: Buncombe
Long itude:82.574633
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 23.5
Stream Deter circle one)
Other
Quad
if z 19 or perennial if 2:30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g Quad Nameeaverville
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 11 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0 ✓
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 ✓
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0 5 ✓
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5 ✓
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 ✓
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = 7 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1 ✓
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1 ✓
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 ✓
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 ✓
1
1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 05
1
1 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes= 3 ✓
C. Bioloqy (Subtotal = 5.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 ✓
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 ✓
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 ✓
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0 ✓
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 ✓
0.5
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
0 ✓
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 ✓
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 ✓
1 05
1
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =
V
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods Seep 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Creekside Village, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 8/27/14
2. Evaluator's name: J. McSwain, P. Isner
4. Time of evaluation: 1:00 pm
5. Name of stream. UT to Reems Creek 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 38 acres 8. Stream order: 1 st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 300 linear feet 10. County: Buncombe
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any): Creekside Village
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 35.686684 Longitude (ex -77 556611): -82.573520
Method location determined (circle) GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Along the only major topographic draw on property. Reaches above and below existing pond were evauated.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Removal of pond & basin, restore natural valley and channel using natural channel design
15. Recent weather conditions: Relatively wet summer, recent aftern000n thunderstorms
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, mid -80s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known- _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 0 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 0.35 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES a 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
70 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: -3 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight VOccasional bends
10 % Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4" - 12°
_Gentle (2 to 4 %) _VModerate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
_Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 52 Comments: This is a very low flow channel with an average 5% - 6%
slope. The substrate is primarily coarse sand and silt, with occasional cobble embedded in the sand. There is an existing
on -line storm basin and an existing pond in the middle of the channel. There are some relatively stable sections, and
some undergound sections and sections with accumulated debris. The channel goes undergound approximately 130 l.f.
before reaching Reems Creek. The hvdrologic connection is visible where the flow exits the bank of Reems Creek.
Evaluator's Signature Date 9/12/2014
This channel evaluation frdbyy tended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requi e United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECORE_ GION_POINT
RANG.E;.`
'$CORE
Coastal Piedmont
Moantain, °'°
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
s(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0 -3
0 -4
0 -4
3
�
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6
1 G Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 -4
0 -4
0 -2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
a
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0— 5
0— 4
0— 3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*-
0-4
0 - 5
1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
>+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
E-
13
� Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
4
H
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
4
_
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle - pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
0
(no riffles /npples or pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
4
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M
.e�
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
a (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 — 5
0-5
1
{
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C7
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
O
(no',evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
(no",evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
0
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0 -6
0 -5
0 -5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
52
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Proiecvsite: Creekside Village City /County: Weaverville / Buncombe Sampling Date. 08/27/2014
Applicant/owner Creekside Village, LLC State: NC Sampling Point. WL -1000
Investigator(s): MCSwain Isner Section, Township, Range
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Local relief (concave, convex, none)- concave Slope ( %) 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat 32.685194 Long: - 82.573274 Datum. NAD 83
Sod Map Unit Name Evard -Cowee NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrolo is Fl—/-]No conditions on the site typical for this time of year) Yes = (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes EK1 No ❑
Are Vegetation= Sod or Hydrology Q naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydrnc Soil Present? Yes T_77 � I No-F-7 within a Wetland? Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No=
Wetland seep that turns Into an intermittent channel.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two regwred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
✓ Surface Water (Al)
Q
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (61)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (65)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Agwtard (D3)
❑✓ Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
F-1 Aquatic Fauna (613)
[] FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes F_V_1
No ❑ Depth (inches). 0 -2
Water Table Present? Yes ❑✓
Q
No !mil Depth (inches) 0
0
II
Saturation Present) Yes
No ❑ Depth (inches)
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WL -1000
Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC- (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC- (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of - Multiply by,
50% of total cover, 20% of total cover.
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover:
2 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size
)
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
2.
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
1 Impatiens capensis
FACW
(7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 Juncus effusus
FACW
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3 Boehmana cylindrica
FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4 Carex
than 3 in (7.6 cm) DBH.
5
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
7
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
g
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
ft (1 m) in height.
10
11
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Rosa multiflora
FAC
2 Lonicera japonica
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes n
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover
No
Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point: WL -1000
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -4 10 YR 3/2 50
10 YR 4/6 50
4 -12 10 YR 4/2 100 coarse sandy clay
12 -20 10 YR 4/6 60
10 YR 4/3 40,
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Linmq, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (All 2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
® Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
❑t� ❑
Depth (inches)
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes No
I
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site. Creekside Village City /County. Weaverville / Buncombe sampling Date: 08/27/2014
ApplicanUOwner Creekside Village, LLC State. NC Sampling Point. UL -1000
Investigator(s) MCSwain Isner Section, Township, Range
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none) Slope ( %)• 15
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat 32.685194 Long. - 82.573274 Datum. NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name. Evard -Cowee NWI classification. None
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year'? Yes E_V7 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Sod ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation= Sod �, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 121 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ NoIZ:[ within a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Presents Yes No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
❑ Surface Sod Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No= Depth (inches)
❑ =
n
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches)-
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
5.
6
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size )
1
2.
3
4
5.
6
50% of total cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Liqustum sinense
2
3.
4.
5
6
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. )
1 Lonicera japonica
2 Rosa multiflora
3
4
5
50% of total cover
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate
= Total Cover
20% of total cover-
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
FACU
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: UL -1000
Dominance Test worksheet:
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
% Cover
Species? Status
1 Liriodendron tulipfera
60
FACU
2 Acer rubrum
10
FAC
3 Quercus rubra
10
FACU
4 Pinus strobis
5
FACU
5.
6
50% of total cover.
Sapling Stratum (Plot size )
1
2.
3
4
5.
6
50% of total cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Liqustum sinense
2
3.
4.
5
6
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. )
1 Lonicera japonica
2 Rosa multiflora
3
4
5
50% of total cover
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate
= Total Cover
20% of total cover-
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
FACU
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: UL -1000
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata-
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of - Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3 0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
20% of total cover Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
FACU (7 6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation ✓
20% of total cover: Present? Yes ❑ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Point: UL -1000
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type LOC2 Texture Remarks
0 -6 10 YR 4/4 100
6 -12 10 YR 4/6 100
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
D Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
D Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
D Redox Depressions (F8)
ZI Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks-
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Z
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site, Creekside Village city /County Weaverville / Buncombe Sampling Date. 08/27/2014
Applicant/Owner Creekside Village, LLC State. NC Sampling Point: WL -2000
Investigator(s) MCSwain Isner Section, Township, Range•
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc) Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)• Lat. 32.685617 Long. - 82.573583
Soil Map Unit Name. Evard -Cowee NWI classification
- Slope ( %): 2
Datum. NAD 83
None
Are climatic / hydroI is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes -L V I No Q (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No
Are Vegetation= Soil �, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
7 I
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No within a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Wetland created by backwater from existing storm basin.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reawred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
D Surface Soil Cracks (136)
F71 Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (614)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ Shallow Agwtard (D3)
10 Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
n FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes=
No ❑ Depth (inches). 0 -2
Water Table Present? Yes ❑✓
No ❑ Depth (inches). 0
Saturation Present? Yes ✓❑
No ❑ Depth (inches) 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WL -2000
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata. (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of. Multiply by-
50% of total cover- 20% of total cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Acer negundo
FAC
•
FAG species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
0✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size-
)
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Lindera benzoin
FAC
[j 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
2. Sambucus niqra
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3
Ej Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
1. Impatiens capensis
FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
2. Juncus effusus
FACW
Sapling —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3 Boehmaria cylindrica
FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4 Carer
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH
5 Mlcrostigium vimineum
FAC
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 Polygonum pensylvanicum FACW
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
7
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
g_
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
ft (1 m) in height
10
11
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size.
)
1
2
3
4
5
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes n
50% of total cover 20% of total cover-
No
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point: WL -2000
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Histosol (Al)
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -6
10 YR 4/1
90
10 YR 5/8 10
6 -12
10 YR 4/1
90
10 YR 4/8 10
12 -20
10 YR 4/1
100
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 11-ocation PL =Pore Lining, M =Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑✓ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
® Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth
❑✓ ❑
(inches)-
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks. Iron - manganese masses
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Creekside Village City /County: Weaverville / Buncombe sampling Date. 08/27/2014
Applicant/Owner Creekside Village, LLC State. NC Sampling Point UL -2000
Investigator(s) MCSwain Isner Section, Township, Range -
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). hillSlope Local relief (concave, convex, none) Slope ( %) 7
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat. 32.685617 Long - 82.573583 Datum: NAD 83
Sod Map Unit Name. Evard -Cowee NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes F Y I No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation El Soil ❑, or Hydrology = significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ Sod ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes ❑ No-F-7-7 within a Wetland? Yes = No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (614)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑Aquatic Fauna (613)
[] FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No Q Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches)
❑
= ✓
Saturation Present? Yes No= Depth (inches)
Wetland
Hydrology Present.) Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size _
1. Liriodendron tulipfera
2 Acer rubrum
3 Quercus rubra
4 Aesculus flava
5.
6
50% of total cover
Sapling Stratum (Plot size. )
1.
2
3
4
5
6
50% of total cover
Shrub Stratum (Plot size• )
1 Liqustum sinense
2
3
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
50% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Lonicera japonica
2. Rosa multiflora
3
4
5
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
% Cover
Species? Status
60
FACU
10
FAC
10
FACU
10
FACU
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
FACU
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
= Total Cover
20% of total cover
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover.
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: UL -2000
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Q✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3 0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
El Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation ✓
Present? Yes = No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the de
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) %
0 -6 10 YR 4/4 100
6 -12 10 YR 4/6 100
Sampling Point: UL -2000
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
Li
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
0 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
D Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
D Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
0 Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
E] Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Creekside Village City /County. Weayeryllle / Buncombe Sampling Date- 08/27/2014
Applicant/Owner• Creekside Village, LLC State. NC Sampling Point- WL -3000
Investigator(s) MCSwaln Isner Section, Township, Range•
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc )• floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none)- flat Slope ( %) 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat 32.688143 Long - 82.574662 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name Tate NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes J 7 I No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation En Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes= No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes F_71 No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Presents Yes No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (614)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (Bi)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sods (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (65)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ Shallow Aguitard (D3)
❑✓ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No F77 Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes=
Q
No ❑ Depth (inches). 4
❑ 2 -4
II
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WL -3000
Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. (A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata. (B)
4 •
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by'
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1'
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
�✓ 1 -'Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size,
)
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 • Lindera benzoin
FAC
3 - Prevalence Index is 53 0'
2 Sambucus nlgra
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5.
'Indicators of hydnc sod and wetland hydrology must
6
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
1 Impatiens capensis
FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2 Carex
FACW
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH.
5
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
7
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
g
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size•
)
1
2.
3.
4
5
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes n No
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL
to the depth needed to
or
Sampling Point: WL -3000
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -6 10 YR 4/2 80 7.5 YR 4/6 20
6 -12 10 YR 4/1 80 7.5 YR 4/6 20
12 -20 10 YR 4/1 100
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_❑ Hlstosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Sods (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Rncfrinfivn I wm /if - k —r—Al-
Type
Depth (inches)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Z No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Creekside Village City /County: Weaverville / Buncombe sampling Date- 08/27/2014
Applicant/Owner, Creekside Village, LLC State NC Sampling Point- UL -3000
Investigator(s) MCSWain Isner Section, Township, Range
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc) Local relief (concave, convex, none). Slope ( %): 4
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) Lat 32.688143 Long: - 82.574662 Datum. NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name. Tate NWI classification. None
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I Y I No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation � Soil ❑, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes= No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydnc Sod Present? Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No=
Remarks.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required, check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (610)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table, (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (65)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Depth (inches).
Water Table Present?. Yes ❑ No ❑Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑ ❑✓
n
Yes No Depth (inches),
Wetland
Hydrology Present.) Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks-
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: UL -3000
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liriodendron tulipfera
35 FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC, (A)
2 Acer rubrum
10 FAC
3 Quercus rubra
10 FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC, (A/B)
6
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by-
50% of total cover 20% of total cover-
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size.
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals. (A) (B)
5
6
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
211 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size-
)
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Liqustum sinense
FACU
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5.
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
6
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in
1 Mlcrostigium vimineum
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
2 Viola sp.
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in (7 6 cm) DBH
i
5•
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height
7
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
g
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
ft (1 m) in height
10
11
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
)
1. Lonicera japonica
2. Rosa multiflora
3
4.
5
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation ✓
Present? Yes n No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or
Depth
(inches)
0 -4
4 -12
Sampling Point: UL -3000
of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
10 YR 4/4 100
10 YR 5/4 100
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks.
aduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
D Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑t�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
0 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
El Piedmont Floodplam Sods (1719)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Sods (1719) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑t�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

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:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Creekside Village
State:NC County /parish /borough. Buncombe City: Weaverville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 32.686684° R, Long. - 82.573520° W
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Reems Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). 060101050903
® 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): 8/27/14
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are o "navigable waters of the US " 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 Are "waters of the US " 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): i
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waterS2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ 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: 817 linear feet 3 width (ft) and/or 0.056 acres.
Wetlands: 0.042 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: i1987 Delineation, Manual
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 not jurisdictional.
Explain:
i Boxes checkedbelow shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e g, typically 3 months)
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III F

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section 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 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 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 III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size- PickPick Ltst
Drainage area Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall- inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick st 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 List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain.
Identify flow route to TNW5.
Tributary stream order, if known:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e g, tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW

(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- Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope)- %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: PicLis,
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume.
Surface flow is- Pick List. Characteristics.
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings•
❑ Dye (or other) test performed.
Tributary has (check all that apply).
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply).
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list)•
❑ Discontinuous OHWM 7 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):
me 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:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film, water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known.
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e g, where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices) Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e g , flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break
'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: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacent 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: Pick 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- Plck Llst
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 abuts9 (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 III.D:
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 III.D:
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 III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area•
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
0 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.
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally. Very low flow in wet conditions, no in- channel structure, homogenous, sandy substrate, underground sections.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply)-
® Tributary waters- linear feet width (ft).
® Other non - wetland waters: 0.35 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters- pond.
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 III.0
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters- acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Obvious hydrologic connection observed in the field.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.042acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area. 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 III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area- acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
® Demonstrate that water meets the' criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below)
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA - STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain.
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III D 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.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply).
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft)
❑ Other non - wetland waters- acres
Identify type(s) of waters•
❑ Wetlands. acres.
F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other- (explain, if not covered above)-
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
Judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes /ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters- acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply).
❑ Non - wetland 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.
❑ 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:Weaverville.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citatlon:Web Soil Survey.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s)-
[D FEMA/FIRM maps:NHFL.
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Z 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:

a
eb UJk-Ov,A -L+ 0"ActL
vLZ 5 CiD FL6 WGZS
Cor\,c-ery-\ ,
T�Aau-�- ICA )
RECEIVED
OC f 2 7 2014
DENR -LAND QUALITY
STORMWATER PERMITTING