20060385 Ver 1_Application Attachments_20060308

6
MAR 8 2016
EN VVlST 'I u ?s7
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.:`
March 7, 2006
PAYMENT
Mr. David Baker RECEIVED
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Lake Osborne Project
Transylvania County, North Carolina
Mr. Baker / Mr. Barnett:
Mr. Kevin Barnett
NC Division of Water Quality
2090 US Hwy 70
Swannona, NC 28778

Attached please find an application for a Department of the Army Individual Permit to
construct a 27 lake on Osborne Branch in Transylvania County in association with a
residential subdivision. The proposed lake will function as a fishing/community amenities
lake and support a breeding population of brook trout. The project area is currently
wooded and has one residence within the parcel. Data such as Transylvania County tax
maps, USGS topo-quadrangles, Transylvania County Soil Survey map, and data forms are
included for your reference.
The 500 linear feet of impact at the base of the dam will be completed concurrently with
above the high water mark bank stabilization. The 80 foot tall dam will be constructed
with a 15 foot wide crest and approximately 3:1 side slopes. The channel on the property
to be impacted by the proposed dam is Osborne Branch and its unnamed tributaries. This
channel is in the French Broad River Basin and is classified by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality as Class "C" (Index No. 6-52-2) fresh waters with a primary function of aquatic
life and a secondary function of recreation. Osborne Branch is within the Upper French
Broad 06010105 HUC Code. Osborne Branch is not classified as "trout waters" by the NC
Division of Water Quality.
The applicant proposes to construct the dam in a manner that will maintain cold water base
flow to down stream reaches. The application package includes narratives that describe
the proposed impacts to Water ®f the US. Also, included in the narratives is an
assessment of avoidance and minimization as well as a mitigation proposal for unavoidable
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

impacts. An alternatives analysis is also included that describes the other sites that were
researched by the applicant prior to contracting on the proposed parcel.
The reports from additional studies that have been done on site, such as an aquatic insect
field survey and identification, a brook trout field survey, and brook trout genetics lab
work, are included as attachments to this application.
Please call me at 828 / 712-9205 with any questions that you may have.
Best regards,
Y44W?????
Jennifer Robertson
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wn6nc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax
FORGE COVE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
MORRIS CHARLES H
27 ABERCORN ST
SAVANNAH,GA 31401-2715
MORRIS CHARLES H ROSALIE 5
27 ALBECORN ST
SAVANNAH,GA 31401
HEAD ODELL M TRUSTEE
21 LAKELAND DR
PISGAH FOREST,NC 23768
HJNSICKER GERALD R & TERRI F
337 SUTTON CREEK RD
PISGAH FOREST,NC 23763
STEWART CHARLES THOMAS
400 N CALDWELL ST
BREVARD,NC 28712
SINGLETARY JOEL L Ji ELIZABETH
300 SUTTON CRK RD
PISGAH FOREST,NC 23763-9736
1
YOUNG GLENN C & SUZAN M
39 SUNRISE LN
PISGAH FOREST,NC 28768
ARON®W THED®RE A OLGA
952 SOMERSET LN
MELB®URNE,FL 32940-1630
BOYD JAMES R & CAROL
21 SUNRISE LAME
PISGAH F®REST,NC 28768
TAYLOR ALLISON A WALT
15 SUNRISE LN
PISGAH F®REST,NC 28768
A AGE EDWIN K A DEBORAH 5
29 SUNRISE LN
PISGAH F®REST,NC 28763
H®GSEb DASD R & PAMELA
27 SUNRISE LN
PISGAH FOREST,NC 23763
PURSELLE RICHAR® M A KERRY 3
1404 OLD HENDERSONVILLE HWY
BREVARD,NC 23712
2
GILLESPIE THOMAS W & DONNA C
P® BOX 102
EREVAR®,NC 28712-0102
LEWIS THOMAS E & GLEN®A J
3542 ASHEVILLE HWY
PISGAH F®REST,NC 28763
WINCHESTER ALAN ET AL
8520 VALLEY BROOK OR
RALEIGH,NC 27612-9127
JONES RICHARD E
P0BOX1153
BREVAR®,NC 28712
GAITHER RODNEY 8 dt LESLIE W
600 HOLLAND R®
PISGAH F®REST,NC 28763
3
Project Purpose, Need, and Overview
Mr. Paul Fletcher and Mr. Robert Johnson of Forge Cove, LLC, the project
proponents, propose to construct a +/- 27 acre private brook trout fishing /
recreation lake for the purpose of providing the residents of the associated
community in Transylvania County a lake where access, use, and quality is not
compromised. The proponents need the lake to provide the central amenity
for the project. The project proponents are also exploring the possibility of
using the lake for a micro-hydro power supply. The lake will provide habitat
for migrating waterfowl, home for amphibians and reptiles, and a breeding
population of brook trout.
It is estimated that the project will generate $150 to $200 million to the
tax base of Transylvania County. It will provide jobs on a local, regional, and
statewide level. Lakefront and lake view home site values nearly double when
compared to home sites without either.
3,040 linear feet of Osborne Branch and 3,515 linear feet of unnamed
tributaries to Osborne Branch will be flooded by the construction of the
dam. The dam itself will be constructed of earthen fill and will impact 500
linear feet of Osborne Branch. 430 linear feet will be necessary for dam
construction and 70 linear feet will be necessary for outlet protection.
The impacted streams will be diverted while the clean fill/pipe is discharged
into the stream to construct the dam. The 500 linear feet of impact at the
base of the dam will be completed concurrently with above the high water
mark bank stabilization. The 80 foot tall dam will be constructed with a 15
foot wide crest and approximately 3:1, side slopes. The trapezoidal base of
the dam is approximately 430 feet. The plunge pool/outlet basin will have a
length of approximately 70 feet.
Channels on the property include Long Branch, Osborne Branch, and their
unnamed tributaries. These channels are located within the French Broad
River Basin and are classified by the N.C. Division of Water Quality as Class
"C" fresh waters with a primary function of aquatic life and a secondary
function of recreation. These waters are not classified as "trout waters" by
the NC Division of Water Quality and were not on a list to be re-classified
when the pre-application meeting took place on September 7, 2005. The
design team has been working since that meeting to address and
accommodate as many of the concerns and issues that were raised as
feasibly possible.
The subject stream for the proposed dam is mapped as Osborne Branch
within the French Broad River Basin; it has approximately 318 acres of
drainage. The subject stream has been assessed by the Army Corps using
the Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (USACE Wilmington, Version
06/03). Of the four unnamed tributaries of Osborne Branch that will be
flooded by the proposed dam, three can be classified as "good" (based on
stream quality scores of 37, 51, and 51) and one can be classified as "poor"
(based on a stream quality score of 26).
In addition to the Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, an Aquatic ID
and Data Analysis was completed on samples from 11 different sites by the
Department of Entomology, Soils and Plant Sciences at Clemson University.
According to the analyses. "Based on North Carolina Division of Water
Quality bioassesment criteria, most sites were shown to have EPT taxa
scores of 7-19 and this range was categorized as Poor, Fair, and Good-Fair."
Also, "...most of your sites were shown to have NC Biocriteria Scores ranging
from 3.0-3.5. Streams with Biocriteria Scores in this range are categorized
as 'Good-Fair'." The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality accept this method as a valid rating tool.
Although Osborne Branch is not classified as "trout water" by the NC
Division of Water Quality, it was suspected that trout in fact did exist in
Osborne Branch within the property boundary. The North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission confirmed that suspicion when they found a small
population of brook trout living in the stream. A brook trout survey was
conducted by the Department of Biology at Western Carolina University.
They found a population of brook trout in Osborne Branch both above and
below the proposed dam site, but not in any of the unnamed tributaries to
Osborne Branch and not a significant distance below the dam. The absence
of brook trout in any of the unnamed tributaries was "attributed to low
water conditions and lack of suitable habitat."
After completing a genetic analysis of the brook trout found in Osborne
Branch, the researchers determined that "the population is of mixed genetic
2
origin" and that "...the stream must have been stocked at some point." Six of
the twenty Brook Trout individuals sampled were of southern origin, and the
remaining fourteen were of mixed genetic origin. No pure northern fish were
present.in the population. Copies of the Brook Trout reports are included
within this package.
The attached Impact Summary Table for streams describes each stream
segment, the impact length, cubic yards of impact (where applicable), the
quality of the stream, the mitigation ratio presented, and the proposed
mitigation. The mitigation ratio is based on Army Corps Stream Quality
Forms and the Bioclassification scores from the aquatic insect survey. A
copy of the Aquatic Insect report is also included within this package.
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03
The information in this section comes from the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Basinwide Planning Program :: April 2005 French Broad
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The Forge Cove site lies within the 04-03-03
subbasin of the French Broad River Basin. The total area for the subbasin is
141 square miles. The land area is reported as 141 square miles and the
water area is reported as 0 square miles within the subbasin. There is less
than 1% surface water within the subbasin but there is 89% forest/wetland
land cover. Given the fact that this is a mountainous drainage basin it could
be expected that the majority of the 89% is forest land as opposed to
wetland.
The Benthic Community assessment for Boylston Creek is reported as Good-
Fair. The Benthic Community assessment from Osborne Branch that the
Forge Cove consultant team completed included above reported ranges from
Poor to Fair to Good-Fair. The Fish Community assessment for Boylston
Creek is reported as Fair. The plan reports that land use in the surrounding
Boylston Creek watershed is predominantly agricultural and includes row
crops and feedlots. The report plan indicates that severely eroded
streambanks were observed and that the substrate consisted of mostly sand
and gravel which both affect aquatic habitats negatively.
E
The State's plan recommends that local agencies work with the landowners
within the Boylston Creek watershed to assess the need for and prioritize
3
the installation of BMP's to improve riparian zones and restore the
streambanks along Boylston Creek. In summary, the proposed Forge Cove
project, when completed, wi II have more riparian buffer area, more surface
water area, more aquatic habitat, and more Stormwater BMP's than the
majority of the land within the watershed. The consultant team and
developers remain focused on establishing an aquatic habitat for such fish
species as Brook Trout while protecting and preserving a significant portion
of the remainder of the site in open space (over 131 acres).
Mountain Lakes
The North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources water
quality temperature standard for designated trout waters is an upper limit
of 200C. However, Ruane reported in 2002 that in much of the United
States ambient water temperatures often exceed 200C even in natural trout
streams. Studies conducted by Mr. John Boaz of Fish and Wildlife
Associates on the Lakes of Connestee Falls back in 1991 indicated that
during August and September water temperatures from 0' to 22' ranged
from 210C to 250C. The four lakes of Connestee Falls include Lake Atagahi,
Lake Ticoa, Lake Tiaroga, and Lake Wanteska. Lake Atagahi, at an elevation
of 2890 feet, is 80 acres in size and is 59 feet in depth. Lake Ticoa is 75
acres, 92 feet deep, and located at an elevation of 2810 feet. The smallest
of these lakes is Lake Tiaroga at 31 acres. It is 32 feet deep and 2950 feet
above sea level. Lake Wanteska, at 2440 feet in elevation, is 45 acres in
size and 62 feet deep. There are reproducing populations of rainbow trout
in these lakes.
Studies conducted on the seven Tuckasegee River Reservoirs for FERC re-
licensing back in 1999 and 2000 indicated that water temperatures
exceeded 200C within 15' of the surface. These lakes included Lake
Glenville, Little Glenville Lake, Tanasee Lake, Wolf Lake, Bear Lake, Cedar
Cliff Lake, and Dillsboro. The sizes of these lakes ranged from 1444 acres
to 8 acres and the depth ranged from 74' to 1. The elevation ranged from
3491 feet to 1972 feet. These reservoirs have reproducing populations of
rainbow and brown trout.
f
There are two North Carolina lakes that have reproducing populations of
brook trout. These lakes are Grand Mother Lake near Grandfather
4
Mountain and Hurricane Lake near Cashiers. Grand Mother Lake has
reproducing populations of all three species of trout. Both of these lakes
differ in size, depth, and elevation. The design team involved at the Forge
Cove Lake development continues to move forward with the objective of
creating a clear water lake that will provide a safe habitat for brook trout
to survive and reproduce.
Benef its of Forge Cove Lake
The Forge Cove Lake will allow for colder than normal water to be released
out the dam from April to September which will support a better aquatic
habitat downstream for trout in Osborne Branch and Bolyston Creek. A 27
acre lake will also provide beneficial oxygenated water downstream during
periods of drought. Any decrease in the size of the lake will exponentially
decrease the water volume thus decreasing the downstream benefits.
Forge Cove Lake will serve as a large aquatic environment suitable for many
local and migratory animal species. The riparian shoreline will be properly
designed and maintained to be an excellent habitat for a wide variety of
birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. The residents of the Forge Cove
Lake community will enjoy the aesthetics and numerous recreational benefits
of the mountain lake.
Lake Use
Docks - Homeowners will be allowed to construct private floating docks.
Docks shall not exceed 5' in width within the lakeside buffer zones and must
be constructed out of non-toxic materials.
Boats - all boats on the lake will be non-motorized.
Stormwater Management Principles and Strategies
The water resources of Forge Cove provide outstanding recreation amenities
that greatly increase the desirability of the community. From the clear
waters of the lake to the onsite streams and wetlands these high quality
waters play a tremendous role in the sites overall natural beauty and in the
marketability of the project in the future. Much attention and care has
gone into, and continues to go into the planning of Forge Cove to protect its
natural resource amenities. As detailed design of the site and construction
proceeds, continued care must be exercised in managing the stormwater
runoff generated by paved surfaces and rooftops within the community.
Without implementing stormwater infiltration and water quality treatment
measures, there is considerable risk of increased stream erosion, lake
sedimentation and pollution, and habitat degradation. To protect water
resources, the following goals and objectives are established.
Goals:
The goals of managing stormwater at Forge Cove are as follows:
• Safely convey stormwater away from structures and paved surfaces.
• Protect the stream channels of Forge Cove from increased erosion.
Eliminate excessive erosion of the stream channels.
• Protect onsite water quality / Eliminate pollutants, including excessive
sediment, from entering all water bodies.
• Maintain existing groundwater levels.
Objectives:
The objectives by which the following stormwater management goals will be
met are as follows:
• Infiltrate as much stormwater runoff as possible into the ground.
• Remove pollutants from stormwater runoff prior to infiltration or
discharge.
• Stabilize all necessary stormwater outfalls.
The purpose of the Stormwater Management Guidelines is to provide a
collection of measures and techniques that can be implemented in the
various development situations throughout Forge Cove. In addition to a
schematic detail drawing of each measure, the purpose and description, pros
and cons and design considerations are listed. Following the strategies and
constructing the details that make up these guidelines will greatly reduce
the cumulative stormwater impacts of the Forge Cove Community and will
help protect the outstanding natural water resources that make the
community a premier destination property.
The following information 4s applicable to all of the stormwater management
measures and should be taken into account when customizing each measure
to meet the conditions of the individual site.
6
Sizing Criteria
The following are sizing targets for stormwater management measures.
Infiltration Measure Sizing Criteria:
Infiltration measures should be sized to store and infiltrate the net
difference in the pre- vs. post-development storm event with a 2-year
return frequency.
Water Quality Measure Sizing Criteria:
Water quality measures'should be sized to store and treat the first 1" of
runoff from the drainage area. However, when infiltration is a goal of a
water quality measure, it should be sized to treat the greater of the two
target volumes.
Conversion of Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
The most cost-effective and successful installation of permanent
stormwater management measures will occur when typical temporary erosion
and sedimentation controls are converted to permanent measures following
stabilization of the drainage area. In order for this to occur, the temporary
controls must be designed and located with the permanent conversion in
mind. Following are strategies that will aid in successful conversions.
Conveyance Controls (runoff ditches):
• Convert runoff conveyance swales (ditches) to bioswales whenever and
wherever possible.
• Direct runoff from man-made to natural grade as soon as possible.
• Locate runoff conveyance swales (ditches) to allow for the lowest
longitudinal slopes possible (3% being ideal) in order for conversion to
bioswales.
• If 3% slope or less is not possible, layout runoff conveyance swales
(ditches) to allow for longitudinal slopes under 5% in order for
conversion to grass-lined swales.
• Layout conveyance swales to provide space for a buffer strip between
the edge of pavement and the Swale. Optimal width of buffer strip is
10' with a maximum dross slope of 5%. Establish heavy herbaceous
cover in buffer strip.
7
Sediment Controls (traps and basins):
• Convert sediment traps and runoff basins to bioretention depressions,
infiltration basins and filters.
• Install more, smaller traps and basins rather than fewer, larger traps
and basins.
• When excavating for temporary sediment traps and basins, excavate
no closer than 18" above the bottom elevation of the permanent
infiltration measure. This will ensure that the bottom of the
permanent measure is on undisturbed, native soil.
• Do not compact the basin bottom and take great care to minimize
traffic within the basin area during installation.
• Remove and dispose of all sediment within the temporary trap after
construction and stabilization is complete within the drainage area.
• Do not convert the temporary control to a permanent measure until
the entire drainage area is stabilized with 100% vegetative cover on
all exposed soils.
Outlet Protection:
• Use preformed scour holes (Common Stormwater Management) detail
with higher velocity flows.
• Construct level spreaders to maximize for infiltration whenever and
wherever possible.
• Never discharge unfiltered water directly to a water body. Discharge
into a level spreader located outside of the buffer.
Site Protection and Infiltration Requirements
The following are general site protection strategies.
• The closer the site is to a water body, the more critical it is that a
pollutant removing treatment measure be put in place.
• Establish complete vegetative cover on all exposed soil surfaces
immediately.
• In general, runoff should be slowed and spread to the greatest
extent possible.
• Protect stream buffers within construction areas with site protection
fencing. Stream buffers are to be a minimum width of 25' from the
top of each bank. Stream buffers that must be impacted for road
s
crossings should be immediately stabilized and repaired, including soil
stabilization and replanting.
• Do not allow the infiltration resource (the native soil) to be altered in
any way other than means specifically designed to enhance the
permeability of the surface. The most common means by which the
native soil is impacted is by construction traffic and sedimentation.
The native soil at the basin site must be protected the same as
significant existing vegetation is protected. Provide physical
protection measures to ensure protection, construction barrier
fencing for example. Construction controls and protections are
critical to success of infiltration measures.
• Construction sequence is often critical to long-term function of
infiltration measures and must be carefully planned. Two key steps in
all sequences is to expose / excavate down to the surface of the basin
bottom at the very last minute prior to installation of the infiltration
medium and direct stormwater into the installed measure only after
the entire drainage area is completely stabilized with no excess
sediment in the runoff. Initial basin excavation can be carried to
within 1 foot of the final elevation of the basin or gallery floor. The
final excavation should remove all accumulated sediment. Relatively
light tracked equipment should be used in this operation to avoid
compaction.
• Pretreatment of runoff is necessary for all infiltration measures. If,
the drainage area is small and is composed of surfaces that contribute
relatively small amounts of sediment, a modified catch basin with
settling sump can be used. If the drainage area is larger and
composed of surfaces that contribute higher amounts of sediment, a
grassed filter strip, pea gravel diaphragm, vegetated Swale or
vegetated depression can be used for pretreatment.
• The optimal percolation rate for soils beneath an infiltration measure
is between 0.5 inch and 3 inches per hour. However, if space and
budget allow, lower infiltration rates will suffice given adequate
storage.
• Do not locate infiltration practices within 150' of a potable well.
• Maintain a minimum of 2' of cover between the bottom of the
infiltration excavation and the seasonal high water table.
• Consult with local hydro-geotechnical expertise when an infiltration
site is within a ground water contamination-sensitive area.
9
• Discing or spading a 6" layer of organic material into the surface of
the infiltration excavation can increase permeability of the surface.
Examples of organic material for this purpose are leaves, hulls, stems
and mushroom compost.
List of Stormwater Management Measures at Forge Cove
The Stgrmwater Management Measures provided in the guidelines are listed
below. The primary purpose of each measure is listed below, however, both
infiltration and water quality enhancement are inherent to all of the
measures.
Common Stormwater Measures.
• Bioswale (water quality)
• Sigreptention i Vegetated Depression (infiltration)
• Inf i1trgtion Basin (infiltration)
• Pre f greed Scour Hole Out?gll with Check Logs (outfoll Stgbiliaatiop)
10
SLIME. EWAL UK)MRAN
MN
-:EM Np TION
T UJ1BlOlD
G?WI-dR DIeGN41r1! PIAH
8.94 6016.
Tlee DOTAL CAN [R MDDPRD TO
M ATM alM T M IIOIOL TO 11O FII®f I. O W 0YE1i..4MD OY61l0.W1 WA A L6k4L
FOR PSLT RATIDN em.+O f@T O? N 2- 2.TC/IR dRMI bP148?fi 6TOPCg11AR11'A1J.OItA
YQ CONDCiE CS0.YERf
Q E91 Wf.
OIZAS agCPM
p ? TITCJL L ?.: ? ipICHQIP Pl/JR4tle
? FLLCU
/ ' ?p0`?It Oegrw aU
1
D..% M•!Oe QV1LttHb Y?9 -- :1
AM Y. • I
NfO tl? M.T CLAM
TANGLE dt®!'® -.._:I .I. GlR1OW PIlS WTN
AM0?•?
b• 9AlO tATbe CL6/N AA9Mf0 OLL6ST TO BTA6li
rw aR Asm r le Dalcwel6 ? ? ?.? w11wu
av»
=A 11 T.=
IIO.I MO.A COM'AG C rpRg2pAPi exAeeI6ATCP. - CMU 6A*M
RP MMI-WOM9 wmgld CR4r t Y P 4, W" 14 'WCI® AGGRE AIC aslix? ""'AL
Aq Pr ApMl PPLLTIWTLNI?s21 eoac orm NCCmltIiPIY CO11"A01®r?DAAt%,
OvgLAr 6° WN. 02l AND 4PLTRAT RAM 0 TITICAL
1OMT pDOtN?OFKLR bb gpA1R°fiWCGYbXi
OHW W romm am COLLAR xa 10 Malmo u+DrMOmeD MATT s s01..
ry"CAL
W&MCM
FILTERING r2rMW kM - 8CH8MATIC
&CALM. MTe
RUNOFF FROM
PAV>:D 3:1 MAX.
SURFACE SIDE SLOPES
TYPICAL MAX. FLOW
A
--------------
^'?e.rnsr
L
!1
MAX.
WIDTH
s£cr1oN
BIOSWALE - SCHEMATIC
HERBACEOUS PLUGS,
DF'39 PRE-Mw£D. IS,
s? O.G. 1/2" STR441 MULCH

PLANTING SOIL

• COIR FABRIC (ROLANKA
8100-MAT 40 OR Eal4L)
OR OTHER SPECIFIED
EROSION CONTROL
5LA14KET SECURED PER
MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIO9N.
OVERLAP JOINTS MIN. 6"
FACING AWAY FROM
DIRECTION OFFLOII
TES. _
NO
TES, BURT AND STAKE EDGES.
7E THE
L
t MIN
'MME T SEE GRADING, DRAINAGE
L SLOPE OF
I AND EROSION
CONTROL
WALE TO THE GREATEST PLAN FOR SPECIFIC.
EXTENT POSSIBLE. MATERIAL
2. REVIEW WALE LAYOUT
IN FIELD I1117W LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
SCALE: WS
.e.
11
E _
?? ?? TTr*caL? ??
I
enwvs arum a+
aPavnv aiYw ow.w sA/NeoNm Asa
NLST sCOt
.vin-wsPCrxlre w+??aem?csP. Ep
ro
/ sna.NUaarewnx
ovrrACT N v ir7s
Y[ I, ti.?? NG4WeW Ofmona7a 7awarr
G '_ .. / i6NQl?ML. •ReP l9?lE?1-Y
RRTr?iL FIEINP NS.TMTIPNIt®N}
6V0 TP'MY N1N calJ.aR
y? U9lcTM1m TVG? ?CL Wf bIM OCOINMeRaelA ilO
po7ldUUUI°R'L iYf"ICe4 ?COlT4G1®AQSIBSLiR 1eOK14®N 1Ni?W..
ea1P 1?'fD??rt ? ?? T1TK`Y' .
iTf9GAL !1
PmaTURiDbM¢TFiC4 ?oM8ML0 Ttr'L RGir IS IY?TIM®NneA 9TesLl MIllail bti atlst?M'O®If'?M t1lOiYf.
Z. vaPaGP.? IXO?m[6NNlt JTX]1 RGq.I?eRP.?GTP.Id? TIMeN
A\9??OFQ1TAtkM CI WIPmT!®L9 APL 6lWYIOOBSI P6mCX'HfAtIW KAW.12lKAi!
pMK
A M Q1?em?9A?n?iGt?ilEi?Atbl?Wa?LL0.?6LM TO6WOHCE ECAYATQI CNLL IfAMJiT.
AYPat CDPI.I.ON?I?lONO NR1EaTd M®YM OM1 lT.! Ql RL b11 A?w YD I,RM
ANT ScN10fIRMim MBMM W111 Gt/N 1'tLTlL
PO•ILTRATION DASM tw OVERFLOW NLET - OGFEMATIC
ecALB NT6
OUTLET PIPE
1 A7°Rpa j U BOIAPER ENPWALI-
PIR'FaRT.D I-1.. ... _ CPNECE680R7)
8CO\82 HOLE ... .
+•
CFIECK LOS
MLM -.. •vse_?m ?EkISTFYs SIZAPE
PYC PUPP- 4" D41, AAY.110RPD ,(, - --
Wma 3 RE06R a e' OL.l7AX
9PArANG TOP €LrVAI GF ALL
PIPE SECttONS LEVEL Alb EOIWL r'_ ..
WOVEN GrDltxTILE, TRE7JCNEP '- BOULDlR CIJGLLWLI.
AND ANC*40RED UWTAPLES (IF NEXXS6ARYU
PVC LEVPl SPREADER, BS NElT ,f
LVi1.ET f9PE
6•-70-LOCUST LOSS
7CND BPICADl7! 4 '
PWTM IM ALL 4 CONTOUR, BE
STARS DCQNM.L MDE
AT --•\ t)1 ? I 7 J•??
AT 3' O.T, }VV ?:.i"?? 0E01RKT4P
owns AND ES r pASTWS SUR fiRAM BELOW
LUNG
MANT
060C LOGO RO=LNFr.. PEE *L ONLY AFRO ?•w LNN6
NOTE NO. I TNAN 2,L
T MAX PLACE r. CCC ONL7 WHEN M.GVES ARE 6TEATER 14 COM
DROP. A40-PLACE STABILIM I? &LO.O 7.1 AND LEES URTfi COfR
AND KEY-1 PL P24P \\ SPAR, A M NB SEEP L PLATR.
61CTE U?IpJ.I QT OR. H PLANING SdL 2. W AS NELW686{.t! TO
iUtUAM ATI 3" V. PAM'D NT ENALM N0 ERCX 02 STORK
COO
OCR PAORK a D0 NOT CHE4CER N WUA. CHECK L S armATER
COMI U CNSxIG LOGO OGS M 9PTSAD
- fiTORINAT ATER
FREFVl; MEP OCCUR WME: 4 CWECK LOGS
SPAM xn
E
12
Planting Strategies for Stormwater Management Measures
Plants play a major role in all of the stormwater measures. At the most
basic, vegetation provides stabilization and erosion control of disturbed
soils. While for some of the water quality and infiltration measures, plants
filter, breakdown and remove pollutants carried by stormwater runoff. In
addition, these plants continuously aerate the soil above some of the
measures, maintaining and enhancing the infiltration capacity of the soil.
Following are guidelines for vegetation establishment when constructing
stormwater management measures at Forge Cove.
The following planting species lists are general and should be modified for
each individual site based on actual moisture conditions, sun-shade conditions
and soil characteristics.
Upland Mn) Plant List:
Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge)
Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem)
Sorghastrum nutans (Indian grass)
Elymus canadensis (Canada wild rye)
Elymus hystrix (bottlebrush grass)
Eragrostis spectabilis (purple lovegrass)
Bouteloua curtipendula (sideoats gramma)
Asclepias tuberosa (butterfly milkweed)
Echinacea purpurea (purple coneflower)
Liatris spicata (blazing star)
Monarda hstulosa (wild bergamot)
Penstemon digitalis (smooth penstemon)
Rudbeckia hirta (blackeyed susan)
Solidago rugosa "fireworks" (fireworks
goldenrod)
Gaillardia pulchella (Indian blanket)
Chamaecrista fasciculata (partridge pea)
Verbena hastata (blue vervain)
Aster cordifolia (heart leaf aster)
Aster divaricatus (white wood aster)
Aster laevis (smooth aster)
Aster novae-angliae (New England aster)
Asclepias syriaca (common milkweed)
Senecio aureus (golden groundsel)
Dennstaetia punctiloba (hay-scented fern)
Dryopteris marginalis (marginal wood fern)
Lowland (Moist) Plant List:
Elymus riparius (riverbank wild rye)
Elymus virginicus (Virginia wild rye)
Elymus hystrix (bottlebrush grass)
Chasmanthium latifolium (wood oats)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
Juncus tenuis (path rush)
Scirpus cyperinus (wool grass)
Carex vulpinoidea (fox sedge)
Carex lurida (lurid sedge)
Eupatorium maculatum Coe pye weed)
Eupatorium perfoliatum (boneset)
Eupatorium rugosum (snakeroot)
Vemonia novaborecensis (NY ironweed)
Iris versicolor (blue flag iris)
Lobelia cardinalis (cardinal flower)
Lobelia siphilitica (great blue lobelia)
Onoclea sensibilis (sensitve fern)
Osmunda cinnamomea (cinnamon fern)
Athyrium felix-femina (lady fern)
Matteuccia struthiopteris (ostrich fern)
Asclepias incamata (swamp milkweed)
Senecio aureus (golden groundsel)
Rudbeckia lanciniata (greenheaded
coneflower)
Monarda didyma (bee balm)
13
Avoidance and Minimization
The proponent has avoided hard impacts to the greatest extent practicable
by eliminating all stream impacts by the use of bridges, except for the
impact of the dam. The proponent has also proposed to construct the dam
with a low-f low cool-water riser-pipe structure. Impacts requiring
discharges to Waters of the US are limited to the construction of the dam
to create additional Waters of the US. All other access to high ground,
including 10 road crossings, will be completed with spanning structures. The
predominant impacts of the project to streams are secondary in nature
(flooding of Osborne Branch and its unnamed tributaries).
The original site plan' dated July 15, 2005 planned for a 28 acre lake with
fewer area set aside for open space. This site plan designated 58 acres as
open space besides the lake itself. The current site plan allows for over 100
acres of open space besides the lake. There were fifteen infrastructure
piped road crossings that would have resulted in 600 linear feet of stream
impact. There were two driveway piped stream crossings proposed that
would have resulted in an additional 60 linear feet of stream impacts. This
earlier plan showed three houses that would impact additional linear footage
of stream. The lake impacts from the July 15, 2005 plan resulted in 500
linear feet for dam impacts and 6,700 linear feet for flooding impacts.
The proponent considered alternative development concepts and determined
that the uniqueness of the current proposal provided the best potential for
success. Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project are
minimized through design considerations, including an engineered low-flow
cool-water discharge orifice.
During the pre-application meeting the possibility of constructing two
smaller ponds were considered but building two dams as opposed to one dam
would increase the hard impacts. The flooding impacts would not change
significantly due to the steepness of the valley. The excessive steep valley
also limits the construction of a lake to the regulated streams. A lake could
not be constructed off-line within this steep valley. The remaining unnamed
tributaries to Osborne Branch have significantly less flow than Osborne
Branch proper.
14
Alternatives Analysis
The proponent researched three other pieces of property as potential
parcels for a lake community. A 1700 acre tract known as Cascade Lake
adjoining Dupont State Forest was considered for purchase by the
proponent. Three of the streams on the Cascade Lake property are
classified as (C, Tr) and East Fork Laurel Creek is classified as (C, Tr,
HQW).
A 180 acre tract known as Shoal Creek Farm was then investigated. The
streams located on this property are classified as follows: Crab Creek is
classified as (C, Tr, HQW) and Shoal Creek is classified as (C). The existing
topography would allow construction of a lake, but its size would limit the
number of residential units to a point that would make lake construction
economically enviable.
A 950 acre tract bordering the Green River Preserve in Cedar Mountain was
then considered. ®f the 3 streams on this tract, all are classified as (WS-
V, 8, Tr) and the unnamed tributaries of the Green River and the South
Prong Green River that are on this property are classified as (B, Tr, HQW).
The layout of this tract does not lend itself to the construction of a single
centrally located lake, but a series of small ponds instead. Our research
showed that the development value associated with the smaller ponds was
inferior to the value of a larger body of water. The construction of multiple
ponds would have much more hard impacts than a single lake.
By comparison of the stream data from the NC Division of Water Quality,
the property at Forge Cove (based upon all relevant published data at the
time) seemed to be the most desirable for a proposed lake development.
The streams on the Forge Cove property have a lower rating than 9 of the 10
streams located on these other three properties, and it was thought that
the proposed lake on Osborne Branch in Forge Cove would have less
environmental impact than a lake on the high quality trout waters within the
other three properties. The property at Cascade Lake was pursued for
purchase as it already had an 80 acre lake on site, but the owner removed
the property from the market. It was at this time that the Forge Cove
property was pursued in earnest.
15
Mitigation Proposal
Impacts requiring discharges to Waters of the US are limited to the
construction of the dam to create additional Waters of the US. All other
access to high ground, including 10 road crossings, will be completed with
spanning structures (either arched spans or bridges). Please review the
Forge Cove Impact Summary Table in conjunction with the Lake. Impact /
Mitigation Summary Table as well as the information below while considering
the mitigation proposal. By using a mitigation ratio of 2.5:1 for the hard
impacts associated with the construction of the dam and the outlet
protection basin, 1.5:1 for the flooding of Osborne Branch, a 1:1 mitigation
ratio for the flooding of the good and good/fair quality unnamed tributaries
to Osborne Branch and a .5:1 ratio for the flooding of the good/poor and
poor quality unnamed tributary to Osborne Branch, the mitigation offered
for the proposed lake is 8,635 linear feet.
Mitigation for Impacts
Existing Channel Proposed Stream Compensatory Basic Mitigation
Conditions Impacts Mitigation Ratio Requirement
Excellent / 500 25:1 1,250
Good/Fair
Excellent / 3040 1.5.1 4,560
Good/Fair
Good / Good/Fair 2135 1:1 21135
Good/Poor / Poor 1380 .5:1 690
Mitigation 8,635
Needed
Mitigation Proposal
Mitigation Type Available Mitigation Impact Mitigated
Mitigation by Activity (Column 2 divided
Type (linear feet) Multiplier by Column 3)
Preservation 13,680 2.5 5,472
On-Site 985 1 985
Restoration
16
Lake Buffer 6,245 5 1,249
Off-Site 929 1 929
Restoration
Mitigation 8,635
Offered
Streams:
On-Site Preservation:
Approximately 13,680 linear feet of streams on site will be preserved for
mitigation credit. At least a 25-foot vegetated buffer will remain along
both sides of all stream segments. The average buffer along the preserved
streams on site is greater than 50 feet with some areas having a buffer of
greater than 500 feet. The mitigation ratio is justified since additional
buffer widths are proposed along the majority of the preserved streams.
On-Site Restoration:
Approximately 985 linear feet of stream will be restored on Long Branch
located on the southern end of the property. Restoration will involve the
removal of 345 linear feet of pipe from Long Branch stream channel and the
removal of any rip-rap from both ends of pipe and relocating the current
road. It will also consist of removing any current road crossings of the pipe
and replacing them with arches or bridges. Several structures at the home
site currently altering the natural streambed will also need to be removed to
allow for unabated stream flow through channel. Aquatic habitat using rock
and large woody debris will be used and riparian buffers will be restored by
the re-vegetation of stream banks after the creek channel has been
reestablished.
Lake Buffer:
The homeowners association will retain ownership of the 25° upland buffer
along the 6,245 linear feet of shoreline. This allows the HOa to protect the
community's greatest asset - the lake. Lake front property owners will be
allowed to apply to the architectural Review Board for the following:
17
1. View Clearing - Vegetation less than 4" in diameter at breast
height may be pruned or removed to provide "windows" to the lake.
2. Private Docks - Floating wooden docks not to exceed 5' width in
the buffer area.
3. Walking Trail - T wide mulched path to the dock
In no case will allowed buffer encroachments be greater than 10% of the
frontage.
Off-Site Restoration.
The remaining linear feet of mitigation will be undertaken offsite. We will
either restore 929 linear feet of degraded stream off site or pay into the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for 929 linear feet of impact to
compensate for the remainder of stream impacts.
Additional Mitigation Consideration:
The mitigation proposed compensates for the impacts of the proposed lake
impacts. 93% of the impacts (6,555 linear feet) are secondary in nature
resulting from flooding of Osborne Branch and unnamed tributaries. The
stringent Stormwater Management Plan, which is above that which would be
required, should also be considered as a form of mitigation.
Wetlands:
On-Site Preservation.
Approximately .082 acres of wetland will be preserved on site. There are no
impacts associated with wetlands on the Forge Cove property.

18
Q 1-T
WILDERNESS AREA
• HIKING TRAILS -? -? ?.. 1 1 1 / 5•I? ?'.\ \ i
• PRIMITIVE CAMPING AREAS
PISGAH NATIONAL
FOREST
LONG VIEW PARK - ! \ ?/ i 11 \ J
- " Q
• RUSTIC PAVILION I ''\ ? -. ` \ ??\ V?\ •?r ?/ ?,?` V: i ' I
LAKE FRONT PARK
y. ...r
• CANOE STORAGE
• FIRE RING ?.v' ?'\? / 9/1 1 `• I I UI '
i 4! f'i
tit
COMMUNITY TRAIL SYSTEM ••?\ -
U .> EKE
I{1, ?\/ j? \ 27.17 ACRES /j\ v \
I J til 10 ? _ _.. \ ??J T \ -\\\
0-00 LAKE PAVILION
i
j
r 13 ..-..-..j:" O
••\`.? ? ???? _ I'' ^../ .\ / COTTAGE RETREAT
`':...
• ??? ' _ ?`?\ ? % .`?' .r- - - LAIQ POINT OVERLOOK
OSBORNE BRANCH LODGE
(12) 2 BEDROOM SUITES • I
(14) COTTAGE RETREATS • \, i [? `\ 1•.?
COMMUNITY LIVING ROOM • \, u ! r _ ,?..\ / LEGEND

DAY SPA • ?.
?'? _ _ _ _ (---

----- p1iOp0?1OT U"E
BILLIARDS LOUNGE •
?
CATERING KITCHEN • `?\ ? ? /
. % Q moaos®rnlmle
•
SPECIAL EVENTS DINING ROOM ; ?j /
O mrru?cElunT

I ? ? ?--T?\• raroosm Iaarls miui
/ /?J ?\ Elasivlc mrrrara
?
I ? '-\ % % sinew
j O 6REE -ylpYa(•la rtaa

\
413 92 ATFS SRE OF OYHiN1 TRfCi

LOT SUMMARY 03__:"/47
31 LAKE FRONT LOTS
GATED ENTRY
60 LAKE VIEW LOTS
39 VIEW LOTS / • \}i
1
21 ? CREEK SIDE LOTS
56 a PRIVATE LOTS ? % -?_?/!. ..\ ? `\,•\ t`,` !!_ \ \'?
12 LODGE CONDOS
14 COTTAGE RETREATS \ \\
GATED ENTRY
?j
233 TOTAL FOR SALE
,X
Melrose Design Group, P.A.
L r J? Lr.na aPe eclw'e
A-h
0 200 400 800 1600 0 La PI .a..n.ni
K ng
?? Gm?ronmental Design
SCALE : 1"= 200' W E: 56 W'nuc W Rcatl
A,&e Nunn C,,W-28]04
THIS PLAN ILLUSTRATES A GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS SUBIECT TO FUTURE pt-! 82816815155 Faa 18 281 6 8 4-5 1 56
CHANGE AND REVISION. DIMENSIONS, BOUNDARIES, AND POSITION LOCATIONS
ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE EXACT. S
c?o,..ym a zoos. N•i? uc=sn c,aw. r A.
La
Fo rcie Cove
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN pISGAH
JANUARY 16, 2006
I
WILDERNESS AREA
•naar?ixAUs
. PwnFrv6 unvwc.P6A5
LONG VIEW PARK
•aumccnvluan
LAKE FRONT
saLn¢
FlaE unc
connuxm 1aAa syslw
OSBORNE BRANCH
LOT SUMMARY
31 INfE fltOni LOTS
W 0 VfE. IffTS
39 o VIF WTS
31 C SIM IDiS
56 O PRNAn LOTS
WFF
233 TOTK FOR SNF
.nc w• ? ??s.a...•.? wao? ?..w.a? w.,..F.,om?ro ? a..cr. w ?-1?

PISGAH NATIONAL
FOREST
L..A?L P?.wan
,',AR 8 2006
LEGEND
T1
HIGH POINT PARK
• Fl? TOVIFf
C nvEA
- PRRpaG / TRUL NFID
?klmx 0.. gn4my, P.A.
Forge Cove
Stream Flooding Map
Transylvania Co, NC
1" = 250'
E
C C C
C C C
H
Proposed Lake G
(Elevation 2634')
Existing Streams G
Forge Cove Impact Summary Table
Proposed Lake Impacts
Map Location Feature Stream Quality Type of Impact Proposed Impact
(linear feet)
C channel (perennial) excellent / good-fair Dam Construction 430
C channel (perennial) excellent / good-fair Dam Outlet 70
C channel (perennial) excellent / good-fair Flooding 3040
E channel (perennial) good / good-fair Flooding 794
F channel (perennial) good / good-fair Flooding 1102
6 channel (perennial) good/poor / poor Flooding 1380
H channel (perennial) good / good-fair Flooding 239

Total Linear Feet of Lake Impact 7055
Proposed Road Crossing and Lot Impacts
10 new road crossings are proposed above the high water mark of the lake. All will be arched or bridged
resulting in no new linear feet of impact. No impacts will occur due to lot development.
Total Linear Feet of New Lot and Road Impact 0

Total Linear Feet of Hard Impact 500
Total Linear Feet of Flooding Impact 6555
Total Linear Feet of New Impact 7055
Lake Impact/Mitigation Summary Table
Streams
Stream Segment Impact jyRe Length Amt Below Ordinary Amt Above Ordinary
High Water d3 Hi h Water ?d3)
C Dam Fill 430 127/382 394,453
C Dam Outlet 70 21/62 64,213
C Flooded 3,040 338/1,351 1,357,867
E Flooded 794 59/235 150,066
F Flooded 1,102 21/61 308,560
G Flooded 1,380 51/137 377,813
H Flooded 239 5/13 8,985
Totals 7,055 622/2,241 2,661,957
* "The Amount Below Ordinary High Water" is recorded for ripple and then pool.
Stream Segment Quality Quail Mitigation Ratio Mitigation Required
(Stream Forms) (Bioclassif!cation)*
C Excellent Good / Fair 2.5:1 1,075 If ?.
C Excellent Good / Fair 2.5:1 175 If
C Excellent Good / Fair 1.51 4,560 If
E Good Good / Fair 1:1 794 If
F Good Good / Fair 1:1 1,102 If
G Good /Poor Poor .5:1 6901f
H Good Good / Fair 1:1 2391f
Totals 8,635 If
* The Aquatic Insect survey is included within the application.
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream !ndex #
McCall Creek From source to Big C;Tr 07/01/73 French Broad 6-38-24-1
(McColl Branch) Branch
Eagle Nest Branch From source to Little B;Tr 07/01/73 French Broad 6-38-25
River
Cherry Tree From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-39 -.
Branch Broad River
King Creek From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-40
Broad River
Gash Creek From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-41
Broad River
Bryson Creek From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-42
Broad River
Boylston Creek From source to a C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-(0.5)
point 0.3 mile upstream
of Murray Branch
Sutton Creek From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-1
(Sitton Creek) Creek
Polecat Branch From source to Sutton C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-1-1
Creek
Long Branch From source to Sutton C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-1-2
Creek
Osborne Branch From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-2
Creek
Dog Creek From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-3
Creek
Woody Branch From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-4
Creek
Big Creek From source to WS-I;HQW 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-2-2
Hendersonville
Reservoir, North Fork
Mills River
South Fork From source to the WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3
Mills River upstream side of RW
mouth of Queen Creek
Pigeon Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-1
Fork Mills River RW
Bearwallow Brook From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-2
Fork Mills River RW
Barnett Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-3
Fork Mills River RW
Poplar Creek From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-4
Fork Mills River RW
Thompson Creek From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-5
Fork Mills River RW
Billy Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-6
Fork Mills River RW
West Ridge Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-7
Fork Mills River RW
Page 12 of 15
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4< Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 350 acres 8. Stream order: second
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Trans ly vania
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.322295N/82.674705W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
proposed dam location
14. Proposed channel work (if any): fill for dam
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: []Section 10 []Tidal Waters [Essential Fisheries Habitat
[]Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters [] Nutrient Sensitive Waters []Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESD NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NoF ?
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO?
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
10% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 12' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) []Gentle (2 to 4%) []Moderate (4 to 10%) []Steep (>100/.)
25. Channel sinuosity: []Straight JROccasional bends []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): 63 Comments:
Evaluator's Sienature

Date -7/19/2005
I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# T
CHARACTERIS
ICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6- 0-5 0-5 4
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. =, max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
p" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max 22ints)
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 4
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 5
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
5
? (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints

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 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
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) T 63
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
-r r '7f'.
! S'C'REAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
?Provide the following information for the stream reach sander assessment:

1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4, Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: Long Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 38 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ Fogr e_ Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
# 17 (see attached ma
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel restoration
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 aTidal Waters ,Essential Fisheries Habitat
D Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NO?
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO?
21. Estimated watershed land use: ._% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankftdl width: 2' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) ,,Moderate (4 to 10%) ],Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: O Straight IIOccasional bends [1Frequent meander OVery sinuous DBraided 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 (frown reverse): 20 Comments:

Evaluator's Signature J r%. ma y.
Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
?i Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
0
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints
H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(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 oints

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 20
* T'hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-dav
5. Name of stream: Long Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 13 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
# 16 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing_
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: [1Section 10 DTidal Waters [Essential Fisheries Habitat
[Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters n Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate. the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NO?
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOF
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: OFlat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: MStraight JKOccasional bends
Cleared / Logged Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
ElGentle (2 to 4%) f ].Moderate (4 to 10%) IISteep (>10%)
IIFrequent meander OVery sinuous [1Braided 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): 49 Comments:
Evaluator's
F
IDate 7/19/2005
1
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# T
C S
ORE
CHARACTERIS
I
S C
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints
Q
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0; large ad
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 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
r,I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(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 oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Q0
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
E~
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0- 4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max ints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
3 1 }r
! _l STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach sender assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher M ement Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ Fogr e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#15 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): -potential road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: RSection 10 DTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
],Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters OWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES[] NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOE
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YESn NOE
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested % Cleared / Logged Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): V
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) DGentle (2 to 4%) IIModerate (4 to 10%) OSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight f ROccasional bends ,[].Frequent meander IIVery sinuous DBraided 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): 35 Comments:
Evaluator's
i?
2
Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CH
CTERISTICS
R ECOREGION POINT RANGE
A
A SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
Q" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
(extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
,y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu out = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max omts
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
E no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
.'? 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
,x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
>4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
V' 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ' 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 35
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
..
i STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
vl-
]Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 2 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#14 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): potential road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: []Section 10 ,Tidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters [,Outstanding Resource Waters M Nutrient Sensitive Waters []Water Supply Watershed _ (MV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NO®
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YESD NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 6' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 21/6) DGentle (2 to 41/6) f ]Moderate (4 to 10%) IISteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight []Occasional bends []Frequent meander IIVery sinuous DBraided 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 (frown reverse): 38 Comments:
Evaluator's
r
1
Date 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges- max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
. no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0-4 0-2 1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
F, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
E no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed
18 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 4
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
yi no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 38
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
j S ? `? f w d? k1
i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Dart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 18 ac. & Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fogr e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#13 see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 [],Tidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
]Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters C1 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESD NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NON
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[] NOE
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged Other { )
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) aGentie (2 to 4%) DModerate (4 to 100%) IISteep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: MStraight Occasional bends 1317requent meander OVery 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.
'T'otal Score (from reverse): 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature -?- ,'Date 7/19/2005
SCAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEE'T'
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

01
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 3

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
no discharge = 0;.s rip s, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
?i
0 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
, (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
?. (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
F„ no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
F no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
2F
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:

1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 12 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_Ep a Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#12 see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 DTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
OTrout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (MV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NON If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOE
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[-] NOS
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) DGentle (2 to 40/6) []Moderate (4 to 100%) 11Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight Occasional bends []Frequent meander ],Very sinuous DBraided 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): 37 Comments:
Evaluator's
y R
1 i 444J//"
1
Date 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# S
CS
TI
CHARACTERI SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration= 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max oints
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 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
F
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 0
(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)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 9 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fore Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#I I (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): potential road crossing -
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 OTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
[1Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters E[ Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18, Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NON If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NON
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[] NON
21, Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 3' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: f ],Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) L1Moderate (4 to 100%) IISteep (>100/.)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight [Occasional bends Frequent meander OVery sinuous IIBraided 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): 26
,, ,
Evaluator's Signature Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# STICS
T SCORE
CHARAC
ERI
Coastal Piedmont mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 - 0- 4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max OintS
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
(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 oints
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 1
extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 0
(fine, homogenous = 0; *Me, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
E, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes . 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
H 1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints

19 Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0- 4
0- 4
4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see.page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints)
Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
H23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 26
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ #
(indicate on attached map)
j STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
f j' 'j 3VF,lAS ?f
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Manaizement Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 19 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):- Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
# 10 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway. classifications known: Section 10 DTidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (I-lv)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOE
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES? NOE
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged Other (
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 0171at (0 to 20%) L1Gentle (2 to 4%) IIModerate (4 to 100%) DSteep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight 00ccasional bends Dfrequent meander C],Very sinuous [1Braided 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): 51 Comments:
Date 7/19/2005
Evaluator's Signature
71
Site #
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max. points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
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 1
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)
j 13 Presence of major bank failures 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5
i severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max omts
O Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max omts
H23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 51
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)

`ls t :
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
,
YProvide the following information for the stream reach sander assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Comoration 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 145 ac. & Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fo a Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#8 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 OTidal Waters f Essential Fisheries Habitat
OTrout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters n Nutrient Sensitive Waters aWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NO(]
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO?
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) (Moderate (4 to 10%) DSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight 00ccasional bends D Frequent meander ]Very sinuous DBraided 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): 64 Comments:

Evaluator's Signature L.,?-?° . t__....___ date 7/19/2005
S'C'REAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# I
TI
E O
CHARACT
R
S
CS SC
RE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints
2. Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r.i
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
a'' (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 5
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)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints
CA
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 5
F (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
5
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 64
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
I , {J
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Appl'icant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-dav
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 122 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):__FgMe Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#7 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossin
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Osection 10 DTidal Waters D Essential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters ,Outstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters ?Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NOM
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOD
21. Estimated watershed land use: ,% Residential Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 6' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) ].Moderate (4 to 10%) MSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight DOccasional bends MFrequent meander ?Very sinuous f lBraided 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.
't'otal Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's

Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSNIENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CTERISTICS
CHARA SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5.
0-4
0-4
0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
'x Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max oints
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 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 5
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
?.
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

r19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 6-5 0-5 4
>4 no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)

0 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 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

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) 61
:k These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#`
DWQ#
__ . _. _ _ .
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch
7. Approximate drainage area: 28 ac.
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet
-V
2. Evaluator's name: Y'elverton. Hart
4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
6. River basin: French Broad
& Stream order:
10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N 182.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#6 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 OTidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
O Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters M Nutrient Sensitive Waters aWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESF? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES[] NO®
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[] NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 9' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: II Flat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) ?Moderate (4 to 10%) 0steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight f lOccasional bends ,Frequent meander IIVery sinuous DBraided 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.
'T'otal Score (from reverse): 63 Comments:
Evaluator's
f?
1
Tate 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CH
CTERIST
CS
R ECOREGION POINT RANGE
I
A
A SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop 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 5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0-4 0-2 0
p" (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
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 4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
. stable banks = max points)
severe erosion = 0; no erosion
,
14 Root" depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

.t! 1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent

18 ,
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shad' vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
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) 63
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
I L-L-'
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 17 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#5 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 QTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (MV)
I& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YESn NON
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES? NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: ,% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) QSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight 00ccasional bends IIFrequent meander OVery sinuous OBraided 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.
'T'otal Score (from reverse): 56 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 7.?? '--? _..__...... _.. ._. Date 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERI
TICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
S SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop 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 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
p, (deeply entrenched = 0; fre uent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,F'
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
H 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the streams reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 32 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fogr e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#4 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossin
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: RSection 10 DTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
?Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters ElWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
I& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NOD
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOF1
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / fogged Other (
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) f Gentle (2 to 4%) OModerate (4 to 10%) IISteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: F]Straight IIOccasional bends Frequent meander [,Very sinuous DBraided 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.
't'otal Score (from reverse): 50 Comments:
]Evaluator's Signature .4

Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE

# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop 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 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4-
1
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
a'+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
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)
i 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
E~ no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
substantial impact --0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 5
H no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuotts canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
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
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 T 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 50
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET )Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 18 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ F=e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#3 (see attached map,)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
fly. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of vi
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ?Section 10 IITidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
[(Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters M Nutrient Sensitive Waters QWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESn NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES[] NOE]
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES? NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged Other (
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 40%) IIModerate (4 to 10%) OSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight 00ccasional bends IIFrequent meander OVery sinuous IIBraided 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): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's

Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 ; Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 0
y, no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain. = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
1
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
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

4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
>1 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F*
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
E

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
varied habitats = max points)
little or no habitat = 0; frequent
,

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 2
deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
y
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 4 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.322295N/82.674705W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
#2 (see attached man) -
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 IITidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
13Trout Waters []Outstanding Resource Waters [3 Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES[] NOS If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOM
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YESD NOS
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial Industrial ^% Agricultural
I00% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other ( . )
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: DFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) IIModerate (4 to 10%) C1Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IRStraight []Occasional bends []Frequent meander OVery sinuous DBraided 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 continent 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): 43 Comments:

]Evaluator's

Date -7/19/2005
I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE

# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
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 oints
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
,.., Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
6 no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 -
S

0-4

0-2

1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
I 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
{H.?
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max oints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 1
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
5
x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(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 es = max oints
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 43
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
.
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 46 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.322295N/82.674705W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#I (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 OTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
[]Trout Waters []Outstanding Resource Waters [] Nutrient Sensitive Waters OWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS -quad map? YES® NOR
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOD
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial Industrial ._% Agricultural
100% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 7-10' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: []Flat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) []Moderate (4 to 10%) []Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight Occasional bends IIFrequent meander [,Very sinuous OBraided 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): 58 Comments:
flute 7/19/2005

1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# ST
C
CHARACTERI
I
S SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0- 5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0-4 0-2 1
a (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 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment =.max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
4
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 4
E, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max Dints
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 .0-6 5
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
E

1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
4
W little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
'
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
no shad

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5. 2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max p
O 22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- S 0- 5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints

Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 58
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Dam Location - Fill for dam - Stream Quality Score 63
Location #1 - Road Crossing (Old ford) - Stream Quality Score 58

?ttR
r r
3
0
U
U
.? bA
? M
o ?
oa
O ?
a ?t
O
4
? U
O
Location #5 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 56
Location 44 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 50
Location #7 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 61
Location #6 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 63
p-.
4K ,
*f

Location #8 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 64
Location #10 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 51
Location #11 - Road Crossing where channel underground
Stream Quality Score 26 (in channel below this location)
Location #12 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 37
Stream Quality Score 38
Location # 13 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 51
Location #14 - Road Crossing is above the endpoint of this channel
Location #15 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 35
Location #16 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 49

Location # 17 - Channel Restoration - Stream Quality Score 20
(Straightened & Hardened Channel)
Pond below Location #17 - Channel Restoration (channel in pipe to right side of pond)
(Over 340 l.f. in pipe and another 100+ otherwise impacted)
1 ro ?r
I: _ ?jQ 2102 _.. 5:2
%
,
\ Y T .
n -
?l hF8.90
za
-eck
Mile
0.1
Br
4 e 1 1
i
,f
S It t 11 /,, . le Mire
Hook r
Palle- fob
4
,HM LIZ 67 \ - -.- --. '•i ,?
-L 2455 ( - \J
Sheep--,.- 1 , 'ry
r
- zs?4ha... Mnuntam\ l
?? ??`_? yOti \ ._b van:' \ - ..\.
//
/
I, _ROA
-- oom
EIM R -45
m
t -? e _ 73 ? \\r
6* W Cedar Rock
Name: BREVARD Location: 035.2075733° N 082.6447553' W
Date: 11/7/2005 Caption: Cascade Lake Property
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet E r.,• - ?;.;
Fo rg e Cove
Conceptual Mar-tpr Dlan Pisa
July 15, 2005 t X
Lake Front
-Canoes
-Fishing Pier
-Picnic Area

I
x ?
I
High Point P
-Fire Tower
-Trails
-Picnic Area
o??RClWR P27, p
MAR 8 2006
DENR - VVAI LR (VALITY
*IETlANM AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Entrance Park
-Ponds/Waterfalls
-Remove all Existing
ores
rs at Entrance
p, & Greenwoys
Mebnue OcW Gq?P PA.
?L?Q A?e??mwe
Wtl Rvv?rg
Envsm?mul Wepn
irl
l /
o ??.. ?.` `?-- l
' r - `San:-,0
XT I G = ;.?
i
h 1. y-v
%
Ni,
21-
t ?4 U56S?2'L(Tl BM I R 657
2+9I't, 2222.._.,-
!// Hcllp 5brings` r ?t _ Lrttl?
;? • \ ? r ! r Church ?. -- - _- . _ _ , \
??• t -.? '? f' !?. ?/ - •?' Holmes:Statc'Fores t
K
Nursery
q Frien¢sh?Ch %? UFB 1.31
-? a ?
i
IF 2 r ?
- - BM LR 669 reek
2 _ U F 8 91 2125
-- 211: (rab. Je(jers Cake
ROAD
/7;\;' SJfaai Cre k
i i } o' v Salta 07
. r
4 - 5
Hickory
Mount?ln
`\ mil
V? IL
7k / J' Er,
The Flatwoods`
.t
Name: STANDINGSTONE MT Location: 035.2321896' N 082.5939303' W
Date: 11/7/2005 Caption: Shoal Creek Farm
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech. Inc.

Turkey ' .
Khob
r, -- - l` Greer .,.,
-.Sscareda,J`
MA?t } Camp
•? i1 _ 1 of lue. Ridge n Ch
/ ?` Gap ire
6AD
C;=o -
tor,,9
an Mtn ?_ ( 1 =\ r,.
O??pell 0'_40 ! _
?0•,? Pp`, rt'.Standingto
buntalt?-?.
- - AKW 198 r•
j 222a`
NESSEE VALLEY (j1V1t? ? / { Vr
O t Little Rich
Mountarn _ =Duke f?i?arv'
?tdy
aoao j .Camp- Greenvil16 sfr m sChuuaf ?? -
v? i l Raiabmo FaQA? \ Wdt:r -
?
D h
?,? lap ? 24G?:
6° w
Name: STANDINGSTONE MT Location: 035.1477602° N 082.5919405° W
Date: 11/7/2005 Caption: Taylor Property
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc