20070602 Ver 3_401 Application_20081008

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
October 27, 2008
Ms. Liz Hair
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2638
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
RE: The Biltmore Company
Biltmore Ponds along Approach Road
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Ms. Hair and Ms. Karoly,
wI-IL it
Q?c??ad[A 5
OCT 2 8 2008
WETLANDS AND SSTORWATER BRANCH
The attached Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of The Biltmore
Company represented by Mr. Parker Andes. The Biltmore Company is seeking permit
authorization for impacts associated with the historic restoration of a series of ponds along
Approach Road within the Biltmore Estate.
Should you have any questions regarding the attached permit application and supplemental
information please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800. A copy of this package
has been sent to Mr. David McHenry of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Mr.
Bryan Tompkins of the US Fish and Wildlife Service for review. A copy of this application
has also been submitted to Mr. Kevin Barnett of the NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville
Regional Office.
Respectfully,
7#40-m
Rebekah L. Newton
Project Biologist
r
R. Cle ent iddle, 4PS
Principal
Copy Furnished:
NC Division of Water Quality; Asheville Regional Office - Kevin Barnett
NC Wildlife Resources Commission - David McHenry
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Bryan Tompkins
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
01-oLo oa.u3
www,cwenv.com
Individual Permit Application for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
and
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
October 2008
Applicant:
The Biltmore Company
Attn: Parker Andes
One North Pack Square
Asheville, North Carolina 32250
Prepared by:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791 D ?? ??r n
828-698-9800 U
OCT 2 8 2008
DENR. WAS ER QUALI'I Y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH

Individual Permit Application for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
and
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
October 2008
Applicant:
r?
?J
The Biltmore Company
Attn: Parker Andes
One North Pack Square
Asheville, North Carolina 32250
Prepared by:
0
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
828-698-9800
0
o c 2
E i0 s ORg"'N ?
• Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Biltmore Ponds
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: The Biltmore Company
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/previous Action ID numbers(s): 2007-01489-311
5. Site Address: Approach Road within the Biltmore Estate
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Asheville
8. County: Buncombe
9. Lat: 35.555146N Long: 82.550490W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Asheville
11. Waterway: Ram Branch
12. Watershed: Upper French Broad 06010105
13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
• X Individual Permit
...................... ..............................................................................................................................
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder
Assign number in ORM
Begin Date
Authorization
Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity/Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
0
10/15/2008 17:13 FAX [phone] BILTMORE GARDEN 14 002/003
C) LO o?_ U,3
•
•
is
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL N0.071ILM
33CFR 325 Expires October 1996
Public t'tpo ling burden for this collection oflinforrnation is estimated to average 5 trouts per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching exiting
data gou=% gathering and maimaining the data needeA and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of infmmrffion. including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Hcedquarters Service
Dittxtarate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite INK Arlingwn, VA 22202.4302: and to the Office of Management and
Budfw. Paperwork Reduction Project, (n7 10-;00M), Washington, DC 20501 Please DO NOT RETURN your form to ether of those addresses. Completed
applications must be submitted to the Dnstrici Enginceir having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMPNT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting. navigable wane, of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill maenad into waters of the untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
occan waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the applieetion fora permit. Disclosure. Disclosure of requested information
is Voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (sae sample
drawings sod insmrctiomt) and be submitted to the District Engineer having Jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is net completed
in Cull will be returned.
7EMS 1 THRU 4 TO W F UIJM BY THE CO
I_ APPLICATION. NO. Z- FII T D OFFICE CODE 1 DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
QTEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
Tice Bihmore Compan 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME A TITLE (an agent is not required)
y Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Parker Andes ATTN: Mr R. Owteait Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S AEDRFSS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
One North Pack Square 718 Oakland Stet
Asheville. North Carolina 28901 Heridersonvilk. North Carolina 28792
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/ARBA CODE W. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence NIA a_ Residence NIA
b. Businevi office [phone]; cell [phone] b. Business (828)698-98M
11. STATEMYNT OF AUTHORIZATION
I bereby authorim R. Clement Riddle and ClearWater Environmental Consultants. Inc.. to act -my behalf as my agent In the processing of this application and to
supp an in support of this parr[ 3711C26 09.
to b 5- o
ANT'S SI ATURE DATE
12. PR011? r NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
ts it 1P
Bihmom Ponds
13. NAME OA WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicawe)
Ram Branch and UTs 14. PRINEcT STRMT ADDRESS (if applicable)
Approach Reed (within Biltmore Estate)
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT'
The Biltmore ponds project site is locaeed at the Blkmone Es= in Buncombe
County. North Carolina.
16. OTHER LOCH 170N DESCRIPTIONS, uLr KNOWN, (set "Directions to the Site" below)
In general, the site is bordered to the north by Interstate 40, to the south by Cedarcliff Road, to the cast by Vanderbilt Focht Road, and to the west by Dear Park Aive.
17. DIRECTIONS TO T1fF SITE
To access the site from Asheville, take 140 to Exit 50 (US Highway 25). Turn left onto US Highway 25 and follow signs to the BfltmQe Fstat4 Once in the ar
au,
App?h Road 10 Qtr firstbridge across Ram Braoob
The dow
t
follo
w
.
ns
ream project boundary starts at this bridge and continues to the third bridge across Re
C
in
Bran
.h
p Rrt --I?
N' T 2 8 2008
WETLANDS AND STORM`
10/15/2008 17:13 FAX [phone] BILTMORE GARDEN 1003/003
•
•
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Tbc project will include the construction of several dams and subsequent impoundments. ennSUI Ctinn Ufa horse fond, and rdocatwn of two stream
scipncanc along Approach Road leading to the Biltmom House. See attached description.
19- Project Purpose (Describe the reason cc purpose of the prgem see Mmuctiona)
The purpose of the proposed work is to undertake a historic restoration of a series of ponds and other related in5astruct., G,e, horse ford) along Approach
Road within the Riltmorc Easte. See wed description.
ME M4W =2 IW]DREDGED ANDMR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The proposed activities are necessary to complete historic mmuxatim of Approach Road leading to the Bilttnore Clouse. See attached description
21. Typc(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amoum of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Material being discharged will be in the form of dams. See attached description.
22. Surface Area In Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately 1,)17 linear fort of stream channel, 0.16 acre of wdlan4 and 0.04 ate of open water will be impacted by the activities proposed within the
Blltmort ponds project boundary. See attached description.
23. Is Any Portion of the work Already completed? Yes No IF YE& DE SCRME THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees. Eto., Whohte Property Adjoins the Watetbody (if more than can be entered here, please attached
a supplemental list).
See attached list.
25. list of Other Certifications of ApprovaWDenials Received from other Federal Sure or Local Agencies Soh Work Diexcdbed in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL• MENTMCATION # DATE APPLIM DA'L'E APPROVED DATE DENIED
26. Application is hereby made fora permit or permits to authnim the work described in this application. I testify that the information in this
late and ac certify that f possess theeaa?uthority undertake the work described herein or am acting ay the duly
to //> !/( Cat e,23lex)
'5? P ATURE OF T DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application roust be sued by the person who desiecs to undertake the proposed activity (applicM) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in block I 1 bas been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within theiurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or oovers up any trick, scheme, or disguiyex a material fact Or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent siatemeats or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprixoued not more than rive years or bath.

10/15/2008 17:13 FAX [phone] BILTMORE GAROEN 0 001/003
• CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Ken Jolly, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
-md-
NC Division of Water Quality
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigb, NC 276994650
I, the current landowner/managing partner of the property identified below, hereby
authorize ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my
agent during the processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Waters of the US that are
regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for permit processing at
• the request of the USACE or DWQ-
Property Owner of Record; C-b
Property Owner Address: { ?o 13 2 IR 2- Phone number: - S _ L-41-Ile- I LA-?
Property Location: { ?. C L Owner%Nlanaging partner Signature: r
Date: Q
Ls b 6
IS-/_2
718 Oakland Street
Hendersornile, North Corolfno 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
•
Steven and Susan Satterfield
15 Cedarcliff Rd
Asheville, NC 28803
PIN# 964715638558
John Veach and Barbara Kolack
20 Cedar Cliff Rd
Asheville, NC 28803
PIN# 964715626872
Charles and Simone Reynolds
24 Cedar Cliff Rd
Asheville, NC 28803
PIN# 964715824597
•
Adjacent Landowners for
Biltmore Ponds
Elise Williamson
c/o Wachovia/FL-01349RE016987
PO Box 40062-Tax Unit
Asheville, NC 28802
PIN# 964715627963
Keith Vinson
32 Orange Street
Asheville, NC 28801
PIN# 964715638096
John and Christine McGuire
26 Cedar Cliff Rd
Asheville, NC 28803
PIN# 96479623474
Richard and Judith Pigossi
14 Cedar Cliff Rd
Asheville, NC 28803
PIN# 964715730271
Emily McLean
22 Cedar Cliff Rd
Asheville, NC 28803
PIN# 964715625780
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
.................................................................... ...................................................2

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT ................................ ...................................................3
1.1 Project Location ............................................................................ ............................................................ 3
1.2 Jurisdictional Waters ..................................................................... ............................................................3
2.0 BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY ...........................................................4
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .....................................................................................5
3.1 Soils ............................................................................................... ............................................................5
3.2 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Project Site ...................................... ............................................................ 5
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. ............................................................ 6
3.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................ ............................................................ 7
4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE ........................................................................
8
...............................
5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................9
5.1 Stream Impacts .............................................................................. .......................................................... 10
5.2 Wetland impacts ............................................................................ .......................................................... 11
5.3 Open Water Impacts ...................................................................... .......................................................... 11
6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................12
6.1 Avoidance ..................................................................................... .......................................................... 13
6.2 Minimization ................................................................................. .......................................................... 14
6.3 Alternatives Conclusion ................................................................ .......................................................... 15
7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN .........................................................................16
8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4 04(b)(1) GUIDELINES ........ 17
8.1 Factual Determination ............................................................................................................................. 17
8.2 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ........................ 17
8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem .. ......................................................... 19
. 8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites .................................... ......................................................... 20
8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics ............................ ......................................................... 22
8.6 Summary ........................................................................................ ......................................................... 22
9.1 Conservation ................................................................................... .........................................................23
9.2 Economics ...................................................................................... ......................................................... 23
9.3 Aesthetics ....................................................................................... ......................................................... 23
9.4 General Environmental Concerns ................................................... ......................................................... 24
9.5 Wetlands ......................................................................................... .........................................................24
9.6 Historic Properties .......................................................................... ......................................................... 24
9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values ................................................................ .........................................................24
9.8 Flood Hazards ................................................................................ ......................................................... 25
9.9 Floodplain Values .......................................................................... ......................................................... 25
9.10 Land Use ........................................................................................ ......................................................... 25
9.11 Navigation ...................................................................................... ......................................................... 25
9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion .......................................................... ......................................................... 26
9.13 Recreation ...................................................................................... ......................................................... 26
9.14 Water Supply and Conservation ..................................................... ......................................................... 26
9.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ..................................... ......................................................... 26
9.16 Energy Needs ................................................................................. ......................................................... 26
9.17 Safety .............................................................................................. .........................................................26
9.18 Food and Fiber Production ............................................................. ......................................................... 26
9.19 Mineral Needs ................................................................................. ........................................................ 26
9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership ........................................... ........................................................ 27
9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public ..................................................... ........................................................27
10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................
28
11
0 SUMMARY ............................
. ....................................................................... ...............................................29
•
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Figure Set 3 Site Plans
Figure 4 Soils Map
Figure 5 FEMA Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Historic Landscape Architectural Drawings
Appendix B Previous Permit Authorizations
Appendix C Jurisdictional Determination Information
Appendix D Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant Reintroduction and Conservation
Program Information
Appendix E Historic Photographs
•
1],
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT
The applicant, the Biltmore Company, proposes to complete a historic restoration of a
series of ponds along Approach Road within the Biltmore Estate property. The project
intent will be to restore the historic Approach Road "experience" when traveling to the
Biltmore house on the estate property. The proposed project is based on Frederick Law
Olmstead landscape architecture drawings from approximately 1891 (Appendix A).
1.1 Project Location
The Biltmore ponds project site is located in Asheville, Buncombe County, North
Carolina. To access the site from Asheville, take I-40 to Exit 50 (US Highway
25). Turn left onto US Highway 25 and follow signs to the Biltmore Estate.
Once in the estate, follow Approach Road to the first bridge across Ram Branch.
The downstream project boundary starts at this bridge and continues to the third
bridge across Ram Branch. In general, the site is bordered to the north by
Interstate 40, to the south by Cedarcliff Road, to the east by Vanderbilt Forest
Road, and to the west by Deer Park Drive. A site vicinity map (Figure 1) and
USGS topographic map (Figure 2) are attached for review.
1.2 Jurisdictional Waters
Tributaries on site include Ram Branch and unnamed tributaries to Ram Branch.
All of the streams within the Biltmore ponds project boundary are tributaries to
the Swannanoa River. The Swannanoa River is a tributary to the French Broad
• River, which is a navigable-in-fact water at the Wilson Bridge east of Brevard.
Ram Branch makes up the largest hydrologic system on site and is classified by
the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as a class "C" water.
There are several wetlands located on site. These wetlands have been identified
as herbaceous and forested wetlands adjacent to Ram Branch and unnamed
tributaries. Several of the wetlands are located at the upstream ends of existing
ponds and in the locations of historic ponds.
There are three existing on-line ponds located within the project boundary; all
three are located at the downstream end of the project site.
The table below summarizes the amounts of jurisdictional waters with the project
boundary.
Proiect Area Total,
Feature Amount Unit
Stream 2,270 linear feet
Wetlands 0.39 acres
Open Water 0.22 acres
An "Existing Site Conditions" section (Section 3.0) has been included in this
application for review and further describes the jurisdictional waters on site.
3
2.0 BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
Is A Nationwide permit was issued for a similar project upstream of the proposed project on
November 15, 2007; Action ID 2007-01489-311. This Nationwide permit authorized
impacts to approximately 0.17 acre of wetland and approximately 484 linear feet of
stream for restoration activities including creation of floodplain benches and restoration
of a historic pond. This permit authorization is attached for review (Appendix B).
Ms. Starr Silvis of the DWQ visited the site on July 24, 2008 and Ms. Liz Hair of the US
Army Corps of Engineers visited the site on October 7, 2008.
•
•
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Biltmore ponds project site is located along Approach Road within the Biltmore
Estate property boundary; the entire project will take place within approximately 100 feet
of the road. Because Approach Road is the main thoroughfare to the Biltmore house,
much of its length is landscaped and maintained. Many cultivated and native plant
species are present within the project boundary. Species observed on site include oriental
spruce (Picea orientalis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple (Ater rubrum),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), ground ivy
(Glechoma hederacea), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus virginiana).
Streams on site include Ram Branch and unnamed tributaries. There are approximately
2,270 linear feet of stream channels within the property boundary. In general, these
tributaries flow south to north and eventually into the French Broad River via the
Swannanoa River. The French Broad River is a navigable-in-fact water at the Wilson
Bridge east of Brevard. Streams within the project boundary are bordered by
infrastructure roads (paved and unpaved) and maintained landscapes.
Stream channels and wetlands were delineated by ClearWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) on May 7, 2008; and a survey of jurisdictional areas was
completed by Brooks Engineering Associates during the latter half of May 2008.
Streams channels have been identified on the site plan maps (Figure Set 3); and
• associated data forms are included for review (Appendix Q.
There are fourteen wetland areas located in the Biltmore ponds project boundary. These
are forested and herbaceous wetlands that abut Ram Branch and unnamed tributaries.
Wetlands have been identified on the site plan maps (Figure Set 3); and associated data
forms are included for review (Appendix Q.
Three impoundments exists on site. Two ponds impound unnamed tributaries to Ram
Branch and are 0.08 acre and 0.04 acre, respectively. One pond impounds Ram Brach
and is approximately 0.10 acre. All three ponds are located at the downstream end of the
project reach.
3.1 Soils
The Biltmore ponds project site is located within the Mountain physiographic
region of North Carolina and more specifically the Broad Basins Ecoregions. Soil
series present on site include: Evard-Cowee complex, French loam, and Tate
loam. A soils map and legend have been attached for review (Figure 4).
3.2 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Proiect Site
Wildlife species inhabiting the site include those typically found in the forest
types of the region previously described. Although site-specific studies and
inventories documenting species utilization of the Biltmore ponds project area
have not been conducted, general observations of fish and wildlife use were
5
recorded during on-site meetings and field visits. Specifically, turkey and
• songbirds have been seen utilizing the area.
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP).
The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected
species in Buncombe County and the Asheville USGS Topographic Quad on
which NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for that
locale. The NHP database identifies 20 element occurrences (EO) within a 2-mile
radius of the project site; four of the EOs hold Federal status and are subject to
Section 7 consultation. These EOs are listed below.
Common Name Sciendl is Name Status
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered - historic
tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walkeri Endangered - extirpated
spotfrn chub Erimonax monachus Threatened - extirpated
gray myotis Myotis grisescens Endangered - extant
-•--nistorrc - mere is no recent survey mtormathon to verity the continued existence of an EO
previously reported.
* *Extirpated - The EO is known to be destroyed.
"Extant - The EO has recently been verified to still exist, but there is insufficient information to
estimate is viability and ecological integrity.
Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe, tan riffleshell, and spotfrn chub does not
exist in the small streams on site. Additionally, according to NHP records, tan
riffleshell and spotfin chub observation records are from the 1800s and the species
are currently known to be extirpated in those locales. Gray myotis roost in caves
and forage mainly over open water. Suitable habitat for the gray myotis is not
present on the project site.
Currently, five mountain sweet pitcher plants (Sarracenia jonesii) are present
along Ram Branch. These individuals are a part of a pitcher plant reintroduction
and conservation program at the Biltmore Estate. The pitcher plants were
obtained from the Meadowview Biological Research Station and placed in
wetland areas along Ram Branch. As a part of the reintroduction and
conservation program, the Biltmore Estate maintains a monitoring and transplant
program to ensure the health and survival of the pitcher plants at the estate. The
mountain sweet pitcher plants are located within or in close proximity to wetlands
proposed to be flooded. These plants will be relocated during the dormant season
to another wetland with an existing and viable population of pitcher plants, also
planted by the estate, prior to construction activities on site. The proposed
activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary will not impact the
mountain sweet pitcher plants. The Biltmore Estate takes pride in the presence of
the mountain sweet pitcher plant within estate property and would do nothing to
jeopardize their existence or the integrity of the reintroduction and conservation
program. As a public garden, it is in the Biltmore Estate's best interest to
6
maintain and protect the mountain sweet pitch plants. Documentation of the
• conservation and reintroduction program is included for review (Appendix D).
It is the opinion of CEC that Appalachian elktoe, tan riffleshell, spotfin chub, and
gray myotis are not likely to be present within the project boundary. Mountain
sweet pitcher plant is present only through the actions of the estate as they
participate in the pitcher plant conservation and reintroduction program. As such,
activities within the proposed Biltmore ponds project boundary are not likely to
cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species or their
critical habitat.
3.4 Cultural Resources
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies the Biltmore estate and several
buildings in the vicinity of the estate as historic properties. The intent of the
proposed project is historic restoration of the site. Estate personnel work closely
with the SHPO on a regular basis to ensure projects are in compliance with rules
and regulations regarding historic properties and cultural resources. It is the
opinion of CEC that registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for
inclusion, will not be affected by the proposed activities. The SHPO will be
notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to
comment on the project and its potential affects on archaeological and cultural
resources at the site.
E
0

4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE
The basic project purpose of the proposed activities within the Biltmore ponds project
boundary is historic restoration. More specifically, the overall project purpose of the
proposed activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary is to restore historic
conditions along Approach Road at the Biltmore Estate in accordance with Fredrick Law
Olmstead landscape architecture drawings from approximately 1891 (Appendix A).

•
8
5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
• The proposed project calls for the historic restoration of 13 ponds, two stream
relocations, and construction of one horse ford along Approach Road. Three ponds are
currently existing on site and the locations of all historic ponds can be seen on the historic
maps included for review (Appendix A). Eleven low profile dams (two dams are pre-
existing) will be constructed to impounded water at the site; three of these low profile
dams will be constructed on high ground. Eight small dams will be placed in stream
channels with a total of 48 linear feet of jurisdictional impact associated with their
construction.
The applicant proposes to permanently impact 1,117 linear feet of stream channel, 0.16
acre of wetland, and 0.04 acre of open water to achieve the previously stated project
purpose. There are 23 permanent stream impacts, eight permanent wetland impacts, and
two open water impacts associated with activities within the project boundary. Impacts
have been identified on the site plan, which is enclosed for review (Figure Set 3).
C]
•
9
5.1 Stream Impacts
• The project will include 23 permanent stream impacts associated with
construction of a horse ford, construction of small dams and impoundments, and
the relocation of two stream segments. Hard impacts associated with construction
of the horse ford, dam construction, and stream relocations total 216 linear feet of
stream channel. Flooding impacts total 901 linear feet of streams channel.
Permanent stream impacts associated with this project are identified in the table
below.
Biltmore Pond Impacts - Streams
•
E
Impact Type Linear
Feet
1 Horse Ford 8
2 Impoundment 139
3 Dam 11
5 Impoundment 137
6 Dam 9
7 Impoundment 46
8 Dam 5
10 Impoundment 148
11 Impoundment 22
12 Dam 5
14 Impoundment 91
15 Impoundment 140
17 Dam 8
18 Stream Relocation 121
21 Impoundment 32
22 Dam 2
23 Impoundment 72
24 Dam 6
25 Impoundment 57
26 Abandon Stream Channel 29
30 Impoundment 17
31 Dam 2
32 Stream Relocation 10
Total 1117
10
5.2 Wetland Impacts
• The project will include eight permanent wetland impacts associated with
flooding, fill, and channel relocation. Hard impacts associated with fill and
stream relocations total 0.01 acre. Flooding impacts total 0.15 acre. Permanent
wetland impacts associated with this project are identified in the table below.
Biltmore Pond Imnacts - Wetlands
Impacts Type Acres
4 Impoundment 0.02
9 Impoundment 0.01
13 Impoundment 0.05
16 Impoundment 0.03
19 Stream Relocation 0.003
20 Stream Relocation 0.009
27 Impoundment 0.04
32 Dam 0.0002
Total 0.16
5.3 Open Water Impacts
The project will include two permanent open water impacts associated with the
placement of fill to reshape an existing pond. Hard impacts associated with fill
total 0.04 acre. Permanent open water impacts associated with this project are
• identified in the table below.
Biltmore Ponds Imnacts - Onen Water
Impacts Type Acres
28 Fill 0.02
29 Fill 0.02
Total 0.04
0
6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, Corps in evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 within the Biltmore ponds project boundary in
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) requirements for
consideration of alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below.
The Guidelines' alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." [See
40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain "sufficient information
to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of Section
230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a
determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with
the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of the aquatic
resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the scope/cost of the project." [See
Corps/EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for
Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p.
2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the "Memorandum."] As noted in the
Memorandum on pages 3-4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a
practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to
the applicant, the alternative is not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic
Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and capable
of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification is provided
in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the determination of
practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is presently owned by the
applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to
fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
The intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope and cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs"
was substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry
which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
•
12
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have
• chosen instead to impose an explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to
discharges in special aquatic sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are
environmentally preferable." Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the
aquatic system not be acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient
flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December
24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow
filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other
areas.
6.1 Avoidance
The proposed project is location specific and based on actual historic drawings of
the project area (Appendix A) that were used for construction; therefore no other
parts of the estate or other project areas where considered for this project.
Alternative project designs, conceptual in nature, were considered and are
discussed below.
6.1.1 No-Build
A true historic restoration of the project area cannot be completed without
impacts to jurisdictional waters. Historic drawings (Appendix A) illustrate
on-line impoundments and in-stream rock features. Several historic
photographs of the impoundments have been included for review
(Appendix E).
• Because true historic restoration of the project area includes on-line
impoundments, the no-build alternative is not the preferred alternative.
6.1.2 Construction of One Large Pond
Construction of one large pond is not a feasible option for the site. The
project boundary crosses Approach Road twice and another gravel road
(Sawmill Road) once. This causes the project area to be divided into four
sections. One large pond could be put in one of those sections; however,
would not restore the site to historic conditions. Furthermore, this option
would require a larger dam at the pond location. Dams currently proposed
will be aesthetically pleasing, small, low profile dams made and/or faced
with stone and cobble. A larger dam would have a more "engineered"
look and not provide aesthetic benefit to the site.
Because construction of one large pond would require construction of a
larger dam and not meet the project purpose of historic restoration, this
alternative is not the preferred alternative.
•
13
6.1.3 Construction of Off-line Ponds
• Where off-line ponds are a viable option and meet the project purpose,
they are proposed (i.e. ponds I, J, and K). Construction of off-line ponds
in other areas within the project boundary proves difficult at this location.
There is minimal topographic relief within the project boundary and
gravity fed inlets and outlet may not work efficiently without mechanical
means. Additionally, the project is located entirely within the existing
road corridor, which is very narrow. In some cases, there is as little as 20
feet between the stream and the road; and the stream and the toe-of-slope.
This narrow corridor does not lend itself to off-line ponds that meet the
applicant's stated project purpose.
Because the project corridor is very narrow and topographic relief is at a
minimum, the construction of off-line ponds is not the preferred
alternative.
6.1.4 Project As Prouosed
The proposed project calls for the historic restoration of 13 ponds, two
stream relocations, and construction of one horse ford along Approach
Road. Three ponds are currently existing on site and the locations of all
historic ponds can be seen on the historic maps included for review
(Appendix A). Eleven low profile dams (two dams are pre-existing) will
be constructed to impounded water at the site; three of these low profile
dams will be constructed on high ground. Eight small dams will be placed
in stream channels with a total of 48 linear feet of jurisdictional impact
associated with their construction.
The applicant proposes to permanently impact 1,117 linear feet of stream
channel, 0.16 acre of wetland, and 0.04 acre of open water to achieve the
previously stated project purpose. There are 23 permanent stream
impacts, eight permanent wetland impacts, and two open water impacts
associated with activities within the project boundary. Impacts have been
identified on the site plan, which is enclosed for review (Figure Set 3).
6.2 Minimization
Because the project constitutes a historic restoration, the design is modeled
closely after Frederick Law Olmstead landscape architecture drawings from 1981.
All ponds proposed for this project were constructed and existed or are still
existing on the estate. Photographs of some of these historic pond are included
for review (Attachment Q. For reasons unknown to current estate personnel,
some of the ponds where decommissioned. Additional liberties were not taken
with this design; ponds where not made larger and additional ponds, beyond what
is on historic drawings, are not proposed.
•
14
6.3 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with the documents submitted by the
applicant in support of the 404 Permit, show that the project is in compliance with
the Guidelines. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the Biltmore ponds project
has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the site to the maximum
extent practicable while maintaining a rational project design that is true to the
historic condition of the site.
17?
•
15
7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
• Because this project constitutes a historic restoration and all ponds proposed are
well documented as having existed at the site, no mitigation is being proposed for
this project. Remnants of old dams are present at the site and the locations of
wetlands coincide with the locations of the historic ponds. Historic photographs
and landscape architecture drawings are included for review (Appendix A and E).
•
E
16
8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
• The EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites for
dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R. 230 per
Section 404(b)1. Sub-Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits, and apply to
project sites similar to this project.
Sub-Part . D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)l guidelines. This
section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a dredge and fill
permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist. Alternatives reviewed, detailed
in Section 6.0, were assessed for compliance with 404(b)1 guidelines.
Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria, wildlife
value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill material is
considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity: does not
contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate toxic effluent
standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened and
endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent
amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries; does not contribute
to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;" does not adversely affect
human health as it pertains to water supply; does not adversely impact wildlife, the food
chain, and special aquatic sites; does not contribute to the discharge of pollutants that
may affect the food web; does not have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic
• ecosystem, or their physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation,
aesthetic, or economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize
potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
8.1 Factual Determination
The Corps is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects
of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and
biological components of an aquatic environment.
8.2 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic
Ecosystem
Sub-Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical
characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of
which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem.
8.2.1 Substrate
Fill material in the form of dams will be placed in jurisdictional streams
on site. Any discharge will consist of suitable fill material and will not
include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material will
also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Proper sediment and
erosion control measures will be installed prior to and during construction
to ensure that the bottom elevation of remaining streams and wetlands on
the property will not change.
17
• 8.2.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
During construction activities on the site, there may be a minimal increase
in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity downstream.
However, the increase is anticipated to be minimal and temporary due to
the installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control
measures during construction and shortly thereafter.
8.2.3 Water Quality
The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause
increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition
to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All
discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with a sediment
and erosion control plan.
It is anticipated that all of the fill material needed at the site will be taken
from on-site areas. The fill material used on site will be clear and free of
chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required,
suitable, off-site, clean fill material will be purchased and transported to
the project.
The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water
• Quality, Water Quality Certification.
8.2.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged dredge and fill material will adversely modify current
water circulation patterns by obstructing flow through the use of dams to
create impoundments. All proposed impoundments are impoundments
that were existing at the site and three of the proposed impoundments are
currently existing at the site. Remnants of old dams can be seen
throughout the project reach.
8.2.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated
to have any significant effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes.
Ponds will be designed to outlet water during low flow and drought
conditions; water will not be cut-off from the stream channel at any time.
8.2.6 Salinity
Because this project is located inland and away from tidally influenced
waters and wetlands, no modification to the salinity of on-site or adjacent
waters is expected.
•
18
8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosvstem
• Sub-Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern in
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are threaten and endangered species; fish,
crustaceans, mollusks, other aquatic organisms in the food web; and wildlife.
8.3.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the FWS and
NHP. The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of
protected species in Buncombe County and the Asheville USGS
Topographic Quad on which NHP identifies current and historic
occurrences of listed species for that locale. The NHP database identifies
20 EOs within a 2-mile radius of the project site; four of the EOs hold
Federal status and are subject to Section 7 consultation. These EOs are
listed below.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered - historic
tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walkeri Endangered - extirpated
spotfin chub Erimonax monachus Threatened - extirpated
gray myotis Myotis grisescens Endangered - extant
•Trnistoric - inere is no recent survey mtormation to verify the continued existence of an
EO previously reported.
• "Extirpated - The EO is known to be destroyed.
"Extant - The EO has recently been verified to still exist, but there is insufficient
information to estimate is viability and ecological integrity.
Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe, tan riffleshell, and spotfin chub
does not exist in the small streams on site. Additionally, according to
NHP records, tan riffleshell and spotfin chub observation records are from
the 1800s and the species are currently known to be extirpated in those
locales. Gray myotis roost in caves and forage mainly over open water.
Suitable habitat for the gray myotis is not present on the project site.
Currently, five mountain sweet pitcher plants (Sarracenia jonesii) are
present along Ram Branch. These individuals are a part of a pitcher plant
reintroduction and conservation program at the Biltmore Estate. The
pitcher plants were obtained from the Meadowview Biological Research
Station and placed in wetland areas along Ram Branch. As a part of the
reintroduction and conservation program, the Biltmore Estate maintains a
monitoring and transplant program to ensure the health and survival of the
pitcher plants at the estate. The mountain sweet pitcher plants are located
within or in close proximity to wetlands proposed to be flooded. These
plants will be relocated during the dormant season to another wetland with
an existing and viable population of pitcher plants, also planted by the
estate, prior to construction activities on site. The proposed activities
within the Biltmore ponds project boundary will not impact the mountain
19
sweet pitcher plants. The Biltmore Estate takes pride in the presence of
the mountain sweet pitcher plant within estate property and would do
nothing to jeopardize their existence or the integrity of the reintroduction
and conservation program. As a public garden, it is in the Biltmore
Estate's best interest to maintain and protect the mountain sweet pitch
plants. Documentation of the conservation and reintroduction program is
included for review (Appendix D).
It is the opinion of CEC that Appalachian elktoe, tan riffleshell, spotfin
chub, and gray myotis are not likely to be present within the project
boundary. Mountain sweet pitcher plant is present only through the actions
of the estate as they participate in the pitcher plant conservation and
reintroduction program. As such, activities within the proposed Biltmore
ponds project boundary are not likely to cause an adverse impact to any
federally threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.
8.3.2 Fishes, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the
Food Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting
animals, such as invertebrates, that make up the basis of a food chain. The
release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity has the potential to
negatively effect certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may also
potentially increase the levels of exotic species.
Any discharge will consist of suitable fill material and will not include any
trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material will also be free of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be installed prior to and during construction to ensure
impacts to the food web do not occur.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US and
wetlands on the project site is expected to be minimal.
8.3.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively
effect breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and
preferred food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
The project as proposed will not effect breeding and nesting areas, escape
cover, travel corridors, or food sources for resident and migrant wildlife
species.
8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub-Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges,
wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle-pool complexes.
20
8.4.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively
effect adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges by impacting water
quality, decreasing wildlife habitat, increasing human access, and creating
the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment
of undesirable plant and animal species, which can change the balance of
habitat type. There are no designated sanctuaries of refuges located within
the project vicinity; therefore, impacts to sanctuaries or refuges will not
occur as a result of activities within the Biltmore ponds project area.
8.4.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely
effect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation.
Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat,
flood storage, and groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material
associated with development within the Biltmore ponds project area will
impact 0.16 acre of wetlands on site.
8.4.3 Mud Flats
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. There
are no mud flat communities within the project boundary; therefore, loss
of these ecosystems will not occur as a result of activities within the
Biltmore ponds project boundary.
8.4.4 Vegetated Shallows
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
vegetated shallows. Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas
that contain rooted aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally
exists within estuarine and marine environments; and some freshwater
lakes and rivers. No vegetated shallow habitats exist within the project
boundary; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will occur as a result of
activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary.
8.4.5 Coral Reefs
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
coral reefs. Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. Coral
reefs do not exist within the project boundary; therefore, no impacts to this
ecosystem will occur as a result of activities within the Biltmore ponds
project boundary.
8.4.6 Riffle-Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle-pool
complexes has the potential to negatively affect water quality and wildlife
value. Fill in the form of dams has the potential to be placed into riffle-
21
pool complexes; however, all proposed impoundments are impoundments
that were existing at the site and three of the proposed impoundments are
currently existing at the site. Remnants of old dams can be seen
throughout the project reach.
8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics
Sub-Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water-related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines.
8.5.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
The public water supply will not increase or decrease due to proposed
activities within the Biltmore ponds project area.
8.5.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
recreational and commercial fisheries. Recreational and commercial
fisheries are not located within the Biltmore ponds project boundary;
therefore recreational and commercial fisheries will not be impacted as a
result of activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary.
8.5.3 Water-Related Recreation
Proposed activities within the Biltmore ponds project area will not
increase or decrease waterborne recreation in the project area or vicinity.
8.5.4 Aesthetics
The Biltmore ponds project will be aesthetically consistent with other
projects currently taking place at the Biltmore Estate. Because some of
the goals of the Biltmore Estate are preserving and showcasing the house
and grounds, an aesthetically pleasing design is of utmost importance.
The design team has strived to develop a plan that meets both goals, while
enhancing the visitor's approach to the estate. The project is not expected
to diminish the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an
aerial or neighboring view.
8.5.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be effected by the proposed activities
within the Biltmore ponds project area.
8.6 Summary
Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated
herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and
subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 1,117 linear feet of
9 streams and 0.16 acre of wetland will not cause any off site adverse impacts
22
9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
When reviewing this application, the Corps is required to consider the project in terms of
the public interest. In considering the public interest, the Corps must evaluate the
probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may be
expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments". In
balancing these interests, the Corps must consider the public and private need for the
proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and the
extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project. The
Corps also considers the following public interest factors:
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and water quality, energy needs, safety,
food and fiber production, mineral needs, and considerations of the
property ownership.
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
Furthermore, the Corps regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the district
engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
9.1 Conservation
The applicant is not proposing preservation as a component of the
Biltmore ponds project.
9.2 Economics
The project will provide an overall benefit to the local economy of
Buncombe County and Asheville. During and upon completion of
construction, the site will provide job opportunities associated with
maintenance of the area. The project will also benefit the local economy
by providing additional tax revenues from tourist visiting the Biltmore
estate and surrounding areas. The appropriate economic evaluations have
been completed and the project as proposed is economically viable.
9.3 Aesthetics
The Biltmore ponds project will be aesthetically consistent with other
projects currently taking place at the Biltmore Estate. Because some of
the goals of the Biltmore Estate are preserving and showcasing the house
and grounds, an aesthetically pleasing design is of utmost importance.
The design team has strived to develop a plan that meets both goals, while
enhancing the visitor's approach to the estate. The project is not expected
to diminish the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an
aerial or neighboring view.
23
9.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than stream and wetland impacts, proposed activities within the
Biltmore ponds project area will have no significant identifiable impacts
upon other environmental components.
9.5 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely
effect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation.
Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat,
flood storage, and groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material
associated with development within the Biltmore ponds project area will
impact 0.16 acre of wetlands on site.
9.6 Historic Properties
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records
maintained by the SHPO identifies the Biltmore Estate and several
buildings in the vicinity of the estate as historic properties. The intent of the
proposed project is historic restoration of the site. Estate personnel work
closely with the SHPO on a regular basis to ensure projects are in
compliance with rules and regulations regarding historic properties and
cultural resources. It is the opinion of CEC that registered properties, or
properties listed as being eligible for inclusion, will not be affected by the
proposed activities. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about the
project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its
potential affects on archaeological and cultural resources at the site.
9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
Riparian and wetland areas provide habitat for many types of wildlife
because of their diverse and productive plant communities, complex
structure, and close proximity to surface water. Wildlife may be
permanent residents of riparian and wetland areas or occasional visitors
that use the areas for food, water, or temporary shelter.
Food availability varies with the type of vegetation in riparian and wetland
areas, but includes fruit, seed, foliage, twigs, buds, insects, and other
invertebrates. Trees and shrubs produce a variety of foods that are eaten
by many animals and may be especially important sources of nutrition
during the winter months. Grasses and herbaceous vegetation provide
seeds and forage both within riparian and wetland areas and along the
forest border.
The stream environment provides moving water for many animals to
drink, feed, swim, and reproduce. Water is also available on moist
vegetation and in wetlands that are often associated with riparian areas.
•
24
These areas, both permanent and temporary, are especially important for
amphibians and macro-invertebrates.
Riparian and wetland areas provide a sheltered environment for many
species of animals to feed, rest, and reproduce. Animals use these areas to
seek shelter from extreme weather and to escape predators and human
activity. Riparian and wetland areas may also provide important travel
corridors for some species, and are frequently used as stop-over points for
migratory birds.
Fish and wildlife values at the site are already compromised and will not
significantly be diminished. The entire stream and pond corridor lies
within 100 feet of Approach Road. Additionally, a majority of the riparian
area is sparse, absent, or heavily maintained and manicured.
9.8 Flood Hazards
It is likely that some tributaries on the property will flood occasionally due
to natural fluctuations in weather patterns that increase precipitation. The
activities taking place within the Biltmore ponds project boundary are not
expected to increase or decrease the natural rate of flooding at the site or
downstream.
9.9 Floodplain Values
Designated floodplains will not be impacted by activities within the
Biltmore ponds project boundary. The project is not located within the
100-year floodplain; an excerpt from the Flood Insurance Rate Map has
been included for review (Figure 5). Flood stages and frequencies should
not increase or decrease as a result of the activities taking place within the
Biltmore ponds project boundary.
9.10 Land Use
The proposed project will be in compliance with local zoning regulations
and ordinances. The project is consistent with surrounding land use and
development.
9.11 Navigation
All streams on site are tributaries to Ram Branch. Ram Branch is a
tributary to the Swannanoa River, which is a tributary to the French Broad
River. The French Broad River is a navigable-in-fact water at the Wilson
Bridge east of Brevard. Activities proposed within the Biltmore ponds
project boundary are not likely to effect navigation.
a
25
9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. During the
construction process, best management practices (BMPs) will be followed.
These BMPs may include the construction of swales, erosion and sediment
control structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that will prevent
sediment transport off the project site and into adjacent waters. Activities
proposed within the Biltmore ponds project area are not likely to cause
significant erosion or accretion.
9.13 Recreation
Proposed activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary will not
increase or decrease waterborne recreation within the project boundary.
9.14 Water Supply and Conservation
The public water supply will not increase or decrease due to proposed
activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary.
9.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated.
BMPs will be incorporated during construction.
The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Certification.
9.16 Energy Needs
Activities taking place within the Biltmore ponds project boundary will
not increase energy demands. Energy will not be produced as a result of
the proposed activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary.
9.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible
considerations for public safety. The proposed activities within the
Biltmore ponds project boundary will not increase or decrease public safety.
9.18 Food and Fiber Production
The proposed activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary will
not increase or decrease food and fiber production.
9.19 Mineral Needs
The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are
proposed as part of the activities within the Biltmore ponds project
boundary.
•
26
9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
The Biltmore Company owns the property proposed for development and
has the inherent right to develop the land in a reasonable and responsible
manner, which includes adhering to all Federal, State, and local
regulations.
Property Owner:
The Biltmore Company
1 North Pack Square, Suite 400
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by
further restoring and preserving the Biltmore estate for future visitors and
tourist that add to the tax base of Asheville and Buncombe County, North
Carolina.
•
•
27
10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The Biltmore ponds project site is located within the French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-
02. Approximately 75 percent of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes
approximately 806 square miles (516,000 acres). The Biltmore ponds project area is
comprised of approximately 20 acres (0.03 square miles). All of the land mass included
within the Biltmore ponds project site accounts for less than 0.004 percent of the land mass
of the basin. These percentages alone, limit significant cumulative effects on the
watershed. Past activities within the subbasin include logging; agricultural, commercial,
and residential development; and road building. Agricultural and residential development,
and road building in the vicinity remains active; continued and future development of the
watershed is independent of activities proposed within the Biltmore ponds project
boundary. Impacts within the Biltmore ponds project boundary include the installation of
dams and subsequent flooding, the construction of a horse ford, and the relocation of two
stream segments. Stream and wetland impacts are necessary for the construction at the site.
Activity within the Biltmore ponds project boundary should not result in a significant
impairment of the water resources on site or interfere with the productivity and water
quality of the existing aquatic ecosystem.
•
•
28
11.0 SUMMARY
• Historic restoration activities within the Biltmore ponds project boundary involve
p ? the
construction of one horse ford, the relocation of two stream segments, and the
construction and/or rehabilitation of 13 historic ponds. Because the project is site
specific, few alternatives exist for this site; however, alternative site plans have been
evaluated and the project "As-Proposed" is the least damaging practical alternative,
which meets the project purpose. Potential impacts to the physical and chemical
characteristics of the ecosystem, biological characteristic of the ecosystem, impacts on
special aquatic sites, and potential effects on human use characteristics will be minimal.
The project is not contrary to the public interest.
E
•
29
MAPQVEST -,'
meadow Rd .
? Ra
act
e?
°a
a?
c
0
® 2008 Mapou"t Inc. '
* - Approximate Site Location
Biltmore Ponds
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
Ilk, cdl 4DU m
CI I -1 1200 ft
4th 'r.
+?r r 4
Hghfsnd Maw$
6y? Center St
Shiloh J i `(-
4F Shot*
Park
T
??' ? Boa
Haasbee Rd ?_
190 % Ott 0
.? btep Data 0 2008NAV7 E0 or ,TeleAtlas
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
828-698-9800
USGS Topographic Map
Asheville Quad
Figure 1

C
re
or

r?
'l.

USGS Topographic Map
Asheville Quad
Figure 2
V Y 491 ?'- -kP -V-PR -Mwn w. Aq- 'MMM • SaawaS IBIUawuoJnnu3. 133HS 2i3?0?
NoaormLSNoo uoj 3sn ioN oa - S9mvma SS3M ad WO°'DBB?OOJQ
1££1-Z4Z 4oojq :x0d 6wFatinS • 6uuaaw6u3.6wuueld
00/01-Z£Z.-9ZO-1 :BU04d SaMPOSSV bulJa@ulbu3 WOJB :BALL BUIM0Jp
1098Z '0'N '9III^B49V VNPO'db HI2ON
- 4'fY?"fl Lb. Jowls u038ulud LL
Y? 311IA3HSd
(qJ VNIIOMVO so-ro-so 4S UF Q J £ IGNS
'!A 1{Ia°N ,S9I=.i'xa0dy 3Iivis3 3MwilI9
MIM sad U1
NOIlnOJ-S3M 4NOd (IVO'd H:)VO'dddV SOS£TE
BIOO SNOISSIIVa11S/SNOISN321 °N ?...?,• :ON I°o(oJd
N p c3 m
+? ?' ?NOO ^;00
Q ?
U O
0. cn cz
Z
cz b a
E il, ? Id
O `' U
a EE , .
umi aI ? ?......
Z
El
.j cn
I 6i=d"eEk.=:k..
Q
t ' ?E EEEEEtE
Z N LLJ
i /
0 'i
1•
W
Z
J , / ,; b4a r.,
? a
V 14?
! M
ppBa?kS1 @ ;t ?I, ;,,1I
Q PE &&E&H i l I
j
40 is 0
i-t• .ram .oa. k w .4-M .01%4 • w. Aw.n ?.yy?y • S2?IN8S IeL112WU011AU3
NOLLDnHLS= WA 3?1 ?-MN 00 _ SBNMVI 533Ml WOD'DB8MOOJQ'MMM 6u1.(atinS• S IBIUO UOJIAU 6uluuEld
l££l-Z£Z-BZB-L :XOA
00L4-Z£Z-9ZB-L :au04d SaIPPOSey 6uia9aui6u3 SN001e
L099Z 'O'N '0111Ao40Y
q??`-0 IQ-is U01BUIPY LL
VNnOHVO 80-b0-90 Sad 4 0
HIHON
,S =„T 'xaddy yyy J
a3D0 SNOISSIIYB SNOISN3a ON S3d d!d
a--A»a
/ ? 1c
I
co
co o E co
E
co
m -60
E E r/ a L
o E
? c
" a
/ /p I E E
% z
04 _0
'D
/ E
L) cc
(D 0.
CL CL ca
E
/ vEE /
0 1 /
/ cc CL
I!
I?r
\ =1
111
y
o?
o E
_M C
a
UE
°G
z N
a LL) o 0 0 0 0
g U o 0 0

E
? p

°
w
0
a. M
0 .. m
CL

¢ w
w ?o
q r`
O c
Q Q
O O

O

O
O
a
z
0
0
0
0
°
0
0
0
a
J
w

0
N
r,
0
N
F
0
N o6
?o
0
N 6
r,
0
N

w Q m V ° W
a z ° z ° ° z
O a z
O O z
O z
O O
w
a a a a a a

1
10
? U
?n
m ,E
c o
w
1 ?
1
I I - - -
co
c
.6 c
/ ?''? CO o
CO a
0. E
p: E
z
/ d 1 co
o a)
m
?a - ? a
E E E
,
ri I //I
i
rn O
z
Co
U °
(0 °
CL W
E O
0
w
0 -?
-? a c
E„
\ o
\ co a
E
m\\E-
p \
Z
o?
/. I
/ N° C
o E
v
cc
U a
E E
m
°
? co
dVW iDVdWI GNVIJAM GNV 3:)v: ms 2GiVM M3N
:01ILL BuIMDJO
VNrIO21VD Hl'd0N
31d1S3 I dowilI9
NOUV1 JO1S_ 21 GNOd GVO'd HDVObddV
311IA3HSV

? E ?
1 /
1 ?
I
I
°' E I I
I; 7 5
N'O I 1 1
.. \ N 0 I 1
\ aE 1
I ?,': E I I
t ? I I
\ I I
\ , I I `0
-LL
\\ Q I II ° N
- p
Z I II ?a
\\ ! d I I E
\' I I
L
1
Ii

pE 4aauS
80SEIE
:ON 108(0j
•w ?.? ?.w r'm`" ?" "" ?""? Nouomusrao MA asn ION oa - sowlvaa ss3ao WDo-DoolooJq-mmm • MIMS 1¢luawuoJinu3. dVW iDVdWI GNV113M (INV 3Dtld2 ns 2I3IIVM M3N
oad
t££t-Z£Z-8Z8-L :xDq 6wAatinS•buuaau16u3.6uNutId
00L4-Z£Z-9Z8-t :ou04d salei00SSy 6uiaaaui6u3 WOJO :91ILL 6u,
1088Z '0'N '9II1A04BY VNI101d ? HJAON
C40 lochs U01BUIPY IL
VNnONVO 8060-90 sad _ a
yLzJ C'a
311IA3HSH
HLaON ,Sb=.T'xw dtl svi 31d1S3 IdOW11I8
-PM --- oN 3dd ?""a0 NOllti2101S32i aNOd at/021 HOb02fddd
3NOISKM

f? !
I
1
i
/ i
i
i
i
1
L r
1
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
LLI ID
CA N
C 'a
?? m
X
W
C
r c w
_
_ co
U
1 C V .
o ?° j E
0
?cc z
ID ca
N.Q.' I-\ Q
at E \ \ /
a v \ /?
E ch o\\
00 \"`\
at a: \,? m -No
u m 1 N C
m d1
n : x
E m
w
?? ' 3
B i " \
? co
C
L) -j
00
a
i 1
d
1
1
1
1
'i
1 ,
1
I
u
1
w 1
.,
q£ 4@@qS
808£i£
:ON loo(ad

? ,w r .P..,.s.o .?.`" •aew ? ""'°r..; m"'y"h"""' • SBOINO$ I?ElU2WU011A113
NOU3ndLSNOO WA 3sn ION Oa - SDWMVNO Ss3WOHd Woo•ooolooJq•MMM 6w?tanl IMS IUOWUO .6uwueld
L££L-Z£Z-SZB-L :xoJ OOL4-Z£Z-8Z8-1 :ou04d S@12!00ssy 6ulaa8ui6u3 WOJ8
q}f-0 L088Z 'D•N '9IIIN048V
4 Zoa}s -IBUIVV LL
YNI.1021V0 80-b090 9d .y 'y \
H1a0N 0 . Q
St 'xoiddtl SJl
Mov
aIoa sNOSSinens sN01SVaoN 9d !![
.41 m N u
No r
0
0 1 c) E
It ? -- E .,
E
15
E
C
. Z i
c
_ I ca n
,r z `.. n
/ Q -
CL I 1 E E
z j o \
CL I z OW. \
1 I I a=_ \\ j
? o
1 z xZ \\ I m
0
f \ \ ama \ I o
04
% z m m \ \\ E O
O
j N
o _ \ c, \
\ \ z z \ N¢
\ ;\ v~i a \ `E

z \
O j
o_
Z Z /
cn a
/.
W
r 1
\ \. w /
c A\- 1 1
rn L 1t 1
N U ``? I J I1
E ?: 1 /
4t m
U,
? C
E c c
\ Q ? E
cu
0
o m w

D
04
C
E
L
0
cm mp
E a
E
c
r.
d)
Cl)
? C
` U O

(] n
C E
dVW iDVdWI aMdl13M (INV 3Dv=Nns 2GIVM M3N
:01ILL 6W
VNI10'dV0 HildON
311IA3HSV
3lb'1S3 Idowi-lI9
NOU"OlSld CINOd GVM1 HDVO'dddV
s

u
o o
o o 0 o p
w ¢
G.
O
ZG N N
g Q Lou?
U o 0 0

°
o
0
0 0
0
Q o
F
?
O
G N to O O o o N

N d
f
Z
Qd a N
M N o 0 0
?
U')
Q
Q W CO M "" l+l V
L] a'
Q O
? O
O .-?
O O
O O
O O
O O
Z
O
d O
Z
J 0 U'1 O I? O O O O
`
00, > o 0 0 0 0 0 0
J N N N N N N N
W

N 0 LL l7 = .•. n Y
O Z 0 0 0
? z Z
O a O a 2 a a a
o_ a
D£ }aauS
METE
:ON 13*fad
0 0 0
NWL'NINLSW* mm mn im oa - s"vw ssmwu
w00'DGBjoojq-MMM
Lffl-Z£Z-928-L :XDJ
00L4-Z£Z-SM-L :ou04d
10882 '0'N 'GIIN948V
3oa3S U016uINV LL
90+0-90 9d
S8}l2i00SSy DUIJaaui0u3 S?OOJB
D
dVW iDVdWI GNVI I=IM aMd Ev=n ns 2OiVM M3N
:01}u 6ul
C46
VNPIHON
H12?ON
e300 SNOISSIM18L1S/SNOISN321 '0N

.So=.T'xaddV I Sll
sad I ue
VNM'd J HildON
311IADHSV
Divis3 32 owi1I9
NOI MWISD2l GNOd CIVOb HDVO'dddV
PE 1aauS
SOME
:0N 1040-Ad
U
N N
?
!
O l
Cl)
O _? I !
Off'
E L)
rNi p ?a a
E
N
E _
I o E
i' z? ,
Y al I 0
/ Z ^?I EE
I ° I I
/
I o
I a
I
1

z
1
\'\ z °z
\ \. w
co \ \
?
Cn ?•.-.?
a)
o(O
75 co L
z °
F- 0
?1 /•
00,
w L V.- /
a,
c0 O o /
M 0)
U
M me, #(n0 m N
p/ co
-o E c
o
N (p
„f 0.,,.H w 3
z
C C:
co
z
Q
D )w
C "O
r c
0 m
x
w

I i °o \
i I z IL
OQ \
I I CL
1 C7 w
1 z T p \
\ \ c~i>w0-
\ I
m
\ \\ w o \1 I
m \ \ 1
o u' \ \ I
co a
(D \
?
C O
\ I
c 1I. ° I
L\,/ I
N E \ l
' ? ? I JI
a O ?J
Co c
Ev
a ?
Q a?
C,
N
C
0- [
nE
\ E-

0 0 0
N d=:ra
9.• r.0
t _ `__ ,-. Feet
Biltmore Ponds
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
828-698-9800
USDA Soils Map
Web Soil Survey
Figure 4a
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Arm of Intereet {A011 vary Stony Spa: Or rginai soo survey trap sheets were prepared al vub' carton scale.
Area al r scree. 'A+71:
Vie"
S
? V axing scale and printing scale, however, rray vary from the
?
.
c
' orgina'.. Piaase rely on the bar scale on each trap sheet for proper
Soil Dyer map rreasaterrents.
Sa,i Vail
Special Line Features
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Spec in I Point Featwes Web Soil Survey URL: trip:.w+ebso?:sdrvey.nrcS.usda.gov
E.j 3 axezu: Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N

® 3c: arv ?: This product is generaled fromthe USDA-NRCS certified data as of
1 ne version date: s) icsied below.

Political Featwes Sotl Survey Area: Buncombe Courey, North Caroiina
i Zused se ey.c i Municipalities Survey Area Data: Verson G, Apr 15, 2008
Datet: sj aer:a i images wv re ph4tog rap hed: 1963

The Qr1h4p{tpt0 4fother pang map on rMhY_?r lhg sUti i4fM35'xgrg
® _arrdlil Water Feaftwes compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Ju9arn s trreagery displayed o n l hese maps. Asa result, so rare rrano r sh dting
-a .'a flc•A'
of trap unit boundaries may' be evident
?, Var-?i ?' S7a.Yl`1Y aru Cirra?c
St VrnearOicirry TransPor?atiour

V:sckTlBriei;u?'+"far
Road s
? ?e-eS7rlial Ytt:er
!`? ?ItL'•f 3:2Y.e i"ic?,'A+a i^3
v ui+ O fvx LS RauteY
S%jk" i'Iqn'A'ayY
SatRJl' Sya:
Sewrdv ErudefJ S;' 0719' ivsids
0 S,nkhde
S?'} Side a Sfi?
Rr .atidlC Six)'
Ica, ,Lea

Map Unit Legend
Buncombe County, North Caro lina (NC021)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres In ADI Percent of ADI
EaU Ev9 _-saw x^rC•>:,"-•-_ a 1L.

Ev+E E,,a•o- _-e .miipex.3r_

FrA Fie-c =apt, '- ._ 3 ze-ce- «.?>':

T.a: Tve oair,
s CID
alas to- Area of 1-1e-e l ;A )i i I ?, n I 00.Oi-
Biltmore Ponds
Buncombe County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
USDA Soils Map Legend
Web Soil Survey
Figure 4b
•
Appendix A
Historic Landscape Architectural Drawings
0
0
a?
cn
c?
3
0
0
a?
U
1C
W
F
00
c?
U
k.
U
bA
3
Q
U
U
,-C
U
s.,
Q
N
c?
U
b

N
N
O
>, O
? U
N S?,
U ?
? O
3 p.
'CS N
? U U
1 o
U cn
U ? N
OZ7_?
? 'C3
W Q" W
U ? U
•

-b
Q" M
U ?
M
O
O cn
b }"
N ?
bA
a?
? L
cf?
E

0 0 0

.?t

Y .
t?•e
,i.
0 0 0

Appendix B
Previous Permit Authorizations
0
0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 2007-01489-311 County: Buncombe
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: The Biltmore Company, Attn: Mr. Parker Andes
Address: One North Pack Square
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): The project area is located
along the Biltmore Estate Approach Road on the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Coordinates for the site are 33.5536 north and 82.5473 west.
Description of projects area and activity: The permittee is authorized to impact 0.1653 acre of wetland
and 483.53 linear feet of stream (Ram Branch) in order to perform stream restoration activities to
inlcude creation of flood benches, restoration of historic conditions and location, and recreation of a
historic pond.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
? Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27 and 39
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
• attached conditions, conditions 1-5 in the attached letter from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Lori Beckwith at 828-271-7980.
0 Corps Regulatory Official: Lori Beckwith Date: November 15, 2007
Expiration Date of Verification: November 15, 2009
r?
u
Appendix C
Jurisdictional Determination Information

0
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Whis form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: NC County/parish/borough: Buncombe City: Asheville
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.5551460 Pick List, Long. 82.550490° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Ram Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Swannanoa River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105 Upper French Broad
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RIIA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
• ? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
ED Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Z Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: 2270width (ft) and/or 0.21 acres.
Wetlands: 0.39 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
• The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section HI.A.1 and Section M.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section HI.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TN W.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
*Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
• ? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands
? Cobbles ? Gravel
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
? Concrete
? Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
• Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
']bid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
• ? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
• ? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
S
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to cant' pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section I1I.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Presence of groundwater discharge, substantail flow, presence of fish..
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 2270 linear feet4width (ft).
® Other non-wetland waters: 0.22 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: open water.
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
?, Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
t9 Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands are abutting and contiguous with associated channels.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.39 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
• Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
® Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
° Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
0 ? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
? Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Asheville 1:24,000.
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
61 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: This form is applicable to all jurisdictional water within the project area.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Field Location: Wetland "DF"
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Carex grayilGray's sedge Herb FACW Myostis scorpioideslture forget-
me-not Herb OBL
A'u a re tanslcommon bugle Herb
Juncus effuseslcommon rush Herb FACW+
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral 3/0 = Pass
(excluding FAC- 3/4 = 75% Numeric Index: / _ %
Remarks: Wetland DF is attached directly to a stream which meanders along a road entering the Biltmore estate.
r?
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.)> x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigators:
SOILS

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland. Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
H dric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks: This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands. This area is a wetland.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
Biltmore Ponds
David Nestor, Rebekah Newton
Project No: 558
Date: 05/07/08
County: Buncombe
State: NC
Plot ID:
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type?
(Subgroup):
Profile Description
Depth Horizon
(Inches) Matrix Color
unsell Moist Mottle Color
unsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 10 YR 3/1 Loam
4-12 10 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 4/6 Many, distinct loam

Hydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Field Location: Wetland "DG"
(If needed, explain on the reverse side
VF.C:F.TATION

Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species atin/Common Stratum Indicator
Impatiens capensislspotted touch-
me-not Herb FACW Microstegium vimineum/Japanese
stiltgrass Herb FAC+
Parthenocissus
uin uefoliaNir inia creeper Vine FAC Thelypteris noveboracensislNew
York fern Herb FAC+
Viola cucullatalmarsh blue violet Herb OBL Glechoma hederacealground ivy Herb FACU
Viola blandalsweet white violet Herb FACW- Arisaema triphyllumiswamp jack-
in-the- ulpit Herb FACW-
Xanthorhiza simplicissimalshrubby
yellow-root Herb FACW-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral 511 = Pass
(excluding FAC- 7/8 = 88% Numeric Index: %
Remarks: Wetland DG is attached directly to a stream which meanders along a road entering the Biltmore estate.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)>
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 5 (in.)>
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in.)>
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558
Applicant/Owner:
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton
Other
Remarks:
ROTI N
Date: 05/07/08
County: Buncombe
State: NC
Plot ID:
in
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
(Subgroup):
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
unsell Moist) Mottle Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 4/6 Distinct, common loam
6+ 2 Y 4/1

Hydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L_
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. This
area is a wetland.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Apphcant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID• Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? No Transect ID: .
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Field Location: Wetland "DI"
fff needed, explain on the reverse side
VEGRTATION

Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Thelypteris noveboracensis/New
York fern Herb FAC+
Arundinaria i anteal iant cane Herb FACW
Duchesnea indica/Indian mock-
strawberry Herb NI
Ssarracenia jonesidmountain sweet
pitcher plant Herb OBL
Sphagnum s ./moss
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral 2/0 = Pass
(excluding FAC- 3/4 = 75% Numeric Index: %
Remarks: Wetland DI is in close proximity to a stream which meanders along a road entering the Biltmore estate.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
a No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12 (in.)> a Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2-12 (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
I
Other (Explain in Remarks)
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Remarks:
SOILS

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. This
area is a wetland.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
(Subgroup):
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
unsell Moist Mottle Color
unsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 2.5 Y 2.5/1 7.5 YR 3/4 Distinct, common Loam
6+ 2.5 Y 4/2 7.5 YR 4/6 loam

L
Hydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? No Transect ID• .
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Field Location: Wetland "RG"
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Symplocarpus foetidus/skunk
cabbage Herb OBL Microstegium vimineum/Japanese
stilt ass Herb FAC+
Osmunda cinnamomea/cinnamon
fern Herb FACW+ Thelypteris noveboracensis/New
York fern Herb FAC+
Viola cucullata/marsh blue violet Herb OBL
Acer rubrum/red maple Tree FAC
[
7Xanthorhiza simplicissima/shrubby
ellow-root Herb FACW-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral 410 = Pass
excludin FAC- 7/7 = 100% Numeric Index: %
Remarks: Wetland RG is attached directly to a stream which meanders along a road entering the Biltmore estate.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in.)> Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Remarks:
SOILS
4
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. This
area is a wetland.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
(Subgroup):
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
unsell Moist Mottle Color
unsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6+ 10 YR 2/1 loam

Hydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
is
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Field Location: Wetland "RJ"
(If needed, explain on the reverse side
VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Juncus effuses/common rush Herb OBL
Osmunda cinnamomea/cinnamon
fern Herb FACW+
Verbesina alternifolia/wingstem Herb FAC
Impatiens capensislspotted touch-
me-not Herb FACW
Celastrus orbiculata/Oriental bitter-
sweet Herb NI
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral 310 = Pass
(excluding FAC- 4/5 = 80% Numeric Index:
Remarks: Wetland RG is attached directly to a stream which meanders along a road entering the Biltmore estate.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other a Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 On.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.)> Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Remarks:
SOILS
4
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. This
area is a wetland.
Explanation for response to: Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
(Subgroup):
Profile Description
Depth
(Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
unsell Moist Mottle Color
unsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-7+ 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 4/6 Distinct, common loam

Hydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
•
2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID. • Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? No Transect ID•
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Field Location: Wetland "RL"
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VF.C.'F.TATION
4 excludin FAC- 7/7 = 100% Numeric Index: %
Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Symplocarpus foetidus/skunk
cabbage Herb OBL Carex vulpinoidea/fox sedge Herb OBL
Osmunda cinnamomea/cinnamon
fern Herb FACW+
Impateins capensislspotted touch-
me-not Herb FACW
Onoclea sensibilislsensitive fern Herb FACW
Lysimachia nummularia/creeping
'ennie Herb FACW+
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: FAC Neutral 6/0 = Pass

Remarks: Wetland RG is attached directly to a stream which meanders along a road entering the Biltmore estate.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)> Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth to Free Water in Pit: S (in.)> Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.)> Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
I
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Proje .t/Site: Biltmore Ponds Project No: 558 Date: 05/07/08
Applicant/Owner: County: Buncombe
Investigators: David Nestor, Rebekah Newton State: NC
Plot ID:
Remarks:
SOILS
4
WEB TI."D DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
H dric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
This area meets the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual's criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. This
area is a wetland.
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):
Map Symbol: Drainage Class : Mapped Hydric Inclusions?
Taxonomy Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
(Subgroup):
Profile Description
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) unsell Moist unsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 10 YR 3/1 5 YR 3/4 Few, distinct Loam
6+ 10 YR 3/1 loam

Hydric soil Indicators
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other: (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Explanation for response to:
•
Normal Circumstances? Atypical Situation? Potential Problem Area?
2
•
Appendix D
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
Reintroduction and Conservation Program Information
0
0
07/31/2008 13:38 FAX [phone] BILTMORE GARDEN [a 001/003
APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING, UPDATING, OR RENEWING
• PROTECTED PLANT CONSERVATION OR PROPAGATION PERMITS
one species per application form. Send completed application to:
Plant Conservation Program, Plant Industry Division
NC Deparonmt of Agriculture and Consumer Services
P.O. Box 27647
Raleigb, NC 27611 Phone [phone]
SPECIES REQUESTED:
S c?.Geh??- o>n?s ? I
J
APPLICANT NAME. l 1 I?
ADDRESS: ( fore
A-sLC t llc `!J c,
PHONE: (3-46 ).X) -) - 4 5-) a
? goo I
PLANT PART (Please check appropriate bores):
Plants Cuttings - Roots - Scads or spores
NUMBER OF PLANTS Oil PLANT PARTS TO BE COVERED BY THIS PERMIT;
. 3c)o -,
REASON FOR POSSESSIONt
PROPAGATION FOR SALE OR TRADE
CONSERVATION OF PLANTS IN A HOME GMtDEW -P,
RESEARCH
RESCUE (Rescue Is defined as removal of plants only as a last resort and In lieu of their desmiction.
Please explain why a rescue is necessary and where the rescue will take place.)
PLANT SOURCE Name and addrnaa of botanical garden, nursery ornnothe?r source from which plants, cuttings, roots or
seeds are obtained: r(? C cL Gt ( ? s4J
1GY, w ?t el.? 11
D 3Qb ?rc???5 ?IC
Phone number (if Imown) (90tt ) 6
APPLICANT'S
SIGNATUM: DATE:,2Z ! Q3
•
07/31/2008 13:38 FAX [phone] BILTMORE GARDEN 002/003
J
t?4W'r
1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
[phone] FAX(202)85?-0162
www.NFWF.org
July 7, 2005
Philip Sheridan
Meadowview Biological Research Station
8390 Fredericksburg Tnpk.
Woodford, VA 22580
Re: Reintroduce the Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant #2005.0011-002
Dear Mr. Sheridan:
• I am pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundations has approved an award of $5,000 in federal funds to the Meadow-view Biological
Research Station to support the Reintroduce the Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant project. This
award was made on the condition that these funds be matched by $7,242 in additional non-
federal funds raised by the Meadowview Biological Research Station specifically for this project.
In the next few weeks, Ellen Lippincott will be generating a grant agreement and will contact
you with any questions. In the meantime, please feel free to contact Ellen Lippincott at 202-857-
0166 with any questions or concerns.

On behalf of the Board and staff of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, I wish you
success with your project.

10.01.03
printed an recycled paper
Program Manager, Native Plant Conservation Initiative
07/31/2008 13:38 FAX [phone] BILTMORE GARDEN IA 003/003
REINTRODUCTION
Endangered Pitcher Plant Reintroduced to North Carolina
On June 15, 2007 Meadowview biologists, in conjunction with Biltmore staff and campers from Falling
Creek Camp for Boys, reintroduced 300 federally endangered mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia
jonesii Wherry) to a sphagnum seepage area on the Biltmore Estate. The project was funded by a grant
from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and resulted in a 20% increase in number of sites for this
endangered species. The project also included 50 controlled pollinations of mountain sweet pitcher plant
by Meadowview for Green River Preserve in Cedar Mountain, NC. Green River Preserve constructed
grow out beds and will raise mountain sweet pitcher plant on-site for planting in sphagnum bogs on their
property.

01
0
40AI
UNITMl *TArL•] \17141 A7. 1lI.R!<1n1(!.
1,L1\MI:TV I,i T+rr l'. n. l+T.l•.IRNI:?r of .,,I/ICYI.TY¢[
%IT[I? -r.?n» ?.?Tl?ra•?.- Il1'J.I•AI?fCw

.4
Mountain sweet pitcher plant historically
occurred in Buncombe County, NC on the
Biltmore Estate (see herbarium specimens
this page) but was apparently extirpated by
dairy operations. The Biltmore Estate is still
approximately the same size as when the
herbarium specimens were collected be-
tween 1895-1897 (see centerfold). Because
the herbarium specimens clearly state the
plants were collected at the Biltmore Estate,
and we know the dimensions of the estate at
the time of collection, we are confident that
the plants are being introduced to their his-
toric home. The description on one herbar-
ium specimen of "near Biltmore" means
near the Biltmore House proper. Meadow-
view biologists and Biltmore staff examined
wet depressions at the correct altitude speci-
fied by the herbarium specimen (2250 ft.)
but virtually all of these sites were drained
or ditched long ago to improve pasture for
the Biltmore Dairy.
The historic loss of this endangered pitcher
plant is a dramatic example of the
1 need for the mission and reintroduc-
tion methods of Meadowview. If
UNITED 9TATC8 NATIONAL I16rZpA ovm. George Vanderbilt had not authorized
"• ' ' 1"""JM 119 his staff to document the flora on his
tur U.. Tllm I . S•arn o, q
property, we would never have
known that this plant occurred in
Buncombe County at the Biltmore
Estate.
COL. 5, ISSUE 1
PA6e 6
•
Appendix E
Historic Photographs
n
LJ
n
I-D
aq
0
0
q b
a, o
-b o
? an
? o
0 6
rn
U
1 O
O
aaa
RN
A Dot
15
Ng
V43 N.
im, WN

.A
T
Act
r _

„b,
?.
??
>1

0
a,
dv
Cd
-IZs
o ?
A; o
0
0
0
O U
- Q
4) O
00
00
c?
-? U U U
a oaa