20090087 Ver 1_Individual_20090126

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
January 20, 2009
Mr. David Baker
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
09-0087 T? A 71''
RE: Roger Robinson
Mars Hill Commercial Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Mr. Baker and Ms. Karoly,
RL L 9 Do
JAN 9, 6 2009
DENR - IWAf EP QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMINATER BRANrH
The attached after-the-fact Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of Mr.
Roger Robinson. Mr. Robinson currently owns approximately 20 acres east of downtown Mars
Hill in Madison County, North Carolina and is seeking permit authorization for impacts
associated with development of a commercial site.
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,
d
Mtuwv)
Rebekah L. Newton
Project Biologist
Copy Furnished:
NC Division of Water Quality - Kevin Barnett
NC Wildlife Resources Commission - David McHenry
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Bryan Tompkins
ement Ri dle, P.
Principal
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www,cwenv.com
After-the-Fact
Individual Permit Application for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
January 2009
Applicant:
Roger Robinson
75 Roy Edwards Lane
Mars Hill, North Carolina 28754
Prepared by:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
828-698-9800
n5
J4I962009
;4"FTLRi S
YJ??lYa7 7'Q?eM' y?jER B
R?'JVCh
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
• Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Mars Hill Commercial Site
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: Roger Robinson
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/previous Action ID numbers(s): n/a
5. Site Address: Roy Edwards Lane
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Mars Hill
8. County: Madison
9. Lat: 35.825295N Long: 82.536403W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Mars Hill
11. Waterway: UT Big Branch
12. Watershed: Upper French Broad 06010105
13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
X Individual Permit
n
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
JAM-19-2009(MGN) 10;48 Clearwater Enulronmental (FRX)8286989603 P,0021004
O v- 0 0 8 7

0
i
APFUCATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF TFM ARMY PERMIT ONO Art ROVAa. NO.0710403
33CFR 3Z5 Expires October 1996
public irportiaaL, burden for this collection of Infonnation Is estimated m average 5 hours per response, including the time fur reviewing instructions. veurubing existing
data sources, lathering and mudntnining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the oolicellon of infoanarlon. Sold eommems regarding this hurdcn oWniate nr
.ether aspect of tuts Collection of inliorniation, Including suggestions fur reducing this burden, to Dcpanmeni of Defense. WEShstsgton I3eadquarlers Service
.ectorale Of lnformatiun Operations and Rcpoas. 1215 Jefferson Emvis Highway, Suite 1204, Ariington, VA 22202-4302, and to the O1T4cc of Munagemem End
audgel. Paperwnrk Reduetinn Project (0710-0003)„ Washington, DC 20303. Please DONOT RL'•TI.RtN your forin to citbcr of those xidresscs. Completed
a 1 licatioras iliust be subtantied io llie District En iiiocr ii ivin nr'isdietton nvcrthc nncation ofthe ro o9ed aCllvil .
PRIVAC V ACT STATEMENT'
Authority: 33 USC 401. Section 10; 14 13. Section 404. Principal Purpose: 'lliese laws require permits ualhori;zing activities in. or affccling- navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or rill material into wattts of ilic Utuicd States, and the transportation of dradged material for the purpose of dumping it Into
acean waters. Routine Uses: Intbmiattnn provided on this form will be used in evaluating tide application for a permit. Disclostirr Diwiesurc of requested information
is voluntary. If information 111101 pmV ided, howvvcr, ilic permit application cannot be processed nor tun a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the locution and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions.) and be subrnilted to the District E:apinecr bavaiig jmisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application tbat is not completed
in full will be returned.
(ITEMS I TIMU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO_ 2_ FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE- RFSCEIVE'D 4-DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLiCANTI
5. APPLICANT'S NANM H. AU't'HOkLZED ACL'•N'i"S NAME & TIME (an agerd is not tcquired)
Roger Robinsan ClcarW4tcr Rnvimnnwritni Consultants, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. I(, Clement Riddle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. ACENT'S ADDRESS
Post Olliee Box 1900 71 a Ou klund Street
Mars I3itl,North Carnuna 2x754 i•Icnderaonvilk, North Carolina 211792 ? A
7. APPLICAN'T'S PHONE NOS. VAREA CODE 10. AO13N7"3 P14ONI3 NOS. WJAREA CODE
ti Resideuee 'NIA a. Rmidunce NIA
In. Business 828-669-2300 b. Suainesu (828) 6911-9800
i L STATEMENT Or AUTHORIZATION
i hcrcb a thorize, R. cnt Riddle turd ClearWator Environmental Consultants, Ina., to not on my behalf as my ugeai in the processing of this application and to
furnisd on rcquotrr s p lomental informnliun in suppurt of dais pertndt a plication.

APPL T'S SlG TIJRF DATE
12. PROJF:CI" NAML•' O1t'i7'1'LL (ace instructions)
Mars Hill Conmacreial Site
13, NAME OV WATI's WODY, IF KNOWN (if applicablc)
Unnamcd tributary to Rig Branch 14. PROJECT STRFFT ADDRESS (if applicable)
Roy Edwards Lane
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Tlic Mars Hill Commercial Site is located east of Mars Niel in Madison County,
Nortli Carolaia.
16.OTHLK LOCATION DESCRII'TIONS, IF KNOWN, (sce "Directions to the site" below)
In general, the site is bordered to the north dry Bair4 Road, to the south by Carl E11cr Road, to the cast by Futuic 1-26. and to die wcct by Roy Edwards 1,anc.
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE NITH
1'a 1 tress the site from Asheville, rake Funrrc 1-26 West (North) to Exit I I (Muss ilill/Matsliaii Exit), Turn left onto NC Highway 213 (Carl Filer Road) and contimic
approximatcly 0.5 mile. 'I um right onto SR 1553 (Roy Edward Lanc) and travcI approximately 0.5 milt to the rile on the right. Tlie etiltatxte to the site is just before
die DOT maintenance station,
D W ffL3
,
JAN 2, 6 2009

DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLA ,iDS AND STDR,%VATER BRANCH
JAN-19-2009(NON) 10:48 Clearwater Enuironmental (FAX)8286989003 P.003I00t1
•
I
•
l8. Nature of A,:livity (Dcseriplion t:f projc,:t, ir,cludc all fu,turt5)
The project will include the dcvelnprnLnt of a eonvnercial site, tie= attached description.
19. Project Purpose (IRscribe the rcason or purpose oftluc project, see instructions)
The propose ofthe proposed project is to provide a high ground, level building pud for a commercial development. ';cc attached description,
USE BLOCKS 2042 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATE' RUL 19 TO DE DISCHARCED
20. Rcmun(s) fur Discharge
Thv propowd Activities are necessary to provide a high ground, level building pad for cmnmerciat construction. See attached dcsoripti(at
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Material that was discharscd ineinded culverts and subscgtruu rill dirt. Sce atlacbcd dcscriptiou,
2:. Surface ArtirA in Acres ot'wetlands or Other wators Fil[cd (sec instructions)
Approximalety 1,050 linear feet of stream channel has been impacted through the installation of culverts and subsequent fill dirt- lice attached description,
23. Is Any Portitm of the Work Almdy CompLacd? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE ME COMPLETED WORK
Approximately 1,050 linear firel of stream has been culverted and fill rnateriul placed on lop.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners. Lessees. Etc,. Whose Propcrty Adjoins the Watcrbody (I more than can be entered bete, please aliached
a supplemental list).
Sec attached list.
25. List of0thcr Certifications or ApprovaIR/Denlala Received ttom Other Federal, Statc or Local Agencies for Work Described In This Application.
AGENCY TYPEAPPROVAL* iDEN nFICArioN N DAU APPLIED DA'rEAPPROVED DATE DENIED
25. Application is creby trestle fix a pcrntEt or permits to authnrizc the wnrk described in this application. I certify that the internratlon in this
plicution is lete and accurate. I Merrier 6xi lily that I M e i to to work desexibtnl herein or am ogling us the duly
nthorizcd a of the applicant /
SIGIYAJM OF LICANT DATF/ SIONATURE OF AGENT D TF.
The application mim be signed by fire parson who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duty authoriacd agent it'
the statement in block I1 has been fir Icd out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurtsdiction of any dcpamnent or agency of the Unitod States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, cunuen1% oreovots up any trick, scheme, or disgnises a malcrial Diet or makes any falsc, fictitious or Iraudldeni stateineIiis or entry, shall
be fined not mere iban $10,000 or imprisoned not more than rive years or both.
C]
JAN-19-2009(M0N) 10.&8 Clearwater Environmental (FAX)8286989003 P.001l001
CLEARWATER ENwRoNI ENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engincers
Attn: Ken Jolly, Cluef Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
-and-
NC :Division of Water Quality
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
1, the current landowner/managing partner of the property identitied below., hereby
authorize C1earWater Environmental Consultants Tnc. (CEEC) to act on my behalf as my
agent during the processing ofpermits to impact Wel an&, and Waters ofthe US that are
regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
CLC is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for permit processing at
• the request of the USAGE or DWQ. lr?
Property Owner of Record: S iz i 1-;
Property Owner Address: 6L, SAS L"-'J'A?"
?t Yid' -A t C
Phone number: ?,,,3V 177 101
Property Location: "ILL f u'7 Oc, A koS ZAIJ ,
Owner/Managing partner Signature:
Date:
0
718 OddOnd 311ftl
hlondvAonvllle, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: B28-698-9003
wWW'r.W 'nv,COM
G{f.
•
•
David and Elaine Thomas
5684 US Hwy 19
Mars Hill, NC 28754
PIN#9757136222
Mark and Gloria Damon
169 Wildwood Ln
Mocksville, NC 27028
PIN#9757241672
Mars Hill Commercial Site
Adjacent Landowners
Willaree Robinson
PO Drawer 130
Mars Hill, NC 28754
PIN#9757135601
James Whitt
153 S. Fields Circle
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
PIN#9757248714
RWR Land Company
PO Box 1900
Mars Hill, NC 28754
PIN#9757145500
No address noted
PIN#9757137173
PIN#9757137038
0
•
After-the-Fact
Individual Permit Application for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
January 2009
Applicant:
Roger Robinson
0
75 Roy Edwards Lane
Mars Hill, North Carolina 28754
Prepared by:
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
828-698-9800
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 ....................................................................................................... .. 5
3.4 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. .. 6
4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................ .. 7
5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. .. 8
5.1 Retail Store and Parking Impacts ............................................................................................................ .. 8
6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... .. 9
6.1 Avoidance ............................................................................................................................................... 10
6.2 Project Justification ................................................................................................................................. 11
6.3 Minimization ........................................................................................................................................... 11
6.4 Alternatives Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 11
7.0 MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 12
7.1 Stream Enhancement ............................................................................................................................... 12
7.2 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 13
8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES .................................... 14
8.1 Factual Determination ............................................................................................................................. 14
8.2 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ........................ 14
8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ........................................................... 15
8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites ............................................................................................. 17
• 8.5
8.6 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics :::::::.::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:
Summary .................. ... 18
19
9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................ 20
9.1 Conservation ............................................................................................................................................ 20
9.2 Economics ............................................................................................................................................... 20
9.3 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................ 20
9.4 General Environmental Concerns ............................................................................................................ 21
9.5 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................................. 21
9.6 Historic Properties ................................................................................................................................... 21
9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values ......................................................................................................................... 21
9.8 Flood Hazards ......................................................................................................................................... 22
9.9 Floodplain Values ................................................................................................................................... 22
9.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 22
9.11 Navigation ............................................................................................................................................... 22
9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion ................................................................................................................... 23
9.13 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 23
9.14 Water Supply and Conservation .............................................................................................................. 23
9.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) .............................................................................................. 23
9.16 Energy Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 23
9.17 Safety ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
9.18 Food and Fiber Production ...................................................................................................................... 23
9.19 Mineral Needs ......................................................................................................................................... 23
9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership ................................................................................................... 24
9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public ............................................................................................................. 24
10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................... 25
11
0 ...............................
SUMMARY
. ................................................................................................................................................. 26
E
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 Soils Map
Figure 4 Site Plan
Figure 5 Mitigation Proximity Map
Figure 6 Mitigation Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Jurisdictional Determination Information and Photographs
Appendix B Photographs of Enhancement Area
0
•
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT
The applicant, Roger Robinson, proposes to develop a high-density commercial site
adjacent to Future I-26 known in this application as the Mars Hill Commercial Site. The
site is a master planned development on approximately 20 acres east of Mars Hill in
Madison County, North Carolina. The commercial site will contain a large retail store
and associated parking. This after-the-fact application accounts for impacts as discussed
in the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Notice of Violation (NOV) dated August
28, 2008. In preparing this application, an on-site pre-application meeting was held on
December 2, 2008. In attendance at the meeting was David Baker with the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), Kevin Barnett with the DWQ, Marvin Mercer with Mercer
Design Group, and Rebekah Newton and Clement Riddle with Clearwater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC).
1.1 Project Location
The Mars Hill Commercial Site is located east of Mars Hill in Madison County,
North Carolina. To access the site from Asheville, take Future I-26 West (North)
to Exit 11 (Mars Hill/Marshall Exit). Turn left onto NC Highway 213 (Carl Eller
Road) and continue approximately 0.5 mile. Turn right onto SR 1553 (Roy
Edwards Lane) and travel approximately 0.5 mile to the site on the right. The
entrance to the site is just before the DOT maintenance station. In general, the
site is bordered to the north by Baird Road, to the south by Carl Eller Road, to the
east by Future I-26, and to the west by Roy Edwards Lane. A site vicinity map
• (Figure 1) and USGS topographic map (Figure 2) are attached for review.
1.2 Jurisdictional Waters
The stream on site is an unnamed tributary to Big Brach. Big Branch flows into
Little Ivy Creek, which is a tributary to Ivy Creek. Ivy Creek flows into the
French Broad River, which is a navigable-in-fact water at the Wilson Bridge east
of Brevard. The unnamed tributary to Big Branch makes up the sole hydrologic
system on site and is classified by the DWQ as a class "WS-II" and "HQW"
water.
There are no wetlands located on site.
There is no open water located on site.
The table below summarizes the amounts of jurisdictional waters on site.
(fin-site Tntnls
Feature Amount Unit
Stream 1,100 linear feet
Wetlands 0 acres
Open Water 0 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
• On August 22, 2008, Mr. Kevin Barnett and Ms. Linda Wiggs of the DWQ conduct a site
visit at the Mars Hill Commercial Site. On August 28, 2008, the DWQ issued a "Notice
of Violation" (NOV) to Mr. Roger Robinson and RWR Land Company. The NOV cited
Mr. Robinson for removal of best usage and failure to secure a 401 Water Quality
Certification. In October of 2008, CEC was retained for matters regarding permitting. On
December 2, 2008 a pre-application meeting was held on site. Below is a summary of the
most complete project history available to CEC.
Date Action
August 22, 2008 Site visit by the DWQ
August 28, 2008 The DWQ issues NOV
October 2008 CEC retained
December 2, 2008 Pre-application site visit.
•
n
U
4
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
• Prior to impact, the Mars Hill Commercial Site was divided into a developed area, a
forested area, and a pasture area. The developed area was located in the southern portion
of the property. This area currently contains a manufactured home showplace and sales
center. The forested area was located in the eastern portion of the property adjacent to
Future I-26. The pasture area was located in the northern portion of the property and was
associated with a small house and outbuildings; a circular drive provided access to the
house. There is an existing culvert associated with the circular drive.
The stream on site is an unnamed tributary to Big Branch. There are 1,100 linear feet of
stream channel within the property boundary. In general, this tributary flows north to
south and eventually into the French Broad River via Ivy Creek, Little Ivy Creek, and Big
Branch. The French Broad River is a navigable-in-fact water at the Wilson Bridge east of
Brevard.
CEC has completed a JD Form for the site and representative stream forms (filled out at
unimpacted upstream locations); these forms are included for review (Appendix A).
3.1 Soils
The Mars Hill Commercial Site project site is located within the Mountain
physiographic region of North Carolina and more specifically the Broad Basin
Ecoregion. One soil association is present on site; it is the Clifton-Evard-Tate
• association. The Clifton-Evard-Tate association is classified as moderately steep
to very steep, very shallow to very deep, excessively to well drained soils with
coarse loamy, fine loamy, and loamy skeletal subsoils. This soil association is
found on low and intermediate mountains and in coves. Soil series present on site
include: Clifton, Tate, Udorthents, and Urban Land. A soils map and legend
have been attached for review (Figure 3).
3.2 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Project Site
Wildlife species inhabiting the site include those typically found in the developed
regions in western North Carolina. Although site-specific studies and inventories
documenting species utilization of the Mars Hill Commercial Site have not been
conducted, general observations of fish and wildlife use have been minimal
during on-site meetings and field visits. Over half of the project site was in
pasture or previously developed. In addition, it is suspected that aural impacts
from future I-26 limit wildlife use of 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 Madison County and the Mars Hill USGS Topographic Quad on which
NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for that locale.
The NHP database identifies 2 element occurrences (EO) within a 2-mile radius
•
5
of the project site: southern blotched chub (Erimystax insignis eristigma) and
is northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). Southern blotched chub holds a Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) Federal status which is not subject to Section 7
consultation. Northern myotis holds no Federal status. The FWS Madison
County list of threatened and endangered species lists gray bat (Myotis
grisescens), spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus), and bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii) as occurring in Madison County. Gray bat holds an endangered
Federal status and spotfin chub holds a threatened Federal status. Suitable habitat
for these two species does not exist within the project boundary. Bog turtle holds
a threatened Federal status due to similarity of appearance (T(S/A)) with the
northern bog turtle. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
3.4 Cultural Resources
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies four properties located in the
city of Mars Hill: California Creek Missionary Baptist Church, Mars Hill College
Historic District, Mars Hill High School, and the Thomas J. Murray House.
California Creek Missionary Baptist Church is located off US Highway 24 and is
approximately 2.4 miles from the project site. The Mars Hill College Historic
District and the Mars Hill High School are located between Bailey Street and
Cascade Street in downtown Mar Hill approximately 0.75 mile from the project
site. The location of the Thomas J. Murray House is restricted; however, it is
located in Mars Hill. 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.
•
6
4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE
. The basic project purpose of the proposed development at the Mars Hill Commercial Site
is to provide commercial retail opportunities. More specifically, the overall project
purpose of the proposed development at the Mars Hill Commercial Site is to develop a
commercial site with one large commercial "box" store that is easily visible and
accessible from a major thoroughfare in Madison County, North Carolina.
u
41

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed project calls for the development of a 152,800-square foot retail store, 764
parking spaces, and all associated infrastructure.
The applicant proposes to permanently impact 1,050 linear feet of stream channel to
achieve the previously stated project purpose through the development of a commercial
site. There is one permanent stream impact associated with development at the Mars Hill
Commercial Site. The impact has been identified on the site plan, which is enclosed for
review (Figure 4).
5.1 Retail Store and Parking Impacts
The project will include the construction of one retail store, parking, and all
associated infrastructure. Permanent fill impacts associated with building and
infrastructure development are identified in the table below.
Impact Number Linear Feet of Impact

1 _
1,050
Total 1,050
•
•
8
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 at Forge Cove in Transylvania 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.
•
9
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have
is 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 applicant was willing to considered sites other than the proposed project site
for development of the commercial site; however, the applicant wanted to use
property already owned. A set of criteria was developed to aid in the search for a
site and ultimate selection of a site.
6.1.1 Site Criteria
A. Location
In order to meet the stated project purpose, it is necessary that the
project be located within the immediate vicinity of a major
thoroughfare in Madison County.
B. Property Size
The project site needs to be large enough to support a "box" store
• and all associated infrastructure.
C. Proximity to Suitable Fill Dirt
To limit hauling and grading costs, the project site needs to be in
close proximity to a source of suitable fill material.
6.1.1 No-Build
The proposed project would not be able to be completed without impacts
to jurisdictional streams. The stream located within the project boundary
flows north to south and bisects the property. Accessing all portions of the
site and developing a flat building pad requires stream impacts.
6.1.2 Project As-Proposed
The proposed project calls for the development of a 152,800-square foot
retail store, 764 parking spaces, and all associated infrastructure. The
project site meets the criteria outlined above. The project site, and
subsequent commercial site, is in close proximity to Future I-26 in
Madison County and can be easily seen from the highway. The property
is large enough for a "box" store and all associated infrastructure,
including parking. Fill dirt used at the project site was taken from a
nearby development site that had large amounts of dirt to dispose of as a
result of grading activities. Mr. Robinson currently owns this property
10
and has owned it for many years. Purchasing new property for a
• development when currently owned property fits the selection criteria is
not feasible or reasonable.
6.2 Project Justification
Master planning and permitting large and long term development projects depend
highly upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering
design principles which must include available land for development to
economically justify the project and reasonable site access.
The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct surveys and
assessments, including land survey, stream and wetland delineation, threatened
and endangered species survey, intensive land planning, and market analysis. The
information gathered from these tasks has been considered in preparation of the
master plan submitted with this permit application.
It is important to note that this site is uniquely well situated for the development
of a high-density, commercial development. The site is located adjacent to Future
1-26 and less than one mile from Mars Hill. The proximity to Mars Hill provides
the best potential for an economically successful project. No other site, owned by
the applicant, affords the same opportunity for commercial success for the
applicant and improved tax base for the County.
This project also provides for a mitigation plan (Section 7.0) that will enhance
• 1,575 linear feet of previously impacted stream channel. These stream channels
would not be enhanced otherwise.
6.3 Minimization
The applicant has minimized impacts to streams and wetlands by proposing to
develop a previously developed area. As mentioned, the site contains an old
homesite and a model home showplace.
6.4 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.
0
7.0 MITIGATION PLAN
• Approximately 1,050 linear feet of stream channel impacts are associated with the
development of the Mars Hill Commercial Site. All impacts associated with culvert
installation will be mitigated for at a compensatory mitigation ratio of 1:1. This ratio was
chosen based on the stream quality immediately upstream of the impact area. Stream
forms are included for review (Appendix A). The following mitigation plan is provided
in support of this permit application. Representative photographs of enhancement areas
are included for review (Appendix B).
7.1 Stream Enhancement
The applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts at a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1
through enhancement of two streams located on the personal property of Mr.
Roger Robinson (the applicant). Mr. Robinson's property is located north of
Crooked Creek Road, approximately 4.5 miles from the Mars Hill Commercial
Site. A USGS topography map showing the proximity of the mitigation site to the
project site is attached for review (Figure 5). A USGS topographic map of the
mitigation location is also attached for review (Figure 6).
Two unnamed tributaries to Crooked Creek are proposed for mitigation. The
longest stream segment proposed for enhancement is 1,432 linear feet; the shorter
stream segment is 143 linear feet and is a tributary to the longer stream. Currently
the stream segments proposed for mitigation are adjacent to a pasture; woody
• vegetation is sparse and exotic/invasive species are present. There are large
amounts of debris in the long stream segment, as well. During a site visit, CEC
observed log debris in the stream. There are also areas where the stream is
subsurface or the channel is undefined. Additionally, there are seven groundwater
wells along these stream segments. These groundwater wells capture subsurface
water at the heads of these tributaries and several adjoining springs and convey
water to watering tubs. The wells and tubs were installed to collect and hold
water for a cattle operation. It is the opinion of CEC that the presence of these
wells effects the hydrology of downstream reaches. Representative photographs
of the stream segments are enclosed for review (Appendix B), along with a
mitigation map (Figure 7).
Approximately 1,575 linear feet (in two segments) of stream channel will be
enhanced according to the "Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration" (October
2004). Included in the enhancement will be debris removal, exotic/invasive
removal, fine grading and defining of undefined portions of the stream,
decommissioning of wells, and plantings. Plantings have been divided into two
types: "A" and "B". Areas that include Type A enhancement lack significant
vegetation and will be planted with a target density of 320 trees per acre. Areas
that include Type B enhancement contain woody vegetation and will include
supplemental plantings in some areas; tree density may not exceed 320 trees per
acre.
•
12
Monitoring will be conducted annually, during the growing season, for five years
• and subsequent reports will be sent to regulatory agencies for review and
comment. Upon completion of initial planting, three vegetation plot will be
established in the enhancement area. All planted stems will be counted in the plot
to determine success. Success, within areas including enhancement Type A, will
be defined as survival and growth of at least 320 stems per acre through three
years of monitoring, survival and growth of at least 288 stems per acre through
year four, and survival and growth of at least 260 stems per acre through year
five. If a plot is deemed unsuccessful, additional plantings will be installed to
meet success criteria. Photographs will be taken to document each plot.
•
•
7.2 Summary
The applicant is proposing to mitigate for 1,050 linear feet of stream impacts.
Compensatory mitigation will be in the form of enhancement. The tables below
summarize the basic mitigation requirements along with the proposed stream
mitigation.
STREAMS - Basic Mitigation Re uirement
Linear Feet of Compensatory Basic
Impact Site Type of Impact Impact Mitigation Mitigation
Ratio (x:1) Requirement
1 Fill 1,050 1 1,050
Total
Impacts 1,050
Total Mitigation Required 1,050

STREAMS - Proposed Mitigation
Linear Feet of Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Type Activity Ratio Total Credit
(X: 1)
UT Crooked

Creek 1,432 enhancement 1.5 955
UT Crooked

Creek 143 enhancement 1.5 95
Total 1,575 1,050
13
8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
• 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)l. 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)1 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 culverts has been placed in the jurisdictional
stream on site. Discharge consisted of suitable fill material and did not
include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material was
also free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.

14
8.2.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion Control)
• During culvert installation on the site, there may have been a minimal
increase in suspended particulates that may have led to increased turbidity
downstream. However, the increase is anticipated to have been 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 did 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 was minimized or reduced.
All fill material needed at the site was taken from neighboring areas. The
fill material used on site was 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 fill material has modified current water circulation
patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, and
• changing velocity or flow of circulation in the channels proposed for
culverting; however, water circulation and patterns will be re-established
in the stream channels provided as mitigation.
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.
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.
8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
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 Madison County and the Mars Hill USGS
15
Topographic Quad on which NHP identifies current and historic
. occurrences of listed species for that locale. The NHP database identifies
2 EO within a 2-mile radius of the project site: southern blotched chub
(Erimystax insignis eristigma) and northern myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis). Southern blotched chub holds a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) Federal status which is not subject to Section 7
consultation. Northern myotis holds no Federal status. The FWS
Madison County list of threatened and endangered species lists gray bat
(Myotis grisescens), spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus), and bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii) as occurring in Madison County. Gray bat holds
an endangered Federal status and spotfin chub holds a threatened Federal
status. Suitable habitat for these two species does not exist within the
project boundary. Bog turtle holds a T(S/A) with the northern bog turtle.
Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and
are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
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 affect certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may also
potentially increase the levels of exotic species.
• Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US
have occured on the project site; however, food chain production will be
re-establish over time in the streams provided as mitigation. Net impacts
to primary food chain production are 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.
Although some evidence of wildlife usage was apparent on site, because
the project area is within close proximity to the highway and the project
involves the redevelopment of a previously developed site, wildlife habitat
is minimal. Noise pollution, denuded vegetation, and anthropogenic
activity make this area less desirable for resident and migrant wildlife.
While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream-dependent species may result
from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation will compensate
for any minor loss of habitat.
0
16
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.
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 have not
occured as a result of development within the Mars Hill Commercial Site
project boundary.
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 at the Mars Hill Commercial Site project site
has not impacted wetlands.
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 has not occurred as a result of development within the
Mars Hill Commercial Site 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 have occured as a result
of development within the Mars Hill Commercial Site 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

17

ecosystem have occured as a result of development within the Mars Hill
Commercial Site project boundary.
8.4.6 Riffle-Pool Sites
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 culverts had the potential to be placed into riffle-
pool complexes. Any permanent impact to riffle-pool complexes will be
mitigated for through the proposed mitigation.
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 activities
within the Mars Hill Commercial Site project boundary. Potable water
will be supplied by the local municipal water facility.
•
8.5.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively effect
recreational and commercial fisheries. Opportunity for recreational and
commercial fisheries is not present on site. The amount and quality of
recreational and commercial fisheries has not increased or decreased as a
result of activities with the Mars Hill Commercial Site project boundary.
8.5.3 Water-Related Recreation
Activities within the Mars Hill Commercial Site project boundary have not
increase or decrease waterborne recreation in the project boundary or
vicinity.
8.5.4 Aesthetics
Aesthetically, the commercial
Commercial Site will be ni
development in outlying areas.
aesthetic value of the area
neighboring view.
development proposed at the Mars Hill
different from any other commercial
The project is not expected to diminish the
?r cause disharmony from an aerial or
8.5.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above have been effected by the development
within the Mars Hill Commercial Site project boundary.
•
18
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 1,050 linear feet of
streams will not cause any off site adverse impacts. Mitigation offered off site
will compensate for any on-site impacts.

•
19
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.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors through the planning process and
believes that the proposed project is clearly not contrary to the public interest.
9.1 Conservation
The applicant is not proposing preservation as a component of the Mars
Hill Commercial Site project.
9.2 Economics
The project will provide an overall benefit to the local economy of
Madison County. During and upon completion of construction, the site
will provide job opportunities associated with the construction of the
commercial development. The project will also benefit the local economy
by providing additional tax revenues. The appropriate economic
evaluations have been completed and the project as proposed is
economically viable.
9.3 Aesthetics
Aesthetically, the commercial development proposed at the Mars Hill
Commercial Site will be no different from any other commercial
development in outlying areas. The project is not expected to diminish the
•
20
aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or
neighboring view.
9.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than stream impacts, development activities within the Mars Hill
Commercial Site project boundary 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 at the Mars Hill Commercial Site project site
has not impacted wetlands.
9.6 Historic Properties
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records
maintained by the SHPO identifies four properties located in the city of
Mars Hill: California Creek Missionary Baptist Church, Mars Hill College
Historic District, Mars Hill High School, and the Thomas J. Murray House.
California Creek Missionary Baptist Church is located off US Highway 24
and is approximately 2.4 miles from the project site. The Mars Hill College
Historic District and the Mars Hill High School are located between Bailey
Street and Cascade Street in downtown Mar Hill approximately 0.75 mile
from the project site. The location of the Thomas J. Murray House is
restricted; however, it is located in Mars Hill. 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, Site structure,
and close proximity to surface water. Wildlife may be permanent
residents of riparian and wetland areas or occasional visitor 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 shrub 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.
(6
21
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.
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.
Although impacts to these systems have occured at the Mars Hill
Commercial Site, adequate mitigation will compensate for lost functions
and values.
9.8 Flood Hazards
It is likely that upstream and downstream tributaries on the property will
flood occasionally due to natural fluctuations in weather patterns that
increase precipitation. The activities taking place within the Mars Hill
Commercial Site project boundary are not expected to increase or decrease
the natural rate of flooding at the site or downstream.
9.9 Flood lain Values
Designated floodplains were not be impacted by activities within the Mars
Hill Commercial Site project boundary. Flood stages and frequencies
should not increase or decrease as a result of the activities taking place
within the Mars Hill Commercial Site 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
The stream on site is an unnamed tributary to Big Branch. Big Branch
flows into Little Ivy Creek, which is a tributary to Ivy Creek. Ivy Creek
flows into the French Broad River, which is a navigable-in-fact water at
the Wilson Bridge east of Brevard. Activities at the Mars Hill
Commercial Site are not likely to effect navigation.
•
22
9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. An erosion
control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the
project. During the construction process, best management practices
(BMPs) will be followed. These BMPs will 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 at the Mars Hill Commercial Site are not likely
to cause significant erosion or accretion.
9.13 Recreation
Activities within the Mars Hill Commercial Site 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 activities
within the Mars Hill Commercial Site project boundary. Potable water
will be supplied by the local municipal water facility.
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 Mars Hill Commercial Site project
boundary, during construction and at full build out, are not expected to
significantly increase energy demands beyond the capacity of the local
facility. Energy will not be produced as a result of the activities within the
Mars Hill Commercial Site project boundary.
9.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible
considerations for public safety. The proposed activities at Mars Hill
Commercial Site will not increase or decrease public safety.
9.18 Food and Fiber Production
The proposed activities within the Mars Hill Commercial Site 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 development at the Mars Hill Commercial Site.
9
23
9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
The applicant 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:
Roger Robinson
Post Office Box 1900
Mars Hill, North Carolina 28754
9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by
providing additional tax base and housing in Madison County, North
Carolina.

•
24
10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The Mars Hill Commercial Site is located within the French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-
04. This subbasin includes the lower section of the French Broad River in Madison
County. The largest tributaries in the northern portion of the subbasin are Spring Creek,
which is entirely within the Pisgah National Forest, and Big Laurel Creek, which creates
the southern boarder of the Pisgah National Forest. In the southern section of the subbasin,
there is development around the towns of Marshall and Mars Hill; along with agricultural
activities. The largest tributary in this part of the subbasin is Ivy Creek. Approximately
85% of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes approximately 496 square
miles (317,440 acres). The Mars Hill Commercial Site is comprised of approximately 20
acres (<0.001 square miles). All of the land mass for the Mars Hill Commercial Site
accounts for <0.00006% of the land mass of the basin. These percentages alone, limit
significant cumulative effects on the watershed. Continued and future development of the
watershed is independent of activities proposed at the Mars Hill Commercial Site. Impacts
at the Mars Hill Commercial Site include the installation of a culvert and subsequent fill.
No activity at the Mars Hill Commercial Site will result in a major impairment of the water
resources on site or interfere with the productivity and water quality of the existing aquatic
ecosystem. This project will not result in additional development, which would impact
nearby downstream water quality.
•
is
25
11.0 SUMMARY
• The development of the Mars Hill Commercial Site involves the installation of one
culvert impacting approximately 1,050 linear feet of stream channel. 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 and will
aid in the continued growth of Madison County.
•
•
26
MAPQVfS1 °t ?IJ'S
}
Beartivood St
a
ry
A
Parkway
n
*knry t)t
C5
Artderso,
St
D 23'
c45c4de St
1 Mars Hill ~
O'
Qi
Qa?
a ?
y
ro .?
ro
v;
0 2008 MapQitNSt tf'tG ?
- Approximate Site Location
Roger Robinson
Madison County,
North Carolina
U1
A#
o.
r
4Go m
1200 ft
?J
ro
?v

uc
C
ro
ai
It
Map Data 0 2008 N AV Y E 0 or TeteAtlas
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville. NC 28791
Site Vicinity Map
MapQuest
FI,ure 1

CLEARWATER
Roger Robinson Environmental Consultants, Inc. USGS Topographic Map
Madison County, 718 Oakland Street Mars Hill Quad
North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 2
828-698-9800
N A1-tws
121 19C1
t Feet
i 50 430 ?D3
CLEARWATER
Roger Robinson Environmental Consultants, Inc. USDA Soils Survey
Madison County, 718 Oakland Street Web Soil Survey
North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 3
828-698-9800
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of hderest IAOII CD Very S:cny So"u'. 0, gnat sots survey rRap snaels'hrere pre paned at pun n_.alon scale.
A•e i 2 49'er... A01 Y'?ew?Ng scale and prin4ng scaae, tvwvver, r'a'y vary fro- the
jr We'. S;:ti. or nai. Please rely " on 1 tre bar 7-a e on each
? map s?tieeifar proper
Soils A. 071er rrap lrreasuren;ents.

Special Line Features Sourca of Map: Naiura Resources Conserval on Serv ce
Special Point Features
- Web Sot? Survey URL: ?Atp:,ti'Keb?+surve'y.rin_s.u9ja.g5V
4v 3'c^fiw' Coorcknale System: U-M Zone 17N

Tnis produ l is generaled fro-,Ire USDA-NRCS oert?faed data as of
.. ?7r r
the versnn date Isi trsled bevih.
v Sp u
Politico 1 Features Sol; SurveyArea: Madison County, Norih Carofiro
Municipalities
Survey Area Data: Version &^ Sep 5, 2"
Dalel.siawaiimages'h'erephoiog,wi-ed: 1t1&-1%8
G•a'vtoy SCC: rta i A,a.r
The orl t'KSp f7D1.0 of oii%r bass map CiN'h'11Yi1 the 5oii l(ne5 were
-arr llit Water Features colrcpted and chgtzed probabty differs from the background
Q tmagery disp eyed on 1e-se maps. As a result, some mmrshdting
of crap and boundaries rray be evident
? Atd^?'o :+.E 57earas erd C5rr3h
11?irre:_' G.cr-: Transportation
i--FF 14'3.I?
Roads
O r'erennral L"kr7er .ti/ ri:e•a:f.. ,.yr,x.,,-,
?.+ ?: •.,. Oil. rs cs
S.,r'..'k! '_?iw-.. J`ar' !•.J'i'A'.S?
S.7:'rJv sc ::
s.ti*rd.' r •::JexJ ?::t.". Over Reads
? S,ni?c?e
5!iJe rs S'.rp
?( St:dlc SM!
5::.ui Area
4 S).'] V Sec.
Map Unit Legend
Madison County, North Carolina (NC115)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of AOI
CY'2 C ton ;ay oa-, 510 -5
. _ _enl s ooes, -oderale'y
ad-B b
C02 C''larr ^:; ay !oarr, 15 to 30 4.0 32.1
2-R'CeN1 . slopes, -Oda'ale)^
e rode d
3C Tale na-, 51^^7 15 aercenl 3.3 2+j.. .ti,
5 0o AS
UrE Udorlrents-U'ean b-PJ 5.1 1G.3"4,
for-zo,ax, 2 to 5'J ae'-_?ni
s?'Jpe5
olasforArea ofI-deresi;ACIi I 12.51
CLEARWATER
Roger Robinson Environmental Consultants, Inc. USDA Soils Legend
Madison County, 718 Oakland Street Web Soil Survey
North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 3a
•
Figure 4
Site Plan
0

eoozisnonv eu,p yo?oGlao,pmpw NVId IVnidDONOO
oIGG-SO9-BZB :^93
iy..-. eeoc-so9-eze:?,pua SS3NISflB W13H Q3SOdOdd LWO
elf lllpy? ,(?, 'pi iwoz NnOHVOH1F1ON'3I1wH3AV3M 31111 ON1MVCC uIV IH?u.,1
0b-.l 3N8030V1IlA N33tl31V13 S07J9l9i XOB'0'd
:Be VNIIOHVO HLHON'111H SHIA eNnOO NOS1OrW
P-us
t-Z
?'i0tuo
- wwr
.>:? meln0 'HJ'I "I Iva 11 1: 1a.II N'II.I P.!
s 'lo +0.?'$0?= HHawwr NOSN180a H300H ? I; VV
,k aaw 5?4de, )4 '0009 N91S3Q ?j)??W
L„rSN' wllr uB e '^+•...C,,...?..,..- ...._...?'- TIN S'Jv/N NI
3-LVO SNOMSMenS/SNO1S1A3U V'ON
a '1
yyYj 1 / 1
I?1 / I
K ce /
[a3
------------
III
gei U f ??j C/? J- ------ - ---- - - -- r? -- -------.------ - - - -
? J 1
I
01-NSF. FGFTAT ON `
!78 oil
21
.
- (j
lei
t,
`J ( I J
'
,
I
I
2 1 T, ? ?, /
1 r
? I a
P
J I L? f.
1 y ? /
c I I - `X i ;
/
W C
,
I l I' CC
C s.
r IW? 1 ?. I /
° 111 . _ i ....? c...
<O Ymµl]??(?
1 t? - 1 `I 1C 1 11 T- 051A /
N
,
h `I'J Y
W i I ,5 t C J s? ?- / /
p --
r,
a
?' I 1 1 s /
1 ?7
f ?, I ?qg
71
I ?? r
r?
z
- 1------ , --- --?',--- - , z z W
-----1 / l i / z W
- --- -------
II
If ad IL z
J QWb
N
/ _?z/
?? i aW
r \?/ (f / a N
Y

F

UO NO
?m
<

Roger Robinson
Madison County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
828-698-9800
USGS Topographic Map
Mars Hill Quad
Mitigation Proximity Map
Figure 5
I
0i
0

Roger Robinson
Madison County,
North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Environmental Consultants. Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
828-698-9800
USGS Topographic Ma]
Mars Hill Quad
Mitigation Location
Figure 6
0
E
0
143 if
1432 if
Legend
Enhancement Type A
Enhancement Type B
.? Webs
-- - Stream
SHEET NO.
718 OAKLAND 11 ® MARS HILL COMMERCIAL SITE
ClearWater HENDERSDNVILLE LE NC 28791
PHONE: [phone] DMWNSY MITIGATION MAP 7
Environmental Consultants, Inc. FAX: [phone] Dare.
: Gi 08 09
CEC a-T No ROGER ROBINSON MADISON COUNTY
•
•
Appendix A
Jurisdictional Determination Information
and Photographs
0
---- ------ ------ -------
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # 1 (indicate on attached map)
L----- _.------------ --_ _._._._-------------- _ --_._.__?__ . _ 1
I I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stri
1. Applicant's name: Roger Robinson
3. Date of evaluation: 12/09/2008
5. Name of stream: UT Big Branch
7. Approximate drainage area: +/- 70 Acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: Approx. 50 LF
,am reach under assessment:
2. Evaluator's name: R. Newton and A. Salzber
4. Time of evaluation: 11:30 AM
6. River basin: French Broad
8. Stream order: First Order
10. County: Madison
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.827145; 82.537335 12. Subdivision name (if any):
n/a
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Approximately 500 linear feet upstream of culvert under Roy Edwards Lane; near property line. Site 1.
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
None
15. Recent weather conditions: Cold and
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cool and cloudy; drizzle.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed II (MV)
08. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
30 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 6.5 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 42 Comments: Stream buffer has been cut over and contains few trees but
manv briars.
Evaluator's Signature Date 12/09/08
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
e quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT . RANGE
S
# CHARACTERISTICS CORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
Q no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
x Entrenchment / floodplain access 0_ 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA 0-4 0-5 2
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
W severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
F* no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
r/
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

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

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) ?:O - 4 0-5 0-5 2
21 Presence of amphibians

O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0- 4 0-4 0-4 0
O 22 Presence of fish

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
Total Points Possible 100 _ 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 42
I Mbr, L;IIW UQLecisucs are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # 2 (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET !,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Roger Robinson 2. Evaluator's name: R. Newton and A. Salzberg
3. Date of evaluation: 12/09/2008 4. Time of evaluation: 11:00 AM
5. Name of stream: UT Big Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: +/- 70 Acres 8. Stream order: First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: Approx. 50 LF 10. County: Madison
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.827145; 82.537335 12. Subdivision name (if any): n/a
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
Approximately 100 linear feet upstream of culvert under Roy Edwards Lane. Site 2.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Cold and dry.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cool and cloudy; drizzle.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed II (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
09. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
30 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 5 feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 43 Comments: Stream buffer has been cut over and contains few trees but
many briars.
Evaluator's Signature Date 12/09/08
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
0articular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

S Ek, GION POIN T-RANGE
.
CM. RA.CTI R[STIC SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
,a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

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

(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

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

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

no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 0
Q
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

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

y,
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
21 Presence of amphibians

C
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O 22 Presence of fish

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use

- (no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
Total Points Possible 1 i?0 100 IOU
TOTAL, SCORE (also enter on: fitst page)' 43
1 llCSC G[laraLACHSOCS are not assessed in coastal streams.

Site 1.

Site 2.
•
6
•
0
Appendix B
Photos of Enhancement Areas
1]

•

a : , Mb OAF,
?4?m m s
ry
2`d?z" a
4
d
t . sY' 41
+'A
ykSu ?i? l
'qP
a r_ add ' J s § a
."kn 1q t& h t
Valley where enhancement areas are located.
I wo groundwater wells are the head the enhancement area. These wells will be
decommissioned.
LJ
U ii?ultl?llri ,c5 m
.61
Watering tub. Water from wells is diverted to tubs similar to the one pictured
•
•
Longest tributary, looking upstream. Planting and removal of exotic/invasive species
proposed.