20090341 Ver 1_401 Application_20090309

LEONARD S. RINDNER, PLLC
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
0 0 0 3 4 1 Fax [phone]
-
March 28, 2009
Ms. Amanda Jones
USACE - Asheville Regional Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Linda Wiggs
NCDENR - Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Highway 70,
Swannanoa, NC 28778
?;PAID
MAR 3 C 2009
DENR - WATER QVALIIY
LANDS, AND STOWAVER BRANCH
Suhject• Diamond Creek Stream Enhancement Project, Avery County, NC
Dear Amanda and Linda:
Please find attached a PCN for the enhancement of a small stream at Diamond. Creek in Banner
Elk for your review. The 'project includes Brook Trout habitat enhancement and the resulting
improvement to the overall aesthetics of the stream. We have also incorporated helpful comments
from our site meeting with Amanda Jones on January 15, 2009.
if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
Cc: Mr. Bryan Tompkins
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. Ron Linville
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Western Piedmont
3855 Idlewild Road
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Diamond Creek
Enhancement
Improving Brook Trout
Habitat and Overall
Aesthetics
Banner Elk, Avery County
North Carolina
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Jeff Levi, Biologist
Pat Kealy, Biologist
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Consultant
Environmental Assessment and Planning
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]
March 28, 2009
09-0341
OF W AT?C
ot°??Qv
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information P A I
1. Processing ,..
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: X Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes - USACE
Amanda Jones 1/14/2009 site meeting X Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes X No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes X No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes X No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Diamond Creek Stream Enhancement
2b. County: Avery . r g,rI
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Banner Elk
2d. Subdivision name: Diamond Creek `' MM
2e. NCDOT only, T.1. P. or state
project no: DENR ydgTERCt`ALIiY
1 ETLA!jDS- AMD S.ORhg.WVER BRANCH
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Diamond Creek Development, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Book 356, Page 1853
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Mr. John McNeely
3d. Street address: PO Box 2462
3e. City, state, zip: Banner Elk, NC 28604
3f. Telephone no.: 828-898-1800
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent X Other, specify: Owner
4b. Name: Mr. John McNeely
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Diamond Creek Development LLC
4d. Street address: P.O. Box 2462
4e. City, state, zip: Banner Elk, NC 28604
4f. Telephone no.: 828-898-1800
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
5c. Street address: 3714 Spokeshave Lane
5d. City, state, zip: Matthews, NC 28105
5e. Telephone no.: 704 904 2277
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 186801168798
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.1536 Longitude: - 81.8403
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 18.46 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Horse Bottom Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C - Tr
2c. River basin: Watauga
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Single Family Residential; Restaurant; Agricultural Pasture, Forest; Golf Course Development
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.10 streams
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
+/- 580 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Improving Brook Trout habitat and Overall Aesthetics
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Improve Brook Trout habitat by
enhancing habitat; bank stabilization; invasive and exotic species removal; pool expansion/enhancement; riparian buffer
enhancement. See attached report for more information.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: USACE 1/15/09 - Ms. Amanda Jones
X Yes ? No ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? X Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Leonard S. Rindner, PWS Agency/Consultant Company: Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
January 15, 2009
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes X No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes X No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands X Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary (T)
? Yes ? Corps
W1 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W2 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W4 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? PXT NWP #27 UT X PER
? INT X Corps
X DWQ 61-10' 370 LF
Overall
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 370 If
3i. Comments: Project includes invasive/exotic species removal; stream bank stabilization; pool expansion/enhancement &
habitat improvement; riparian buffer enhancement.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water
impact number - Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary (T) impact required?
?Yes
131 ?P?T ? No
?Yes
62 ?P?T ? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Project proposes to enhance existing stream to improve Brook Trout habitat and overall aesthetics - see attached report
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Project development is subject to locally approved sedimentation and erosion control plan; in-stream work will be
monitored by wetland/stream consultant - see attached report for additional information.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? Less than 10 % impervious
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes X No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Overall impervious is less than 24%. No
direct discharges of stormwater is directed to the stream.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Avery County
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes X No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is limited to the enhancement of an existing stream
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal sewer system
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
F1 Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? A
h
ill
ev
s
e
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Site was evaluated for the presence of Brook Trout. A small Brook Trout population was confirmed in the existing deeper
pools.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ? No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://www. nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/G IS_inven. htm
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
According to the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of
registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, this site is not registered property or
property listed as being eligible for inclusion in the Register.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain dete m ion?

Leonard S. Rindner - " " 3/28/09
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Age s signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
LEONARD S. RINDNER. PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews. NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
February 13, 2009
Mr. Ron Glover
Diamond Creek
Red Pony LLC
P.O. Box 2462
Banner Elk. NC 28604
RE: Diamond Creek Stream Enhancement, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC
Dear Ron:
In order to interface with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources I will need your authorization. Please sign the
following statement:
This letter authorizes Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC as our agent in matters related to
TT'aters of the U.S. and Waters of North Carolina for the referenced project site. This
includes interfacing with the United States Arnty Corps of Engineers and the 'North
Car in\a Dep rtment of Natural Resources.
e,J (-? ? lY' :.- l (, (3 q
Name D we
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation.
Thank you.
ironmental Planning Consultant
ession Wetland Scientist

I G - °=#

c(V dim
ODt

."52 30' •22
L .L ? V T n t ? n

123 1 160 000 V L E. T I 42t

LOCATION:
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
36.1536 N 81.8403 W
HUC :06010103
Watauga River
SCALE
1600 800 0 1600(Feet)
USGS Quadrangle : Valle Crucis (NC)
IM APQMr esir ?y tero i gait
01,
19+x;, ,?'
Balm H%qy - cr
? Rann,erElk
n?
?o
&' Seven Devils
-{ P
DObws p4
3
??drd C4
kri Alp
C
ova
?th?t+d9E to ?? ?? ?}K
0 2009 MapQuest tnc ?' F!n e,_ t Map Data Z. 2009 N AV I E CJ of Tp*,Atw?
Soil Map-Avery County, North Carolina
36'9'20"
36' 8'56"
Map Scale: 1:3,560 if prided on A size 8.5" x 11') sheet
N Meters
A 0 30 60 120 180
Feet
0 100 200 400 600
36' 9'27
36` 8'56"
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.1 211012009
rr Comervation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
Soi Map-Aver/ County, North Cainluta
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Inte rest (AOI) fA '?ery Stony Sool Map .-cale 1 3,500 if printed on A size (3 S' • ' 1") sheet
- Area of Inlerest (AOq 'Net Spot The sod Surveys thet comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 1 _.0,00
Soils Other please rely cn the tsr scale on each map sheet for ac;urate map
Scil MaJ Units measurements.
Speriai Line Features
Special P oint Features GWtJ Source of Map. Natural Rcseurees Consen?atior, Scrvicc
c•) Blowout Web Soil Survey URL http'11,nnibsoilsurvey_nres us, a gov
Shat Steep Slope C,oominate System UTM Zone 17ty NAD83
® Bcnow Pit
' Jhe This product is generated from the i,SDA-NRC:S c-xlified daw its of
>E Clay Spot
Political Features
the version Ca1P.(s)'isted below
Closed Depression
G Cities
Soil Surrey Area. Avery County, Mortt Garollna
Gravel Pit Water Features Survey Area Data Version 14• Jul ?1, 2008
Gravelly Spot [ Oceans Date(si aenal images were phot, rapped 7/332009
(?q landfill '>treams and Canals The orttophote o' ether base map on which the soil tires •werp
A Lava Flow Transplantation c7mpiled and digitized probably drffers from top bac<ground
imagsiry rimplaypd on thew mars As a result, tome minor shilling
AL Matsh of swamp Rails of man unit bounda,iAs may be evidart
yt Mine or Quarry v nterstate Hi flways
Oq Miscellaneous Baler -•? JS Rolfes
p Perennial'./Vale' Major Roads
.? Rock Outcrop N -ocal Roads
} Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severeiy erodes Spot
4 Sinkhole
jY Slide or Slip
m Scdic Spot
_ Spoil Area
Q StollV Spot
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2 1 2!1012009
;110 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Pa 7e 2 of 3
Soil Map-Avery County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Avery County, North Carolina (NC011)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CtD Cullasaja cobbly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, 17.9 23.6%
extremely bouldery
CuA Cullowhee loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently 0.0 OA%
flooded
DeB Dellwood cobbly sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes, 6.9 9.1%
occasionally flooded
SaB Saunook loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 4.7 6.2%
SaC Saunook loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.9 1.2%
ShD Saunook-Thunder complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, 0.7 0.9%
very stony
UnD Unaka-Porters complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, 3.4 4.5%
very rocky
UnE Unaka-Porters complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, 37.9 50.0%
very rocky
UnF Unaka-Porters complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, 3.4 4.5%
very rocky
Totals for Area of Intere st 75.8 100.0%
DIAMOND CREEK
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
IMPROVING BROOK TROUT HABITAT
AND
OVERALL AESTHETICS
February 11, 2009
By
Len Rindner
Jeff Levi
Patrick Kealy
DIAMOND CREEK STREAM ENHANCEMENT
IMPROVING BROOK TROUT HABITAT
AND OVERALL AESTHETICS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
General conditions:
The stream flowing through the site at Diamond Creek is a rocky perennial stream with
good substrate diversity, good water quality, low aquatic habitat diversity, and a limited
vegetated buffer. Several areas of bank erosion exist along the reach (Figure A). Several
fish were observed in the stream, but were not identified. Several orders of
macro invertebrates were observed inhabiting the stream, but in low abundances. The
vegetation along the eastern side of the stream provides good canopy coverage and acts
as a good buffer to any sediment or other pollutants. However, the vegetation along the
western side is only a few feet wide in several areas and should be enhanced to improve
the stream corridor. A spring enters the stream above the walking bridge. Sediment/silt
may be entering the stream from this area. Invasive plant species exist along the stream
in low abundance and should be removed before they outcompete the native vegetation.
A restaurant is being constructed adjacent to the stream and the stream has been proposed
for stream enhancement focusing on improving brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) habitat.
In-stream features:
The stream is characterized by large boulders, exposed bedrock, abundant riffles and
pools, good water quality, fairly stable banks (except in areas of existing erosion), and a
vegetated buffer. The habitat availability for macro invertebrates and fish is relatively
low. Pools, rocks, and boulders provide the majority of the habitat. Aquatic organisms
favor areas with refugia and a variety of feeding sources. The limited variety of habitats
limits macro invertebrate diversity. Brook trout rely on macro invertebrates as a food
source. With limited habitat and taxa diversity of macro invertebrates, brook trout may
not find the reach ideal for supporting reproducing populations.
Several areas are steep enough to be considered migration barriers for trout. The culvert
under Dobbins road limits any migration from the stream below the road. This can be
considered a detriment and an asset. Although the barrier would prevent any brook trout
from migrating up-stream, it also serves as a barrier to unwanted species such as rainbow
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) or brown trout (Salmo trutta). The steep falls area (Figure 7) acts
as a barrier and will likely reduce any migration above the falls.
The water quality of the stream is suitable for brook trout. The temperature is cold
(6.2°C), the dissolved oxygen levels are good, pH is circumneutral, and the conductivity
is low (Table 1). There are a few areas with filamentous algae covering the stream bed.
Efforts to minimize fertilizer runoff into the stream should be a priority. Some
sediment/silt is covering areas of the stream bed, but not at critical levels. However,
efforts to minimize or reduce any further sedimentation should be of top priority as high
levels of silt over gravel beds will reduce habitat favored by reproducing brook trout.
Stream banks:
The banks along the stream are relatively stable except for a few areas along the outside
of meanders (Figures 3 and 5) and where the slope of the stream is relatively high (Figure
7). Stabilization of these areas would reduce the input of sediment into the stream. The
vegetation along the stream banks could be enhanced to provide more stability and
potential habitat for macro invertebrates (i.e. plants overhanging the banks).
Riparian buffer:
The existing buffer is of good quality on the east side of the stream. A mix of trees,
herbaceous plants, and a few shrubs exists along the corridor. Enhancing the east side
with more shrubs will benefit the buffer and improve the aesthetics. The west side is of
less quality with only a few feet of buffer in several areas. Widening the buffer and
planting more shrubs and a few trees along the barren lower section will improve the
functions of the buffer and provide a more natural setting. A few invasive plants exist in
the buffer and should be removed before they spread and outcompete the native species.
The canopy in the riparian buffer includes red maple (Ater rubrum), yellow birch (Betula
lutea), sugar maple (Ater saccharum), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), American
basswood (Tilia americans var. heterophylla), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). The sparse
subcanopy supports transgressives (same species as the canopy), black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and witchhazel (Hamamelis
virginiana). The sparse shrub layer includes great laurel (Rhododendron maximum), wild
hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), and the invasive multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Herbaceous plants/ferns include filmy angelica (Angelica triquinata), wood sorrel (Oxalis
sp.), honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis), woodland stonecrop (Sedum ternatum),
jewelweed (Impatiens sp. ), buttercup (Ranunculus sp. ), seltheal (Prunella vulgaris),
ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), violet (Viola spp.), beggartick (Bidens prob.
frondosa), ragwort (Senecio sp.), Asters (Aster spp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.),
arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagitattum), clover (Trifolium sp.), shaggy soldier
(Galinsoga quadriradiata), plantain (Plantago sp.), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum
vulgare), grapefern (Botrychium prob. dissectum), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), rock cap
fern (Polypodium virginianum), christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), lady fern
(Athyrium filix femina), and marginal woodfern (Dryopteris marginalia).
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK OUTLINE
Figure B depicts potential areas of enhancement along the approximately 450 feet of
stream. The work will be completed to enhance the potential brook trout habitat and to
improve overall aesthetics.
1. Invasive/exotic s ecies removal - Several individuals of multiflora rose were
observed along the eastern stream bank and along the adjacent slope. These invasive
species and any others within the project area will be identified and removed.
2. Stream bank stabilization - Areas identified with active erosion will be stabilized.
This may include placing rock along the disturbed area, or if needed, an erosion
control fabric and livestaking may be installed.
3. Pool expansion/enhancement & habitat improvement - Numerous pools exist
within the stream. Many of these are not deep enough to provide quality brook trout
habitat. Cross vane deflectors will be installed using existing rock to promote deeper
pools and create better habitat (Figures 14 and 15). Installation of root wads and/or
overhanging bank vegetation would benefit the macro invertebrate populations and
provide areas of cover/refugia.
4. Riparian buffer enhancement - The existing riparian buffer will be enhanced with
more vegetation including increasing the diversity of native shrubs and small trees
(Figure 10). A species which will hang over the banks will aid in stabilization and
provide potential habitat for macroinvertebrates and adult insects. Dog hobble
(Leucothoe axillaris var. editorum) would be a good species selection for an
overhanging plant (Figure 17). Shrubs such as mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
(Figure 18) and great laurel (Figure 16) will be planted behind the dog hobble along
the banks and lower slopes. Areas with no shrubs or trees (i.e. adjacent to the
existing office) will be planted with native trees (i.e. red maple, yellow birch,
American basswod) and shrubs to provide cover and shade for the stream. The spring
above the walking bridge should be protected from any foot traffic or disturbance.
Planting native hydrophytic vegetation within the small spring may help reduce future
sediment from entering the stream.
Efforts to minimize any disturbance during the construction process must be of high
priority. Further sedimentation could limit brook trout from populating the reach of
stream. The use of hand tools and manual labor is preferred. Movement of large
boulders may require powered equipment. Any equipment should be utilized from
outside of the riparian zone. Track hoes/excavators with a long extension arm would
likely be the best option for moving large boulders. The equipment could remain away
from the stream and still reach the enhancement areas. Enhancing the existing vegetation
will require the planting of native trees, shrubs, and grasses. Non-native species could
outcompete the natives and further degrade the stream corridor. Use of fertilizers and
soil amendments should be kept to a minimum. Excessive chemical run-off could
increase the nutrient levels of the stream and promote unwanted algae growth.

°) E Q?
i o o
Y a W 8
o2E 'a
c
0 F.

v
N a.
o
oo 1 » Y
! -a0t0m
? .8
YE w z
C
m
M
a?Ew
d 2- W
d
w 0
(?

UU
O
C

E
O'
U

z
z
7
t
/}

1

",
-
p
d O Y
O1oO d

(p
NOIdRE

Q
t^ O
S

V
LL o
HJa de JNIN-1v ? _ a a oI c
o z t9
z
µ L 3 R
W W
d Y
m `m EE d 0 OI
?d'R E
< L
w N
o
°a F-
L a Q o

` o s o° a <F
°
U Ems
a't 0)
a
Q
?w
w
??. ca z C) zo:
w
o?2v

O N R y N
a

_ Adam

J 3 ii 51

R
W
a¢
a x
U
?LL
R
W m
d
wagd
0.2)
W EO
0 Q
.
O
(? d O O€
O 1 -
d d
Z'D U" Ul U U d
R R

a`?$?vv'
R R R m
IL
..
f
U) r W
3
9 C
d
A
R
0

t
R
C
I ; O
e u

,

r
C N
R ,
O
d? UI N

u?
I
'... o a O
« C O1
,
o ..
L'

d O.
N
0. p

3 ` N r ... ?. . Y..lr
A _
I
'-
I
I ? e.
Y C
O
l
? R F
E ?
R
?
r d

d O. p
a
rn
„
41

N
9 L
10
d

.,
1 fit'
% a d
NO
R
N /' .. 6 - ti K d 01

SIR 3 W A LL

A
L
C / t YI t}
R R
a
a
m O
d g In LL
?i L
0?
E
1 6..
3
d m
R d >
Q> LL
i 4^ it C M __
•?
i
PT `I O
'
v

S,

TABLE 1. WATER QUALITY OF STREAM AT DIAMOND CREEK.
Mean Temperature (C)
Mean pH
Mean Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
%saturation
Mean Conductivity (NS/cm)
Turbidity
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Score
(z19 = Intermittent; 2:30 = Perennial)
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
(Out of 100 possible points)
6.2
7.68
10.56
97.8
42
Clear To Bottom (CTB)
42.25
66
Surrounding Land Use Residential/Commercial/Forested
Observed Stream Biota Macroinvertebrates (several orders)
Fish
a
'? g o z
? ? °' 6 N rJ o
I
i ' y g C W m W
a W
Z
3DCINS DNINYItlM??` a v o
- LL H V
,
..
I p
f. Ud+ ? N W H

4 o a o¢ p z
j _
Q
n
o <?
W aJ
Z z o z Z w m

W Z d 2
W Q U X .0
W [O (n N
?
l
I
,.

+ d
Z

0

?
1
c. I
W Q

? W > .y
a3
? ^ i E N b ? z .?
w b a 0 ?? ° 0 d?? 'r
° l? [ b
° .p .? ? ? Z .? b o C7
,
?'? a Vi NaEI?? k p"o

L
15 j
a
?

z a ( T
4 I
? t
?
W G
b
C
1
Y v
'
N C

W
z
? O C
II ,
.?
1
<
? p,
? ? O
R,
M
J] -YdS a Ra

z v o ?
a ??
v
7; o 3
.n

O v
N
'?mb}}O i

+

?

83c?
,,
?
J N

m r

.
/ ?
? m O la
10
z ap b

r

g ?? ?
?
r
.
?
w 4
l,5
vt' .7
a v
o
a
m
+
FIGURE 1. Area with steep banks and sparse vegetation.
FIGURE 2. Close up: Area with steep banks and sparse vegetation.

FIGURE 3. Area with exposed, rocky, unstable banks.
FIGURE 4. Exposed rocky streambank area with sparse vegetation
FIGURE 5. Area with steep eroding banks.
FIGURE 6. Wide channel with braided thalweg section and shallow pools.
FIGURE 7. Large boulders, falls, eroded bank, and pool with fish below bridge.
FIGURE 8. Spring/seep below gravel parking pad.
FIGURE 10. Stable streambank example with overhanging vegetation.
FIGURE 9. Exposed rocky steambank area with sparse vegetation (before enhancement).
FIGURE 11. Exposed, rocky, streambank with sparse vegetation (before enhancement).
FIGURE 12. Vegetated stream banks (shrubs) example with boulders.
FIGURE 13. Unorganized channel with small, shallow pools (before enhancement).
FIGURE 14. Organized riffle/pool example with crossvanes.
FIGURE 15. Cross vane with pools.
FIGURE 16. Rhododendron over stream.
FIGURE 17. Dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris var. editorum).
FIGURE 18. Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: October 17, 2008 Project: Diamond Creek Latitude: 36.1536 N
Evaluator: _L Levi- P. Kealy Site: DC - Strm Enh Longitude: 81.8403 W
Total Points: Other Valle Crucis (7.5 min Quad)
Stream? rs at least rnternnrtteat 42.25 County: Avery, NC e g Quad Name:
if 19 or perennial if a 30 _ __] A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 23 Absent Weak Moderate Strong

1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 a?? p 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ED
Yes ='i
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
D LI-A ,.i.,,,,, = 9 t
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 O
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.
r^ Pinlnmi rCiih4n4a1 = 11.25 }
20'. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21'. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves Co 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 C-131 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae: periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
29'. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5: FACW = .7 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or weuana plants
Sketch
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Rocky, boulders, bedrock, cobble.
Brook Trout potential habitat.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT «+DRKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE I
SCORE
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow i persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4 _ 5

0-5 4
no floe or saturation = 0: strong flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0
4
0-5
0-5
3
? (extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = max points) -
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0- 5 3
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max oints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 4
0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 3
(no discharge = 0, springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
.. 6 Presence of adjacent floodplan 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
no flood lain = 0: extensive flood lain = max omts
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access O 5 O - 0 ?,
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 1
(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points)

4 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = max ousts
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
"extensive deposition-- 0: little or no sediment = max onus
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 4
fine. homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(deeply incised = 0: stable bed & banks = max points)
F
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 _ s
4
+= (severe erosion = 0: no erosion, stable banks = max points
M
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
3
l^ no visible roots = 0: dense roots throughout = max points)

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

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
H (little or no habitat = 0 frequent- varied habitats = max points)
n- Canopy coverage over streambed
1S
no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
14 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page. 4)
20 no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max p 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
Presence of amphibians
21
no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
r
72 Presence of fish
0-4
©_4
©- 4
2
(no evidence = 0 common. numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 66
" These characteristics are not assessed in coastal sneams_
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE; US Army Corps of
Engineers; 151 Patton Avenue- Room 208; Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Applicant:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State-NC County/parish/borough: Avery City: Banner Elk
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): L at. 36.1536 ° l Long. 81.8403 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Hanging Rock Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Elk River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Watauga (06010103)
0 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 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U. S" within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
?, Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ` "waters of the U. S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
?; TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into 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 TN W s
? 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: - 4501inear feet: 20-25 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on 11elteution ?9snual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable)
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section 111T.
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.14 otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetlandadjacent 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 Rapanoshave 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 IILD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section 111.6.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section 111.133 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of n on-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: ;Pick Lkst
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through . tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters 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 TNW-:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
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 annlvl:
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: PickList.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type//o cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List.
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) F w•
Tributary provides for: Piek.Tisf
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: PiekList
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: PickList Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM` (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank
? changes in the character of soil
? shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition
? water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
? the presence of litter and debris
? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? the presence of wrack line
? sediment sorting
? scour
? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWAjurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: a Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
°A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
theOH WM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH WM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7 Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmental I)-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:
Proiect wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is ?Iek List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TN W:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Proiect wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Proiect waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from i'?i -k List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ?i& List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., watercolor 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: ;Picklisl
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequencyof the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TN W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for 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 111.1):
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNW s. 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 111.1):
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 111.1):
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent toTNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW s.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The unnamed tributary is a perennial RPW. See JD package, NC Stream ID form, and Stream Quality
Asessment Worksheet for the tributary. This perennial RPW has year-round flow and characteristics typical of perennial
streams (substrate sorting, riffle-pool-run sequences, fish, macroinvertebrates, etc.).
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 450 linear feet20 -25width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TN W, 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.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are juri sdictional as adjacent wetlands.
?; Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.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: 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 TN W are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
E3 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.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
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 JNNTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATES WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLV):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
"See Footnote# 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section I I1.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.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLV):
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 aukpotential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
[] Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
?' U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:7.5 Min Quad 1:24K - Valle Crucis (NC).
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 Flood lain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
{?. Photographs: Ll Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):
?' Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD-