20061944 Ver 1_Individual_20061221

Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
December 2006 2006 1 8 44
;,
Applicant: RECEIVED
Lonesome Valley
LONESOME VALLEY
4
Attn: Shane Robichaud
PO Box 3269
Cashiers, NC 28717
[phone]
Prepared By:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
[phone]

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
December 20, 2006
Mr. Lori Beckwith
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Section 404 Individual Permit Application
Lonesome Valley
Jackson County, NC
Dear Lori and Cyndi:
T
RECEIVED
2006 1944
Enclosed for your review is an Individual Permit application for stream and wetland impacts
associated with the construction of Lonesome Valley, a residential community in Cashiers,
(Jackson County) North Carolina. The following information is included with the application as
supporting documents:
1) 8.5 X 11" plan drawings including stream impacts
2) List of Adjacent Land Owners
3) Master Plan map
4) Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
Please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] to discuss this application or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
enclosures
cc: USFWS
NCWRC
NCDWQ-Asheville Office
2 ®r,�' (9 9 W R N
DEC 2 12006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETtANN W STORMWATER BRANCH
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com

4
2006 1 944
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
(33CFR 32 Expires October 1996
lie reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing inspections, searching existing
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed
applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity,
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible Copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed
in full will be returned
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED 4.13ATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not required)
Lonesome Valley
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
6, APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
C/O Mr. Sharpe Robichaud
valley Rd
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NIC 28791 Ti
f1
94 Lonesome
i E; it
PO Box 3269
Cashiers NC 28717
REenan
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A
a. Residence N/A
b. Business 828-743-7696
b. Business 828-698-9800
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, Clement Riddle to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon roquest, supplemental information in
support of this permit app
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Lonesome Valley
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Logan Creek
94 Lonesome Valley Rd
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Jackson NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRU'TIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
Lonesome Valley
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE: From U.S. Highway 64 in Brevard travel west toward Cashiers N.C. After dossing the Cake Toxaway Falls on Highway 64 travel
approximately 9 miles west. The site is located on the northern side of Highway 64. The entrance is marked with two stone pillars on either side of the entrance road.
sk"Awg ut
DEC 2 12006

•
0
•
18. Nature ofActivity (Description of project, include all features)
SEE ATTACHED.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
SEE ATTACHED.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20_ Reason(s)for Discharge
SEE ATTACHED.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Fill of approximately 444 linear feet of culvert proposed in jurisdictional streams.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
0.053 acres of perennial and important intermittent streams
0.013 acres of wetlands
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes N No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Phase 1 impacts are complete. Permit received 07/28/05 and the USACE ID # 200531949.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attached
a supplemental list).
SEE ATTACHED,
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACE 404 Permit 200531949 08/232002 07/28/2005
"Would include but is not restricted to zonin& building and flood plan permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. 1 further certify that I possess thf ity to undcrqLM the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent agent of the applicant. r
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
19 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both_

• Adjacent Landowners
Lonesome Valley (PIN# 7583-50-8670)
Warren Alexander
Richard Page
Jonathon Smith
PO Box 1683
2425 Bogota St
980 Mayfield Rd
Cashiers, NC 28717
Port Charlotte, F133980
Alpharetta, GA 30004
(PIN#7582-68-7894)
(PIN# 7582-69-7293)
(PIN# 7582-69-7696)
Jane Hampson
Duane Franceschi
Richard McCullough
1401 Lincoln St
2909 Ivan Hoe Rd
166 Flamingo Ave
Evanston, IL 60201
Tallahassee, FL 2312
Naples, FL 34108
(PIN# 7583-60-8112)
(PIN#7583-70-1137)
(PIN# 7583-70-5098
William Yag
Elizabeth Masarek
Spring Forest Property Owner As.
7657 Ponte Verde Way
7510 Brigantine Ln
6000 904 San Jose Blvd
Naples, FL 34108
Porkland, FL
Jacksonville, FL 32217
(PIN# 7583-70-7271)
(PIN# 7583-80-3219)
(PIN# 7583-80-5200, 7583-80-7205)
Thalia Carlos
Ray Daniel One National lo SW Lawrence McCallen
•105 Flatwood Brandon Trail Atlanta, GA 30336 4421 St Andrew Dr
Glenville, NC 28736 0583-, A 307) Boynton Beach, F133436
(PIN# 7583-55-2846,7583-55-1631) (PIN# 7583-80-9864)
Westmark Dev. Co. of NC
Charles Degenhardt
Thomas West
20 Continental Dr
154 Grays Creek Dr
1672 Plum Thicket Ln W
Sapphire, NC 28774
Savannah, GA 31410
Des Moines, IA 50266
(PIN# 7593-21-2777)
(PIN# 7583-91-1978)
(PIN# 7583-93-3357)
German Family LTD Partnership
Rodney Metz
Elizabeth Webb
310 McAlpin Rd
3198 Edwater Dr
6040 Oakbrook Ct Ponte
Savannah, GA 31406
Gainesville, GA 30501
Verde Beach FL 32082
(PIN# 7583-94-2924,7583-75-9375)
(PIN# 7583-56-5351,7583-56-3131)
(PIN# 7583-76-1242)
Gary Metal
Kathleen Hughes
Lonesome Valley Co. Inc.
10651 SW 65' Ave
3766 Carrick Dr
PO Box 1459
Miami, FL 33156
Ormond Beach, FL 32174
Cashiers, NC 28717
(PIN# 7582-68-7426)
(PIN# 7582-68-9128)
(PIN# 7582-67-8182)
0

• Gay Horne
Patricia Ketcham
E. Mitchell Betty
755 Loridans Dr
2217 Limerick Dr
33 Pepperidge Trail
Atlanta, GA 30342
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Glenville, NC 28736
(PIN# 7582-66-0174,7582-56-7883)
(PIN# 7583-45-9385)
(PIN# 7583-45-9084)
High C. Ltd
Gary Coyle
Mazie Salerno
PO Box 1088
PO Box 2536
17417 Magnolia Island Blvd
Wauchula, FL 33873
Cashiers, NC 28717
Clemont, FL 34711
(PIN# 7583-45-9084)
(PIN# 7583-44-4440)
(PIN# 7583-44-0252)
George Brown
Dzuira Family Holdings Partnership
Donatas Siliunas
PO Box 1671
330 Atlantic Rd
4900 N. Ocean Blvd.
Zolfo, FL 33890
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
Ft. Lauderdale FL 33308
(PIN# 7583-34-7290)
(PIN# 7583-34-4782)
(PIN# 7583-23-3670)
Nancy Middleton
Richard Middleton
David Miller
113 E. Gordon St.
12 Dahlgren Rd
1610 South Eighth St
Savannah, GA 31401
Richmond VA 23219
Fernandina Beach FL 32034
(PIN# 7583-23-2170)
(PIN# 7583-22-1968)
(PIN# 7583-22-5764)
Richard Beavers
Amelia Service Center
Red Bird Properties
South Eighth St
1610 South Eighth St
PO Box 2487
•1610
Fernandina Beach FL 32034
Fernandina Beach FL 32034
Cashiers, NC 28717
(PIN# 7583-22-8970)
(PIN# 7583-22-8453,7583-22-8252)
(PIN# 7582-66-4121)
Barbara Swift
R&E Land Holdings, LLC
Van Swift
140 Bay View Ave
PO Box 1459
CashiersNC 28717
NC 28302)
140 Bay View Ave
Naples, FL 34108
,
(PIN# 75,
Naples, FL 34108
(PIN# 7583-22-8060,7583-21-8755)
(PIN# 7583-21-8528)
Howard Smith
LVC 1 Inc.
Keith Holdbrooks
8050 Corton Dr
PO Box 2487
4115 Indian Hills Rd SE
Myrtle Beach, SC 29572
Cashiers, NC 28717
Decatur, AL 35603
(PIN# 7583-30-3987)
(PIN# 7582-38-5740,7582-76-3423)
(PIN# 7582-76-4511
Spring Property Owners Assoc.
Hoosier Products LP
Martha Lewis
600 904 San Jose Blvd.
1185 Mount Paran Rd NW
PO Box 2305
Jacksonville, FL 32217
Atlanta, GA 30327
Conway, SC 29526
(PIN# 7582-77-0288)
(PIN# 7582-77-2493
(PIN# 7582-77-1945)
0

•
Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
December 2006
Applicant:
Lonesome Valley
LONESOME
Attn: Shane Robichaud
PO Box 3269
Cashiers, NC 28717
[phone]
Prepared By:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
• [phone]

• Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................3
2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work.......................................................................................................... 3
3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................4
3.1 Soils...........................................................................................................................................................4
3.2 Vegetative Communities........................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern ........................................................................ 6
4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT - LONESOME VALLEY ...........................7
0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
8.15
8.16
Conservation............................................................................................................................................
4.1
Roads.........................................................................................................................................................7
27
4.2
Utilities......................................................................................................................................................
7
5.0
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................9
27
HistoricProperties...................................................................................................................................
5.1
Overview...................................................................................................................................................
9
FloodHazards..........................................................................................................................................
5.2
Project Justification.................................................................................................................................
10
LandUse..................................................................................................................................................
5.3
The Site....................................................................................................................................................
12
ShoreErosion and Accretion...................................................................................................................
5.4
Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts) .................................................
12
Water Supply and Conservation..............................................................................................................
5.5
Alternatives Conclusion..........................................................................................................................
12
6.0
COMPENSATORY
MITIGATION PLAN.......................................................................13
6.1
Stream Avoidance...................................................................................................................................
13
6.2
Stream Minimization...............................................................................................................................
14
6.3
Stream Preservation.................................................................................................................................
14
6.4
Natural Stream Channel Design Restoration .................................
14
•
6.5
6.6
Stream Restoration Plan (570 linear feet)................................................................................................
Monitoring...............................................................................................................................................17
15
6.7
Success Criteria.......................................................................................................................................
18
6.8
Reporting.................................................................................................................................................
19
7.0
U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES ........... 20
7.1
Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines....................................................
20
7.2
Factual Determination.............................................................................................................................
20
7.3
Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ........................
20
7.4
Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem...........................................................
22
7.5
Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites.............................................................................................
23
7.6
Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics.....................................................................................
24
7.7
Summary .................................................................................................................................................
26
8.0
PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................27
0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
8.15
8.16
Conservation............................................................................................................................................
27
Economics...............................................................................................................................................
27
Aesthetics................................................................................................................................................
27
General Environmental Concerns............................................................................................................
27
Wetlands..................................................................................................................................................
27
HistoricProperties...................................................................................................................................
28
Fishand Wildlife Values.........................................................................................................................
28
FloodHazards..........................................................................................................................................
28
FloodplainValues....................................................................................................................................
28
LandUse..................................................................................................................................................
28
Navigation...............................................................................................................................................
28
ShoreErosion and Accretion...................................................................................................................
28
Recreation................................................................................................................................................
29
Water Supply and Conservation..............................................................................................................
29
Water Quality (Stormwater Management)..............................................................................................
29
EnergyNeeds..........................................................................................................................................
29

• 8.17 Safety .......................................................................................................................................................29
8.18 Food and Fiber Production...................................................................................................................... 29
8.19 Mineral Needs......................................................................................................................................... 29
8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership.................................................................................................... 30
8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public............................................................................................................. 30
9.0 SUMMARY ......................................................
Appendix A Threatened and Endangered Species Survey
Appendix B USACE 404 Permit
Appendix C Mitigation Scope of Work
•
0
.................................................................31

• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Lonesome Valley, Inc. proposes to complete Phase II of the residential subdivision,
known as Lonesome Valley. The project is proposed for a 613 -acre section on the
northern portion of Lonesome Valley just north of US Highway 64 in Jackson County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The proposed project, Phase II. of Lonesome Valley
represents the final phase of the master plan. The site is bordered by US Highway 64 to
the south and private second home resort communities to the east, west, and north. US
Highway 64 provides the primary access to the site (Figure 2). The project site contains
Logan Creek and numerous unnamed tributaries all of which drain into Logan Creek.
Logan Creek flows into the Horsepasture River just south of US Highway 64.
Lonesome Valley is a 788 -acre master planned community in Cashiers, North Carolina.
This plan includes the construction of 250 homes and associated amenities based on a
conservation ethic and design. The Jennings family has owned this land since 1895 and
has demonstrated their commitment to the preservation of this unique landscape through
years of sustainable family ventures this land has supported.
Lonesome Valley has demonstrated through the completed Phase I, that this conservationist
principle is achievable and a successful plan for the community, which will be developed.
Residents will have access to an array of outdoor/adventure activities and amenities,
including fly fishing, rock climbing, seasonal concerts, and a full-service spa.
• As is usual with developments of this size, Lonesome Valley has been constructed in
phases. The applicant has expended considerable resources in design of a comprehensive
Master Plan for the development. Site planning was begun 2 years ago and only the first
175 -acres have been constructed. This permit application will cover all remaining
acreage (613 acres) associated with Lonesome Valley.
The master plan is supported by extensive planning, engineering analysis and survey of the
physical and biotic components of the site including aerial photography, 2 foot topographic
surveys, complete Section 404 jurisdictional surveys, natural resource surveys and
inventory, and threatened or endangered (T&E) species surveys of the site.
0

0 Table 1. Phase II Project Summary Information
Existing Site Information
Total site Acreage
613 Acres
Total Linear Feet of Perennial Streams
38,335 Linear Feet
Total Wetland Acreage
0.6
Total Open Water Acreage
4.17 Acres
Proposed Site Development
Total Wetland Roads Impacts
0.013 Acres (meadow fill)
Total Perennial Stream Impacts
444 Linear Feet
Avoidance/Minimization of Impacts
Streams Avoided
37,891 Linear Feet
Wetlands Avoided
0.587 Acres
New Bridges
9
Upland Buffers
Approximately 57 Acres
11
0

• 2.0 BACKGROUND
Lonesome Valley has been a part of the Jennings family for over 100 years. Until
recently, this family has protected this land and kept it in an undeveloped natural state.
The exquisite natural landscape that surrounds this valley is truly unique, and this family
has demonstrated commitment to the protection of this valley over the last century.
E.H. Jennings acquired this approximately 800 -acre valley in 1895. During the 1940s,
the land became the full-time family residence and farm. The valley supports an array of
outdoor/adventure activities, including walking, hiking, biking, fly fishing, kayaking,
canoeing, swimming, tennis, rock climbing, and camping. The area will host indoor
activity areas that will make available basketball, volleyball, and fitness -aerobics. After
participating in all these activities, residents will be able to enjoy the full service spa that
will support this community's idea that at Lonesome Valley, relaxation is considered an
activity, too.
The initial planning efforts have focused on the entire site where the natural features of
the land were studied to determine the type of development plan that would best fit the
property. The project team including William G. Lapsley and Associates, Design
Workshop, Inc., C1earWater Environmental Consultants, and others spent many days in
the field to determine the best uses and preservation priorities for the project site. The
• proposed master plan recognizes the natural features of the land and minimizes
development activity in the most environmentally sensitive portions of the site.
•
2.1 Project Location
Lonesome valley is located in Jackson County, North Carolina and is accessed
from US Highway 64.
From U.S. Highway 64 in Brevard, travel west toward Cashiers, N.C. After
crossing the Lake Toxaway Falls on Highway 64, travel approximately 9 miles
west. The site is located on the northern side of Highway 64. The entrance is
marked with two stone pillars on either side of the entrance road.
2.2 Project Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this development is to create a residential community and
associated amenities based on designs that blend in with the unique natural
landscape.
3

• 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The 613 -acre proposed project site is located in Jackson County, North Carolina and
mainly (70%) consists of mature forest. Elevations range from approximately 3,620 feet
to 4,150 feet.
The project site contains Logan Creek and numerous unnamed tributaries all of which drain
into Logan Creek. Logan Creek flows into the Horsepasture River just south of US
Highway 64. Logan Creek is classified as a Trout Water by the NC Division of Water
Quality.
3.1 Soils
The soils on Lonesome Valley are mostly Edneyville-Chestnut complex, Cullasaja-
Tuckasegge complex, and Cleveland -Chestnut -Rock outcrop complex (Figure 3). The
soils are mostly stony and slopes range from 8 to 90 percent.
3.2 Vegetative Communities
The site contains 7 different habitat types. These habitat types include high elevation
granitic dome, montane alluvial forest, montane oak -hickory forest, mixed
• pine/hardwood forest, maintained meadow, wetlands, and stream bed and bank. The
habitat map is included in Appendix A, Figure 2.
3.2.1 High Elevation Granitic Dome
This habitat type consists of uniform granite cliffs with some zoned mats of
vegetation occurring along cracks and crevices in the rock. Woody species may
occur in older established mats, they may include Carolina hemlock (Tsuga
caroliniana), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and mountain rosebay
(Rhododendron catawbiense). The majority of this habitat type is devoid of vascular
plants.
3.2.2 Montane Alluvial Forest
This habitat type occurs along stream and river floodplains at high to moderate
elevations. Tree species here are dominated by Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis)
and red maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer consists of Rosebay (Rhododendron
maximum) and dog hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana). The dense shrub layer in this
habitat type prevents the formation of any noticeable herbaceous layer.
3.2.3 Montane Oak Hickory Forest
This habitat type occurs on dry-mesic slopes and ridgetops at high to moderate
• elevations. The tree species here are dominated by a mixture of oaks, hickories, and
other hardwood species, including red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut oak (Quercus
4

• prinus), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida) and red maple are commonly found in the
understory. Shrub layer vegetation consists of rosebay (Rhododendron maximum),
mountain laurel, bear huckleberry (Gaylussacia ursina), and blueberry (Vaccinium
spp.). The herbaceous layer includes indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana),
blue eyed grass (Sisyrinchium sp.), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), northern red
oak (Quercus rubra), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), buttercup
(Ranunculus sp.), pink trillium (Trillium sp.), devils bit (Chamaelirium luteum), lily
of the valley (Convallaria majalis), speckled wood lily (Clintonia umbellulata),
squaw root (Conopholis americana), white baneberry (Actaea pachypoda), yellow
flag (Iris pseudacorus), bedstraw (Galium spp.), and galax (Galax aphylla).
3.2.4 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This habitat type occurs on dry-mesic slopes and ridgetops at high to moderate
elevations. The tree species here are dominated by a mixture of pines, oaks,
hickories, and other hardwood species, including red oak, chestnut oak (Quercus
prinus), pignut hickory, and tulip poplar. The upper canopy level is composed of
mature white pines (Pinus strobus). These mature pines overshadow approximately
20-40% of the lower oak hickory forest. Flowering dogwood and red maple (Acer
rubrum) are commonly found in the lower understory. Shrub layer vegetation
consists of rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), mountain laurel, bear huckleberry
• (Gaylussacia ursina), and blueberry. The herbaceous layer includes indian cucumber
root, bedstraw and galax.
•
3.2.5 Maintained Meadow
This habitat consists of mowed agricultural pastures suitable for livestock grazing.
3.2.6 Wetlands
This habitat type is composed of a variety of seeps and bogs associated with the base
of slopes, old stream channels, and low areas with poor drainage. Tree species
include red maple, eastern hemlock, and tulip poplar. The shrub layer is dominated
by rosebay and dog hobble. The shrub layer also includes multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), southern pinxter flower (Rhododendron
canescens), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Herbaceous species include cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), soft rush
(Juncus effuses), bluet (Houstonia sp), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), unknown sedges
(Carex spp.), turtlehead (Chelone sp.), jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), netted
chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), shining club moss (Lycopodium lucidulum),
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), yellow root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), violet
(Viola spp.), and rattlesnake root (Prenanthes sp.).
5

• 3.1.7 Stream Bed and Bank
This habitat type is composed of coldwater mountain streams capable of supporting
wild trout populations.
3.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
were contacted regarding the known or potential occurrences of federally listed
threatened or endangered species or habitat types found on the project area. Six listed
species are known to occur or have the potential to occur in Jackson County. A
comprehensive threatened and endangered species survey has been prepared and is
included as an attachment to this application (Appendix A). The report describes the
habitats observed on the 613 -acre site and addresses the potential for the site to support
listed species.
During completion of threatened and endangered species habitat assessments for the 613 -
acre project site, no listed species were observed. It is the opinion of C1earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. that federally protected species are not likely to be present
within the phase. As such, development of the proposed Lonesome Valley Phase II project
is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species.
• Although no threatened and endangered species were identified during this survey,
because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and endangered species
and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible that endangered
species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any potential
findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with appropriate
agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
0

• 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT — LONESOME VALLEY
The 613 -acre tract contains 0.6 acres of jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters of the U.S.
Nearly all of the jurisdictional area on-site is comprised of perennial and intermittent
streams totaling 38,335 linear feet. Lonesome Valley Development, LLC. the applicant,
proposes to permanently impact 0.013 -acres of wetlands and 444 linear feet of stream to
achieve the previously stated project purpose (Figures 4-4.6). The applicant proposes:
1. 0.053 -acres (444 linear feet) of fill in intermittent streams for the construction of
roads.
2. 0.013 -acres of fill in wetland areas for the construction of roads.
The attached master plan (Figure 4) proposes a total impact of 444 linear feet of perennial
and intermittent stream (0.053 -acres of Waters of the U.S.). Wetland impacts are
proposed to be 0.013 acres.
The net result for Phase II of this project includes avoiding 37,891 linear feet of perennial
and intermittent streams and 0.587 acres of Waters of the U.S./wetlands. Additional
mitigation will be onsite and include the preservation and protection by restrictive
covenants of the avoided streams and wetlands, and approximately 570 linear feet of
stream restoration on an unnamed tributary of Logan's Creek. The avoided, preserved,
• and restored streams will have at least 25 foot upland buffers on all 37,891 linear feet of
streams and 0.587 acres of wetlands.
4.1 Roads
The primary purpose for this project permit is to build roads that will provide
access to the new residential and amenity areas of Lonesome Valley. These roads
will require twenty-two stream crossings, thirteen of which have impacts.
Impacts associated with these roads will be minimized as two of the crossings are
at locations where there is an existing culvert. These two 20 foot culverts will be
replaced with 35 foot and 37 foot larger culverts. Nine bridges/half pipe culverts
are also being planned as a way to minimize impacts. There is a total proposed
impact of 444 linear feet proposed to perennial and intermittent streams and 0.013
acres of wetlands resulting from twelve access roads (Figure 4-4.6).
4.2 Utilities
There are no proposed permanent or temporary impacts to streams or wetlands
onsite resulting from the installation of utilities. It is the intent of the applicant to
bring electricity and sewer to the site via underground and within the existing
road right of ways. In the event that utility lines must cross jurisdictional areas,
impacts will be temporary and crossings will be conducted following the USACE
and NC Division of Water Quality guidelines and conditions of Nationwide
• Permit 12, as well as conditions of this Individual Permit. The drinking water will
7

• be supplied by a connection to the existing CWS system in Sapphire Valley and
supplemented by three to four wells located on the Lonesome Valley property.
The sewer will be collected on site, pumped to an existing CWS Systems, Inc.
sewer system and then treated at the Sapphire -Fairfield wastewater treatment
plant. CWS Systems, Inc. is the owner/operator of both systems.
•
0

• 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Overview
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, USACE 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 the Lonesome Valley development in
Jackson County, North Carolina.
An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. Actions taken to
avoid and minimize wetland impacts are presented in Section 6.0 of this Application.
The Section 404(b)(1) 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 ACOE/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 at 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. 1 0(a)(2).
• Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was
9

• 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.
The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an
explicit, but reputable 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 apply. 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.
5.2 Project Justification
Lonesome Valley has been a part of the Jennings family for over 100 years. Until
recently, this family has protected the ecological integrity of this land and kept it in a
pristine natural state. The exquisite natural landscape that surrounds this valley is
truly unique, and this family has demonstrated commitment to the protection of this
valley over the last century through sustainable mink and trout farming practices.
Only now has the family allowed the development of 250 homes on 788 acres of this
area. The design and construction are restricted to plans that blend in with and
• sustain the natural landscape.
Master Planning and permitting large/long term development projects depend highly
upon having flexibility to implement sound land planning and engineering design
principles which are often conceptual at the time of permitting, but which must
include available land for development to economically justify the project, reasonable
site access, construction of utilities and stormwater systems, and appropriate location
of various land use amenities.
The applicant has expended significant resources to conduct intensive surveys and
assessments, including a land survey, intensive land planning and market analysis,
wetland delineation and survey, and threatened and endangered species survey. The
information gathered from these tasks has been considered in preparation of the
master plan submitted with this permit application. Market analysis conducted by the
applicant confirms the aptness of the project site for the intended purpose. However,
for the project to be economically viable, enough real estate must be made available
for amenities to cover development costs and provide a reasonable profit. Since the
land area is finite, development costs, particularly construction costs, must be limited
for the project to be successful.
It is important to note that the implemented Phase I of Lonesome Valley has been
very successful and highly regarded to date. Phase I included obtaining USACE
Nationwide Permits 13 and 39. The Action I.D. number for that permit is 200531949
• and a copy of both the permit and permit application are included in Appendix B.
10

• The proposed development supports an array of outdoor/adventure activities,
including walking, hiking, biking, fly fishing, kayaking, canoeing, swimming, tennis,
rock climbing, and camping. The area will host indoor activity areas that will make
available basketball, volleyball, and fitness -aerobics. After participating in all these
activities, residents will be able to enjoy the full service spa that will support this
community's idea that at Lonesome Valley, relaxation is considered an activity, too.
•
When reviewing this application, the USACE is also required to consider the public
interest in this project. In considering the public interest, the USACE 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 USACE 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 USACE also considers other factors, including:
Conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of the
property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Furthermore, the USACE regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the
district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
Lonesome Valley Development, LLC. has extensively evaluated these factors over
the last 2 years through the planning process and believes that the proposed project is
clearly in the public interest. The project will benefit the public in terms of riparian
protection, general environmental concerns, wetlands, fish and wildlife values, and
water quality. Most importantly, while the project will impact a limited number of
perennial and intermittent streams, the overall stream impact for the project is very
minimal and is offset by adequate mitigation. These preserved streams and small
seep areas will be subject to restrictive covenants to ensure permanent preservation.
Because these streams perform valuable water quality functions, the preservation of
these important areas will contribute in perpetuity to wetlands, stream, fish, and
wildlife protection and improved water quality.
While the project would result in the preservation of these important and significant
areas, the USACE must bear in mind that the Jennings family has turned away other
significant development proposals (golf,' lakes) that would have resulted in many
more stream and wetland impacts. The development plan that the Jennings family
has chosen further demonstrates their commitment to the protection of this land in its
current state for future generations to enjoy.
11

• In addition to the preservation of the stream and wetland habitats, the applicant has
chosen to minimize impacts to the riparian forest along each of the tributaries and
wetlands by establishing upland buffers that are a minimum of 25 feet on each side of
the bank. These buffer areas will be preserved and protected under the proposed
master plan. By permitting this project, the USACE would allow preservation of
these habitats.
5.3 The Site
Lonesome Valley Development, LLC. plans to build approximately 250 homes on
788 acres. The Jennings family and Lonesome Valley Development, LLC. desire to
develop this property in a way that builds a sustainable community and allows new
residents to enjoy the land in ways the Jennings family has for over a century.
5.4 Development Plan (Wetland Avoidance/Actions to Minimize Impacts)
In preparing this plan, the applicant considered a variety of constraints, including
impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. The applicant has avoided and minimized
impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable and feasible while still
accomplishing the overall project purpose. During design of the proposed master
plan, the applicant considered many development alternatives, which included
impacts to substantially more streams than the proposed plan depicts.
• The applicant conducted a pre -application meeting with regulatory agency personnel
including the USACE, NCDWQ, and NCWRC on October 31, 2006 and presented a
master plan layout for the Lonesome Valley Development.
Avoidance and minimization efforts were completed by increasing the use of bridges
and half -pipe culverts eight stream crossing locations. In addition to the
approximately 570 linear feet of stream restoration, the proposed master plan will
preserve 37,891 linear feet of stream and 0.587 acres of wetlands, thereby
demonstrating that the applicant has designed the proposed project in order to avoid
wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable.
Because the site is covered in long linear stream segments, it would be impossible to
avoid all of these streams while continuing to maintain a rational project design and
the flexibility needed to construct a large scale master planned residential community
with a lengthy build out period. Two of the proposed impacts are located in streams
that are already impacted by existing road culverts.
5.5 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with other documents submitted by the
applicant in support of its 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the
guidelines and promotes public interest. As this analysis clearly demonstrates, the
• proposed layout of the Lonesome Valley is designed to avoid and minimize impacts
to the site to the maximum extent practicable.
12

• 6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
This conceptual mitigation plan describes compensatory measures for unavoidable
impacts to intermittent and perennial streams associated with the development of the
Lonesome Valley Development, Jackson County, North Carolina.
Consistent with regulatory guidance, the applicant is proposing to offset impacts to
perennial and "important" intermittent stream from roads (444 linear feet), and wetlands
(0.013 acres).
The following conceptual mitigation plan is provided in support of the applicant's permit
application and the mitigation measures are described in detail below: The applicant will
avoid and preserve 37,891 linear feet of stream and approximately 57 acres of legally
designated upland buffers with a minimum width of 25 feet (Figure 4). The applicant
will also restore approximately 570 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream that is
currently flowing down an unnamed tributary of Logan Creek (Appendix Q. By
evaluating the existing stream channel, a new stream channel will be designed using
Natural Stream Channel Design methods (Rosgen) to restore a natural dimension, pattern,
and profile to the channel.
• Restoration 570 linear feet perennial and intermittent stream 1.4:1 ratio
• • Preservation 37,891 linear feet perennial and intermittent 85:1 ratio
stream with minimum 25 foot buffers (57 acres)
0.587 wetlands with minimum 25 foot buffer 45:1 ratio
Upon conditional approval, the applicant's stream restoration consultant (Buck
Engineering) will prepare final stream restoration designs and plans. These final plans
will be submitted to the USACE and NCDWQ to be approved prior to any proposed
impacts occurring. Implementation of the mitigation plan will begin immediately upon
issuance of a 401 Division of Water Quality Certification and USACE Section 404
Permits on a schedule based upon the growing season. Stream mitigation (preservation
and restoration) will be protected in perpetuity under restrictive covenants.
The stream restoration will be conducted using Natural Stream Channel Design methods
approved by the NCDWQ and USACE (North Carolina Stream Relocation and
Restoration Guidance, September, 2001 and USAGE, Stream Mitigation Guidelines).
This includes a geomorphologic approach based on understanding valley types,
watershed conditions, stream dimension, stream pattern, and stream profiles, sediment
transport, and reference reach analysis.
6.1 Stream Avoidance
• The development of Lonesome Valley will avoid 37,891 linear feet of perennial
and intermittent stream and 0.587 acres of wetlands. Other avoidance measures
13

• include the construction of nine road bridges/halfpipes. The design cost for
bridges/halfpipes onsite varies from 5 to 15 times greater than the cost for a
culvert. The installation of nine bridges is an additional significant avoidance
measure at a greater cost. The bridges are located on unnamed tributaries to
Logan Creek (Figure 4).
6.2 Stream Minimization
Stream impacts will be minimized during construction of the Lonesome Valley
Development by implementing additional sedimentation and erosion control
measures during the grading and filling phases of the project. Best Management
Practices (BMP) will be employed to minimize the impacts to streams adjacent to
the proposed development. The BMP's that may be employed include siltation
barriers, sediment traps, sediment basins, and sodding. Use of BMP's will be one of
the most useful methods of mitigation to minimize disturbance of natural
stream/wetland functions.
6.3 Stream Preservation
Lonesome Valley Development, Inc. proposes to preserve approximately 37,891
linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream. These waters are ecologically
important for aquatic habitat, foraging areas, and riparian corridors which connect
• to the Horsepasture River. These streams will be preserved in perpetuity through
the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms (i.e., restrictive
covenants). These streams are particularly important to preserve because they
are in an area, which has a high potential for development.
The functions and values of these streams will be additionally protected and
enhanced by establishment of a permanent upland buffer with a minimum of 25
feet wide. The total of the upland buffers will comprise approximately 57 acres.
6.4 Natural Stream Channel Design (Restoration)
The stream mitigation project proposed for the Lonesome Valley Development
will utilize Natural Channel Design methods. This is a geomorphological
approach to stream restoration based on an understanding of the valley type,
general watershed conditions, dimension, pattern, profile, hydrology and sediment
transport of natural, stable channels reference conditions and applying this
understanding to the reconstruction or relocation of an unstable or new channel.
6.4.1 Morphological Stream Classification
Stream analysis will be conducted using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System. This system is based on five criteria: width/depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, slope, sinuosity, and channel materials. This system
• allows: 1) a prediction of a streams behavior from its appearance, 2) a
14

• comparison of site specific data from a given reach to data from other
reaches of similar character, and 3) a consistent and reproducible system
of technical communications across disciplines (Rosgen, 1996).
6.4.2 Regional Curves
Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships, also called regional curves,
were first developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978), and relate bankfull
channel dimensions to drainage area. Gage station analyses throughout
the United States have shown that bankfull discharge has an average
return interval of about 1.5 years or 67% annual exceedence probability.
The North Carolina Mountain Regional Curves will be used when
appropriate for this project (NC Stream Restoration Institute). The
watershed area, discharge, bankfull width, and bankfull depth for the gage
site will be plotted on the curve(s) to confirm their validity for this region.
The primary purpose for developing regional curves is to aid in identifying
bankfull stage and dimension in an un -gaged watershed and to help
estimate the bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs.
6.4.3 Reference Reach(es)
The reference reach is a stream segment that represents a stable channel
• within a particular valley morphology. The reference reach will be used to
develop natural channel design criteria based upon measured
morphological relations associated with the bankfull stage for a specific
stable stream type. Specific data on stream channel dimension, pattern,
and profile will be collected and presented by dimensionless ratios by
stream type. The morphological data collected will be used for
extrapolation to disturbed reaches in similar valley types for the purposes
of restoration and stream enhancement, stabilization, and stream
relocation.
Attempts will be made to use a suitable stable reference reach locations
on-site. The applicant will select a site with similar valley types that will
serve as the blueprint for the dimension, pattern, and profile of the channel
to be restored. If a reference reach cannot be located, a gage station
analysis will be used along with the existing condition survey to select a
stream from a reference reach database. Justification will be provided to
show that the selected reference reach is appropriate for the restoration
site.
6.5 Stream Restoration Plan (570 linear feet)
The applicant will restore approximately 570 linear feet of intermittent/perennial
stream in the Hydrologic Unit 03060101010020, and the Savannah River sub -
basin 03-13-02. The site is also in an EEP targeted local watershed 10020, the
15

Horsepasture River Basin. Historically, the site was used for pasture, timbering,
and as a trout farm. The past agricultural and timber operations led to degradation
of the on-site streams.
The property is owned by LVC-I, Inc. The owner would like to mitigate on-site
disturbances by restoring a 570 foot reach on Logan Creek (Appendix Q. Based
on acceptance of this conceptual plan for mitigation, the proposed restoration plan
should yield 570 stream mitigation units. This project reach extends from below a
bedrock waterfall downstream to the confluence with the West Fork of Logan
Creek. The reach is degraded over most of the project length. The channel is
overly wide, large lateral and mid -channel bars are present, bank erosion is
common, and buffer vegetation has been removed. The conceptual plan for this
reach is to implement restoration level improvements along this reach. This reach
is contiguous with a reach that is currently being restored by Buck Engineering
under contract with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
The primary goal of this restoration effort will be to restore the channel
dimension, pattern and profile, so that the stream can transport sediment more
effectively and in balance with its upstream supply of sediment. The design is
intended to achieve the maximum level of improvement, given the current stream
condition and constraints. In doing so, water quality and habitat improvement
will be realized.
• Currently, the existing morphology lacks the ability to transport sediment in
equilibrium with the supply reaches. The results of this disequilibrium are
numerous mid -channel and lateral bars and a planar bed that offers little habitat
value. Bank erosion is common on this reach in areas where mid -channel bars
have formed. Actively eroding banks will be stabilized through grading,
bioengineering, log structures and vegetation. Vertical banks will be sloped to an
angle that can support deep-rooted woody riparian vegetation. Where possible, a
floodplain bench will be excavated where the stream is incised.
0
In several sections, mid -channel aggradation and subsequent lateral migration is
evident, causing severe channel instability. In these sections, a stable channel
dimension will be constructed and mid -channel bars removed. Areas that are
over -wide will be narrowed by filling and reestablishing a floodplain. Log or
boulder structures will be installed to redirect current to an established channel
thalweg and to stabilize reconstructed banks.
A vegetated riparian buffer of herbaceous and woody vegetation, native to the
area, will be installed to provide wildlife habitat and stability to the restored
stream. Large woody debris beneficial to channel stability and habitat will be
incorporated into the restoration plan, using trees removed for construction
access.
16

• 6.6 Monitoring
As -built plans will be completed and submitted to the agencies that will document
the intent of the project was implemented in the field. The as -built plans will
confirm the constructed channel is of the design pattern, dimension and profile.
Lonesome Valley Development, LLC. will evaluate the success of the stream
restoration and enhancement using the following forms of monitoring: photo
documentation, plant survival, channel stability measurements, and biological
evaluations.
6.6.1 Geomorphic monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring will include vertical bed stability using
monumented cross-sections and scour chains. Cross sections will be
located in both riffles and pools. Lateral bed stability will be verified
using monumented cross sections and bank iron pins. Pebble counts will
also be conducted to monitor the change in frequency of particle size
change. The location of the monumented cross-sections, scour chain, bank
pins, and pebble count transects will be finalized during construction and
shown on the as -built plans. Monitoring will occur once a year for 5 years
and again for at least two bankfull flow events after construction.
is
6.6.2 Photos
Photos will document channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, effectiveness of erosion and control
measures, and absence or presence of in -stream bars. Photos will be taken
at the same location each year. At least one photograph upstream and
downstream will be taken at each permanent cross-section point, as well as
key stream structures such as cross vanes, rootwads, or other designated
features.
6.6.3 Riparian Buffers
Vegetative survival inside the planted riparian buffer will be documented
for a 5 -year period through photographic determination of the entire length
of the corridor. Documentation will occur at pre -established randomly
fixed stations each year. Baseline monitoring and As -Built Summaries
will be submitted immediately following planting. Monitoring will occur
annually thereafter for a period of five years.
Vegetative monitoring will be accomplished by establishing parallel line
transects within the designated riparian zones. The center of each plot will
be permanently marked and appropriately labeled and marked for future
identification. Within each plot, stem survival of planted and volunteer
• tree species will be documented in a 15 -foot radius area. Volunteer shrubs
17

• and herbaceous species will be documented in ten and 5 -foot radius areas,
respectively.
Species composition and dominance will be measured within each plot.
All stems will be identified to at least the genus level and the number of
stems recorded for each plot. For purposes of measuring against the
success criteria, survival of planted seedlings will be expressed in terms of
the calculated number of live stems per acre. Volunteer species will be
expressed in terms of number of stems per acre and coverage.
6.7 Success Criteria
6.7.1 Geomorphic Monitoring (Channel Stability)
The applicant will monitor the stream banks for evidence of stability.
Success is determined when there is minimal evidence of instability,
which may include down -cutting, deposition, bank erosion, increase in
sands or finer substrate. Substantial determinations of success will be
made by the applicant and confirmed by the USACE and NCDWQ.
6.7.2 Photos
• The applicant will monitor the streambed and banks taking longitudinal
and lateral photos. Success is determined when there is no substantial
aggradation, degradation, or bank erosion. Substantial determinations of
success will be made by the applicant and confirmed by the USACE and
NCDWQ.
6.7.3 Plant Survivability
The applicant will monitor the plant survival by recording survival plots,
stake counts, and tree counts. Goals include 75 percent survival (320
trees) trees after three years, with no fewer than 260 trees per acre after 5
years. Areas of less than 75 percent coverage will be reseeded and/or
fertilized and live stakes and /or bare rooted trees will be planted to
achieve desired densities.
If significant problems are identified prior to the end of the monitoring program,
USACE and NCDWQ regulatory agency personnel will be consulted regarding the
advisability of remedial action at that time. Remedial action may include
replanting, additional grading, stabilization, alteration, and continued monitoring.
If, at the end of the monitoring program, success criteria have not been met for the
hydrologic components, channel stability or vegetative components, the applicant
will consult with the USACE, the NCDWQ and other appropriate state and federal
agencies to determine specific causes and appropriate remedial actions. Review of
• specific causes resulting in success criteria deficiencies may include: hydrologic
18

• influences, plant mortality, vandalism, animal depredation, or invasion of nuisance
plants.
•
•
It is the intent of the applicant to achieve the success criteria; however, the
applicant cannot be responsible for acts of god or natural disasters, which may
undermine or preclude success. In the event of such acts or disasters, the
applicant will immediately coordinate with the appropriate state and federal
agencies for proper actions, if needed.
6.8 Reporting
Annual reports detailing the findings of the above defined monitoring will be
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the USACE and NCDWQ. This
includes an as -built report and annual reports for a total of five consecutive years.
The reports will provide the findings of that year's monitoring data and a
cumulative account of monitoring to date. Corrective measures, if needed, will be
identified and discussed.
WE

• 7.0 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1)
GUIDELINES
7.1 Compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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)l guidelines.
This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a
Dredge & Fill Permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist.
Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 7.0, were assessed for compliance with
404(b) l 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 pennittable 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 T&E 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 pertains to water supply; does not
adversely impact wildlife, 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.
U
7.2 Factual Determination
The USACE 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.
7.3 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.
20

7.3.1 Substrate
The modification of the substrate to an aquatic ecosystem can cause
changes in water circulation, depth, drainage patterns, water fluctuations,
water temperature, and benthic organism changes. Proposed impacts to
wetlands total 0.013 acres and on-site stream segments total 444 linear feet
will be mitigated through stream preservation and restoration areas.
7.3.2 Suspended Particulate/Turbidity (Sediment and Erosion
Control)
The discharge of dredge and fill material can increase the amount of
suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem. While such an increase in
the turbidity level can have a negative effect on microorganisms and
invertebrates, it is expected to be controlled and minimized by the project
design. Through the placement of silt screens, hay bales, or other turbidity
barriers, utilizing Best Management Practices will control and minimize
suspended particulates that may exit the area of disturbance. The proposed
project will be constructed and managed in such a way as to minimize the
potential for elevated levels of suspended particulates.
The State of North Carolina enacted the Sediment and Erosion Control
• law as part of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This law
requires that anyone disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an
erosion control plan and receive approval from the N.C. Division of Land
Quality. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the Lonesome
Valley Development will be designed by William G. Lapsley and
Associates, Inc. The erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
reviewed and approved by the Jackson County Soil and Erosion Control
Officer. Jackson County's erosion control program is closely based on the
North Carolina Erosion Control Program. The purpose of the erosion
control plan is to develop measures that will contain erosion during storm
events before it reaches streams or leaves the site. Lonesome Valley
Development, LLC. is committed to conducting a project wide approach
to erosion control by utilizing Best Management Practices.
7.3.3 Water Quality
The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material shall not cause creased
chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically,
changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to possible
chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All discharges of
dredge and fill material will be controlled with a sedimentation and
erosion control plan.
• It is anticipated that all of the material needed to fill the site will be taken
from on-site areas. The fill material used on-site will be clear and free of
21

chemical contamination. Should additional fill material be required,
suitable off-site clean fill material will be purchased and transported to the
proj ect.
7.3.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged dredge and fill material shall not adversely modify current
water circulation patterns by obstructed flow, changing direction or
velocity of water, or change in the velocity or flow of circulation. The
proposed activity should minimize the alterations to the dynamics of the
aquatic ecosystem. The proposed impacts are located at the headwaters of
streams and will not provide fragmentation of stream segments. 37,891
linear feet of the streams will be totally unaffected.
The water management system can be expected to maintain water levels at
existing levels. Therefore, no impacts to current patterns in water
circulation are anticipated.
7.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
Changes in water level fluctuations, promoting a static or non -fluctuating
ecosystem may produce negative environmental effects, potentially caused
• by the discharge of dredge and fill material into aquatic systems. The
proposed project includes a surface water management plan that provides
naturally fluctuating water levels based on design criteria.
7.3.6 Salinity
The concern in regard to physical and chemical characteristics of an
aquatic ecosystem is related to the salinity gradient from saltwater into
freshwater. A discharge of dredge and fill material can alter the salinity
and mixing zone between salt and freshwater. Since the project is located
inland, and is not tidally influenced, no modification to the salinity of on-
site or adjacent waters is expected.
7.4 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub -Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern from
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are T&E species; fish, crustaceans, mollusks,
and other aquatic organisms in the food web; and other wildlife.
7.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
Discharge of dredge .and fill material is not likely to cause the potential
• loss of valuable habitat to wildlife and plant species listed as T&E by the
22

USFWS through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and its subsequent
additions and amendments (50 C.F.R. 17.11). No impacts to federally
listed species are expected as described in Section 3.3 above.
7.4.2 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 may have potential
negative effects on 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
U.S./wetlands on the project should reasonably be expected to have
minimal to no effects on wetland and aquatic systems on-site.
7.4.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and fill material can have a negative effect on the
breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred
food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species.
• While a loss of wildlife habitat for wetland -dependent species may result
from construction of the project, the proposed preservation of riparian and
upland buffer corridors allows for wildlife movement and foraging that
will more than balance any minor loss of stream and wetland habitat.
•
7.5 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 and pool
complexes.
7.5.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material may cause potential negative
effects on adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges through impacts to
water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, additional human access, creating
the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment
of undesirable plant and animal species, and change of balance of habitat
type. No impacts on sanctuaries or refuges resulting from the
development of the project are anticipated.
23

0 7.5.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material may potentially have adverse
effects on 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. Proposed
impacts to 0.013 acres of wetlands will be offset by the preservation and
legal protection of streams, wetlands, and upland buffers; and stream
restoration.
7.5.3 Mud Flats
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have negative
impacts on mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine
systems. Since the project does not contain any mud flat communities,
loss of value to these ecosystems will not occur on-site.
7.5.4 Vegetated Shallows
Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted
aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine,
marine, and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No such vegetated shallow
habitats exist on the project; therefore, there are no expected impacts to
this type of ecosystem.
7.5.5 Coral Reefs
Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. No coral reefs exist
on the project; therefore, no impacts to this type of ecosystem will occur.
7.5.6 Riffle and Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle and pool
complexes may potentially have a negative impact to water quality and
wildlife value. Riffle and pool ecosystems generally exist along steeper
gradients of streams and rivers. Riffle and pool complexes are on the
project site. Stream restoration of will be designed to replicate existing
pool and riffle complexes.
7.6 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. No effects on
•
24

human use characteristics can be anticipated from the proposed development of
the project.
7.6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative
impact on water quality serving as a water supply for municipalities or
private developments. Since the waters associated with the project are not
a source of any public or private water supply, no impacts from the
proposed project can be expected.
7.6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material may potentially have a negative
effect on water quality and fisheries habitat or may potentially have a
negative effect on recreation and commercial fisheries. On-site streams
flow into the Horsepasture River, which is a popular recreational fishery.
The upland streamside buffers will be established to preserve streams and
provide for their long-term protection and viability. The applicant is also
conducting stream restoration on Logan Creek.
7.6.3 Water -Related Recreation
• A discharge of dredge and fill material may have a negative effect on
water -related recreation by impairing or destroying water resources that
support recreational activities. Development of the project is not expected
to have negative impacts on water -related recreation activities. 37,891
linear feet of the buffered streams are being restored/preserved in this
Phase 2. Preservation from Phase I and II totals approximately 54,100
linear feet of stream.
•
7.6.4 Aesthetics
The discharge of dredge and fill materials into wetland ecosystems may
adversely impact the aesthetic value of natural aquatic ecosystems. The
project has been planned to eliminate impacts to the on-site wetlands and
primary streams. Disruption to on-site natural systems has been
minimized, 570 linear feet of stream restoration mitigation will be
provided along with 57 acres of upland buffers, 0.587 acres of wetlands,
and 37,891 linear feet of stream preservation, which will be provided as a
result of implementation of the mitigation plan.
25

•
•
7.6.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach
Shores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed development
of the project.
7.7 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 impact to 444 linear feet of intermittent
and perennial streams will not cause any off-site adverse impacts. Mitigation
provided on-site should more than compensate for any on-site impacts. The
proposed mitigation plan will provide for stream restoration and wetland/stream
preservation by ensuring vitality and sustainability of wetland and stream
functions and values.
26

0 8.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
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.
8.1 Conservation
Conservation of natural resources will be achieved through preservation of 57 acres
of upland buffers, 0.587 acres of Wetlands/Waters of the U.S., and 37,891 linear
feet of Streams/Waters of the U.S. The location of these upland buffer, wetland,
and stream preservation areas will serve to protect and preserve the function and
value of the areas and maintain suitable foraging, breeding, and nesting habitat and
corridors for wildlife species. Stream restoration will occur on 570 linear feet of
Logan Creek. The preservation/restoration of these areas will provide consist
riparian connections throughout the project site.
8.2 Economics
The proposed project of Lonesome Valley will provide approximately 250 family
homes with additional amenities. The proposed Lonesome Valley Development is
expected to have a positive impact on the property tax base for Jackson County as
well as a positive impact on local shopping and residential property values.
Municipal sewer/ water extensions will connect to the existing CWS system in
Sapphire Valley and the roads within the project site are designed to meet the N.0
Department of Transportation (DOT) standards.
8.3 Aesthetics
This residential project is consistent with the unique landscape in the area and the
project is maintaining this design to preserve this natural landscape. The applicant
has carefully planned to minimize any visual impacts to Lonesome Valley.
8.4 General Environmental Concerns
Other than stream impacts, proposed development activities on the project would
have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental components.
8.5 Wetlands
Development of the project will impact 0.013 -acres of wetlands. This minimal
wetland impact should be offset by stream, wetland, and upland buffer preservation.
27

• 8.6 Historic Properties
Recent correspondence with the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources dated August 30, 2006 stated that there are no known recorded
archaeological sites within the project boundaries of this project site.
8.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
The project is a residential community designed to preserve the ecological integrity
of Lonesome Valley. As part of the compensatory mitigation plan 37,891 linear feet
of stream and 0.587 acres of wetlands will be preserved with approximately 57
acres of upland buffers and 570 linear feet of stream will be restored. Overall fish
and wildlife values of the project site will be maintained.
8.8 Flood Hazards
None of the site included in Phase 2 is located within the 100—year flood plain
(Figure 6) (Federal Insurance Rate Maps, Community Panel Number
37021CO456C, effective date May 6, 1996).
8.9 Floodplain Values
. These streams are located in steep topography where the channels are laterally
contained, there is little to no floodplain area adjacent to these streams. Most of the
streams on-site are classified as Type `B" streams with little to no floodplain
(Applied River Morphology, Rosgen, 1996). The floodplain will be protected by
25 foot upland buffers.
8.10 Land Use
The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses for the property and
surrounding area.
8.11 Navigation
No navigable waters exist on-site. The proposed project will not effect navigation.
8.12 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 (See
Section 7.3.2 above). During the construction process, Best Management Practices
(BMP) will be followed. These BMP's will include the construction of swales,
erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that
will prevent sediment transport off the project into other waters. Use of devices
•
28

• such as silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing, wind rowing of
vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity will be employed.
8.13 Recreation
The applicant is preserving 37,891 linear feet of streams, 0.587 acres of wetlands
with 57 -acres of upland buffers, and approximately 256 acres of open space.
8.14 Water Supply and Conservation
Potable water will be provided to the project by CWS Systems, Inc. Development
of the project will incorporate the following water conservation measures as
required:
• Use native or indigenous vegetation in the landscaping to the maximum
extent practicable in order to minimize heavy landscape irrigation needs
during dry periods.
8.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
No short term or long term adverse water quality impacts are anticipated from this
low density project. BMP's will be incorporated during construction. Stream
• buffers are being provided to assure long-term stream protection and integrity.
8.16 Energy Needs
There are no known sources of materials on the project that could be used to
generate energy, nor will the project contribute to any other energy production. It is
expected that Duke Power will supply the electrical energy needed for
development.
8.17 Safety
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible considerations
for public safety.
8.18 Food and Fiber Production
The project site is not utilized for food production. Silvicultural activities have
been ongoing for years on the project site. Silvicultural activities will eventually be
eliminated and the remaining stands will be incorporated into the site plans to
provide shade trees, buffer areas, riparian corridors and recreational areas.
8.19 Mineral Needs
• The project fulfills no current mineral needs.
29

. 8.20 Considerations of Property Ownership
U
The proposed development of the project will not in any way hinder surrounding
private property owners from enjoying, managing, or developing their properties in
any legal fashion they may choose consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
The address of the project property owner is as follows:
Owner: Lonesome Valley Development, LLC.
Contact: Shane Robichaud
P.O. Box 3269
Cashiers, NC 28717
828-743-7696
[phone] Fax
8.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by providing
a residential community that emphasizes pedestrian protection and enjoyment of a
unique natural area.
30

.7
•
•
9.0 SUMMARY
By master planning the project, the applicant proposes all compensatory mitigation up-
front or concurrent with development activities. The alternative to wetland master
planning is piecemealing many different smaller projects on the same tract where
avoidance will be difficult and fragmentation is more likely to occur.
31

1
GI sYrack Rdge
Windy Ga
- - Packs Gap
�e Gstrtut Frdge lrt Lbunle KrtoO Gap T
he
y J ,,t � � Goldmrrrtg'Rrdge
•, Swell J
t
,'� + QyBone Gap
acharys Gap ; �_ Bum' cabin Gap
Project Site
\ - _ �de.,nai.Fau: eor,eram Gap
SheeF arH __ �� I airFNd Fa Ns
t
1D7 .y.. ..... •y
I
� Lu t n-Lake Dam ``(
AW Lak.-Dam 1
LL
1r
t1 :•.
Sapph'ue LA roam /
taHe a v
caan-a
�a biea Lake D m /
�HigYi Himpton
-- '�lcashiers Va!!ey~a /
(, Ha mptan Lake Dam /
rmae.grnse \ / -
7 \)
......a a �.,
CLEARWATER
Lonesome Valley Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Jackson County 718 Oakland Street Site Vicinity Map
North Carolina
Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 1
828-698-9800

83005'00" W
83004'00" W
WGS84 83003'00" W
�•�� � (� �
til } •�\
_— ice, �� � ' ' _- f'�., `� _J
� 1 �` �•B
Ind"� f S `f ,•.
(f�
,
�I 1
o
PHASE
i' I +Qin; ��.
}
a
Lf),J
.
f
f
1_v f1
)
rLn
O
o
`..;
1
%`1 \
` l r
�'Jar I
Jj �
Q 7
•l 4.1 �,
PHASE I
bD-
O
lI1
c' 11 I`
Ln
{!
(�"
! C�'� -ii :_ rte. ,'.yam` _J•� 'J 1 _v ``a$ a 'J i
l
05'00" W
83"04'00" ',W
0
WGS84 83"03'00" W
1 MILE
MN TN
5,,p,
.5
1000 FEET 0 SOU
WOO METERS
Map created with TOPOI ®02003 National Geographic (www.nationalgeographic.com(topo)
CLEARWATER
Lonesome Valley
Jackson County
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
USGS Topographic Site Map
Figure 2
North Carolina
Hendersonville, NC 28791
828-698-9800

CLEARWATER
Lonesome Valley Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Jackson County 718 Oakland street USDA Soil Survey Map
North Carolina
Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 3
828-698-9800

0
•
•
r _.
i { c erose s IF la *our (, WAG. I,Arsuer a A taocues9 P.A... Y7t1eAM k 71s[iJ!® ll�ices Jal'BeNO C*R 0(IHSULtt116 mrt3Q18018 ! CA141 PLANNdtS
l 1� INDORH GA6CIMA �2i�6A901M174.8, NOFTI[ CAM:7i14fA
Figure 4

F:IU
r:
•
•
SERWOMTROJECTSIonesome VallevlProiect Filesldwollmoact map Phase 2 dwa,1218/2006 9:36:37 AM. 1:1
Figure 4
U
w
V
V1'
p
�
p/
m O
�
µ
�
�
r
(T
W
m
N
N
o
o
µ
�
W
FF
Figure 4

co
E
3
U -
W W
w
U)
6,
I EGENn
4 EIRIDGE HALF PIPE CROSSING
W/ TEMPORARY IMPACT
PERMANENT
® IMS EA /WETLANDS .
(ROADWAY CROSSING) -
> STREAMS
IJ7�^�
i
25 BUFFER
Q WETLANDS
GREEN SPACE
.� PROPOSED ROADS IMPACT #13
PROPOSED LOT UNE PROPOSED 17' IMPACT
(EXISTING 20' CULVERT i
REPLACED WITH 37' CULVERT)
IMPACT #12
PROPOSED 37' IMPACT
IMPACT #11
PROPOSED 30' IMPACT
(SPA DRIVE)
IMPACT #10
PROPOSED 30' IMPACT
(SPA DRIVE)
IMPACT #9
PROPOSED 35' IMPACT
PRELIMINARY
NOT POR CONSTRITCTION
- -
I I
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. SHEET I
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY PHASE 2 STREAM
1635 Asheville Highway JACKSON COUNTY AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Post Office Box 546 CASHIERS
Hendersonville, NC 28743 NORTH CAROLINA
a- [phone] SCALE: I"= 400'
www.wgla.com
Figure 4.1

•
n -
J
Ili
v
CO
IZ
E
LL
N
O
a
•O
W
w
10 BRIDE/HALF PIPE CROSSING STREAMS WETLANDS PROPOSED ROADS
W/ TEMPORARY IMPACT
LFGENn PERMANENT 2b• suFFIR GRA SPACE _ -_..— PROPOSED LOT UNE
STREAM/WETLANDS
IMPACT
(ROADWAY CROSSING)
PRELIMINARY
J�
i 1 5
J J
L
,i
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. SHEET 2
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY PHASE 2 STREAM
1635 Asheville Highway JACKSON COUNTY AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Post Office Box 546 CASHIERS
Hendersonville, NC 28793 NORTH CAROLINA
~ [phone] SCALE: I"= 400'
rte^' www.wgla.com
Figure 4.2

PRELIMINARY
NOT POR CON3fRUC[TON
•
I FGFNf)
4& BRIDGE/NAIF PIPE CROSSING
W/ TEMPORARY IMPACT
PERMANENT
STREAM/WETLANDS
IMPACT
(ROADWAY CROSSING)
rams STREAMS
3
CV
G)
Rn
(0
.1=
CL
RZ
co
E
U
W
d
E:
LL
U
O
g
a�
Q)
E:
0
0
m
0
0
J
F-
U
LU
O
fY
W W
Q 25 BUFFER
0 WETLANDS
GREEN SPACE
PROPOSED ROADS
- PROPOSED LOT LINE
IMPACT REVISION #14
PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED PHASE 1 IMPACTS
WETLAND FLOODING 0.015 AC
WETLAND FILL 0.005 AC
CHANGED TO
WETLAND FILL 0.034 AC
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. SHEET 3
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY PHASE 2 STREAM
1635 Asheville Highway JACKSON COUNTY AND WETLAND IMPACTS
r YAPost Office Box 546 CASHIERS
Hendersonville, NC 28793 NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] SCALE: I"= 400'
mwww.wgla.com/—
60 1
Figure 4.3

n
U
CD
0
a
ti
`7
U
co
0-
E E:
LL
i
IMPACT #8
PROPOSED 35' IMPACT
IMPACT #7
PROPOSED 15' IMPACT
(EXISTING 20' CULVERT
REPLACED WITH 35' CULVERT)
LEGEN
BR04XIHW PIPE CROSSING
W/ TEMPORARY IMPACT
PERMANENT
® STREAM/WEILANDS
IMPACT
(ROADWAY CROSSING)
w� STREAMS
L'-, SUFFER
M3 WETLANDS
12 GREEN SPACE IMPACT #6
- PROPOSED ROADS PROPOSED 75' IMPACT
PROPOSED LOT UNE
�PRELIMINARY11NOT FOR CONSTRUCTTON
IMPACT #5
PROPOSED 30' IMPACT
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. SHEET 4
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY PHASE 2 STREAM
1635 Asheville Highway JACKSON COUNTY AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Post Office Box 546 CASHIERS
n jW m
Hendersonville, NC 28793 NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] SCALE: I"= 400'
--!` www.wgla.com
Figure 4.4

•
ti
M
N
a
3
'a
CV
N
N
s
CL.
CL
m
E
U
m
a
E
U
N
'O
s,
CU
O)
E:
O
a)
J
U
LU
O
CL
CC
W
IMPACT #1
PROPOSED 35' IMPACT
I ,.I
f 1
I i
F ' IMPACT ##2
PROPOSED 35' IMPACT
i'
PRELIMINARY
N07 FOR CON3fR,ZC
IMPACT #3 m ��
PROPOSED 35' IMPACT
BRIDGE/NAIF PIPE CROSSING STREAMS _ WETLANDS PROPOSED ROADS
W� TEMPOf2ARY IMPACT
IMPACT ##4 LIQ �,uNDS Ij V BLFFM Ir/j GREEN SPACE - PROPOSED LOT UNE
IMPACT
PROPOSED 35' IMPACT (ROADWAY CROSSNC)
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. SHEET 5
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY PHASE 2 STREAM
1635 Asheville Highway JACKSON COUNTY AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Post Office Box 546 CASHIERS
3t' Hendersonville, NC 28793
[phone] NORTH CAROLINA SCALE: I"= 400'
-- ~—� www.wgla.com
Figure 4.5

•
M
N
LL
r_
Wv7
a
w
BRIDGE/HALF PIPE CROSSING STREAMS WETLANDS PROPOSED ROADS
W/ TEMPORARY IMPACT
LEGEN PERMANENT
PRELIMIN01] 0 STREAM/WETLAND25' BUFFER GREEN SPACE PROPOSED LOT LINE
NOT FOB CONSPBOCTION S MA IMPACT
(ROADWAY CROSSING)
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. SHEET 6
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY PHASE 2 STREAM
1635 Asheville Highway JACKSON COUNTY AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Post Office Box 546 CASHIERS
;. Hendersonville, NC 28793 NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] SCALE: I"= 400'
-- www.wgla.com
Figure 4.6

4
NEW
CULVERT.
SHOULDER — —
---------- -------SHOULDER
—_ — — — — R/`N
1 is
-- is
X X
SILT FENCE --,""Z
TYPICAL .PLAN VIEW
N.T.S.
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS/WATERS
OF THE US VARIES
5' — 50'
NEW \
CULVERT \
NEW
ROAD GRADE
TYPICAL _STREAM CROSSING
N. T. S.
6'
10' — 12' 10' — 12'
SHOULDER VARIES VARIES OLILD
EI
SLOPE 14" PER
iX FOOT (TW.)
1X
3" ASPHALT 6ITMp•>
-- SURFACE 1
NEW CULVERT —
TO BE BURIED BELOW STREAMBED
TO APPROPRIATE DEPTH (6-12 INCHES)
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
N.T.S.
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS
1635 Asheville Highway
Post Office Box 546
Hendersonville, NC 28793
[phone]
www.wgla.com
LONESOME VALLEY
JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DISCHARGE END
OF PIPE
NATURAL
j GROUND
Figure 5
SCALE: N.T.S.

•
CEDAR
•
•
E
�r
,hl Q
ail
N
- U
N
tt
NE X
9
'11
`n
:efi s -
H
n,
.y
r�
Is
LUPTON
R
«
NE A
QR na WE
ISLAND CA
LAKE
FAMFIF-LD
1,
"✓"( ai+ t
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
BY 100 -YEAR FLOOD
ZONE Nobawfloodeloadonsdetenoloed.
ZONE AT Ba-fleodelevadomdetermloed.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (uAWfY are' of
pnndim,); ease flood elevations dewmined.
ZONE All Flood deptlu of 1 w 3 feel (--JIY sheet
flew on dopl j ferrein); a mu,e depths
determined. Fat, -f a11ovW fan floes -
Ing, velocities Ww determined.
ZONE A99 To be prpected from IWear fiend by
Federal floes protection system under
eonurucdoe; no base ,dwanom daermined.
ZONE V C ---W flood with awloeity hazard (wave
acdon); ne . bem flood elevations deter-
mined.
ZONE VE Ceeetal fined w1m velocity hazard (wave
action); baw flood 4- 1- determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE It Arau'of 500 -year flood; areas of
100 -year flood with average depths
of less than 1 foot or with drainage
areas less than I square mile; and
areas protected by levees from too-
Year
flood.
OTHER AREAS -
ZONE % Areas detarmined to be outside 500-.
year flood plain.
ZONE D - Afeas In which flood hazards' are _
undetertrilued.
Flood Boundary
Floodway Boundary
Zana D Boundary
Boundary Dividing Special Flood
Hazard Zones, and Boundary
Dividing Are' of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations
within Special Flood Huard
Zones.
513 Base Flood Elevation Line; Ele-
vation In Feet'
UPJ Cross Section Line
(EL 987) Base Flood Elevation In Feet
Where Uniform Within Zone'
RM7x Elevation e M
Referencark
e Ml.5 River Mlle
-Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1979
ZONE X
ZONE
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2000 0 2000
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(-UNINCOR-PO --A :ED -Af�:AS)
PANEL 175 OF 200
(SEE.MAP.INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
PANEL LOCATION
KLA )I
COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER
370282 0175 C
EFFECTIVE DATE:
MAY 17, 1989
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. rz
was extracted using F -MIT On-Une. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program good the
check the FEMA Flood Map Store at WWW. Msc.fema. 90V

0
PR
•
PR(
•
PROJECT SUMMARY
GRAPHIC SCALE
W
� v rar
1 lee► — 4Wft
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
TOTAL
PROJECT AREA (AC)
175
613
788
STREAM (LF)
15.765 t
38,335 t
54,100 t
PROPOSED STREAM IMPACT (LF)
(ROADWAY CROSSING)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN STREAMS
25' BUFFER
ROADS
148
444
592
FLOODING
0
0
0
STREAMS AVOIDED (LF)
15,617
37,891
53,508
WETLANDS (AC)
2.32
.6
2.92
PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT (AC)
ROADS
0
.013
.013
FILL
034
0
.034
WETLANDS AVOIDED (AC)
2.286
.587
2.873
NEW BRIDGES
2
9
11
UPLAND BUFFERS (AC)
18 t
57 f
75 t
GREEN SPACE (AC)
66 t
190 t
256 t
GRAPHIC SCALE
W
� v rar
1 lee► — 4Wft
U -LOCO
G
CALL BEFORE YOU DI
1-800-M-4949
1 PERMITTED JULY 28. 2005 PRELIMINARY
xor zoa ooxsrxQcimx
USACE ACTION I.D. 200531949
Revisions date:6-23-08
WW" Q L -Off � i AaDOM Tl
_ . job: 04145
drawn: SO
wr �.rr
am
a
zzd
oao
c 0
� � a
Wz
a�
aw�
�zz
zaz
mm
z
0
U
LEGEND
•
BRIDGE/HALF PIPE CROSSING
W/ TEMPORARY IMPACT
PERMANENT
■
STREAM/WETLANDS
IMPACT
(ROADWAY CROSSING)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN STREAMS
25' BUFFER
Q
WETLANDS
®
GREEN SPACE
PROPOSED ROADS
PROPOSED LOT LINE
OWNER:
;OME VALLEY COMPANY, INC.
NOTEkNDS & STREAMS DELINEATED
;LEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL
U -LOCO
G
CALL BEFORE YOU DI
1-800-M-4949
1 PERMITTED JULY 28. 2005 PRELIMINARY
xor zoa ooxsrxQcimx
USACE ACTION I.D. 200531949
Revisions date:6-23-08
WW" Q L -Off � i AaDOM Tl
_ . job: 04145
drawn: SO
wr �.rr
am
a
zzd
oao
c 0
� � a
Wz
a�
aw�
�zz
zaz
mm
z
0
U

.,
o ti �� L '� t 'c�. t _ �r {Aa <-1 � Mfr
:#S � 'CWS. ^`�4u��t %�:. � j� �
4
�' C" � ! �
�/ },� }; _,�, � "+ii,,' f f ' :" fir? a �:.. `�.
./ s r✓' r
k. �'�( � 1 .: r � f
- -{ P � �7� 1 _ ! ft� 1
S {� yi: e: v � W a ,�' 'fit: ^�'�� — .
�' � ti 4< ,�
., n ,, i tt jj
,� r
t�. f fi .
�. y �
�. ,4-
. f�::t

C-1
Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
For
Lonesome Valley
Jackson County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
December 19, 2006
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and
endangered (T&E) species survey and habitat assessment for the 613 -acre Lonesome
Valley site. The T&E species survey was conducted to determine the occurrence of or
the potential for existence of federally listed threatened or endangered animal and plant
species on the proposed site. Completion of this survey was directed by and complies
with three current state and federal regulations: the Federal Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 USC 1531-1543), North Carolina Endangered Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect.
113 article 25), and North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979
is
(N.C.G.S. Sect. l9b 106: 202.12-22).
The referenced site is located adjacent to the northern side of U.S. Highway 64 west
of the Sapphire area, Jackson County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Coordinates for
the site are latitude: N35°07'51.5"; longitude: W83°3'46.2," with an elevation
ranging from 3,200 feet to 4,400 feet MSL.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
A preliminary protected species survey was conducted on May 18 and 24, 2005, on the
Lonesome Valley project site by Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc., to
determine the potential for occurrences of listed threatened and endangered animal and
plant species by current Federal or State regulations.
Recent correspondence solicited from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) dated
April 22, 2005, provided existing data (Table 1) concerning the presence or potential
occurrence of threatened or endangered species in Jackson County, North Carolina. The
USFWS lists the following six federally threatened and endangered species as
occurring or potentially occurring in Jackson County. The species listed below were
included in the surveys and assessment.
n
�J

•
Table 1. Federally listed species for Jackson County, North Carolina
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Endangered
Indiana bat
Myotis sodalis
Endangered
Appalachian elktoe
Alasmidonata raveneliana
Endangered
Swamp pink
Helonias bullata
Threatened
Small -whorled pogonia
Isotria medeoloides
Threatened
Rock gnome lichen
Gymnoderma lineare
Endangered
The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey. During field surveys,
seven general habitats were identified and compared with recognized habitats for each
of the six species potentially occurring on the site. Potential flora and fauna were
identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to determine if the observed specimen
was a protected species.
3.0 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
During our site visits, seven habitat types were identified on the property: high
elevation granitic dome, montane alluvial forest, montane oak hickory forest, mixed
pine/hardwood forest, maintained pasture, wetlands, and stream bed and bank (Figure
2). The following is a description of each of the seven habitat types identified on the
referenced site and its likelihood to harbor or support listed species. A soils discussion
is also provided.
• 3.1 High Elevation Granitic Dome
This habitat type consists of uniform granite cliffs with some zoned mats of
vegetation occurring along cracks and crevices in the rock. Woody species may
occur in older established mats, they may include Carolina Hemlock (Tsuga
caroliniana), Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and Mountain Rosebay
(Rhododendron catawbiense). The majority of this habitat type is devoid of
vascular plants.
3.2 Montane Alluvial Forest
This habitat type occurs along stream and river floodplains at high to moderate
elevations. Tree species here are dominated by Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
Canadensis) and Red Maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer consists of Rosebay
(Rhododendron maximum) and Dog Hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana). The
dense shrub layer in this habitat type prevents the formation of any noticeable
herbaceous layer.
3.3 Montane Oak Hickory Forest
This habitat type occurs on dry-mesic slopes and ridgetops at high to moderate
elevations. The tree species here are dominated by a mixture of oaks, hickories,
and other hardwood species, including Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Chestnut Oak
• (Quercus prinus), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), and Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and Red Maple
(Acer rubrum) are commonly found in the understory. Shrub layer vegetation

consists of Rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), Mountain Laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), Bear Huckleberry (Gaylussacia ursina), and Blueberry (Vaccinium
spp.). The herbaceous layer includes Indian Cucumber Root (Medeola
• virginiana), blue eyed grass (Sisyrinchium sp.), bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), pink trillium (Trillium sp.), devils
bit (Chamaelirium luteum), lily of the valley (Convallaria majalis), speckled
wood lily (Clintonia umbellulata), squaw root (Conopholis americana), white
baneberry (Actaea pachypoda), yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus), Bedstraw
(Galium spp.), and Galax (Galax aphylla).
3.4 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This habitat type occurs on dry-mesic slopes and ridgetops at high to moderate
elevations. The tree species here are dominated by a mixture of pines, oaks,
hickories, and other hardwood species, including Red Oak (Quercus rubra),
Chestnut Oak (Quercus prinus), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), and Tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The upper canopy level is composed of mature
white pines (Pinus strobus). These mature pines overshadow approximately 20-
40% of the lower oak hickory forest. Flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida) and
Red Maple (Acer rubrum) are commonly found in the lower understory. Shrub
layer vegetation consists of Rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), Mountain
Laurel (Kalmia latifolia), Bear Huckleberry (Gaylussacia ursina), and Blueberry
(Vaccinium spp). The herbaceous layer includes Indian Cucumber Root
• (Medeola virginica), Bedstraw (Galium spp.), and Galax (Galax aphylla).
3.5 Maintained Pasture
This habitat consists of mowed agricultural pastures suitable for livestock
grazing.
3.6 Wetlands
This habitat type is composed of a variety of seeps and bogs associated with the
base of slopes, old stream channels, and low areas with poor drainage. Tree
species include Red Maple, Eastern Hemlock, and tulip poplar. The shrub layer
is dominated by Rosebay and Dog Hobble. The shrub layer also includes
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), southern pinxter
flower (Rhododendron canescens), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis). Herbaceous species include cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), soft rush (Juncus effuses), bluet (Houstonia sp), buttercup
(Ranunculus sp.), unknown sedges (Carex spp.), turtlehead (Chelone sp.), jack in
the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata),
shining club moss (Lycopodium lucidulum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
yellow root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), violet (Viola spp.), and rattlesnake root
(Prenanthes sp.).

3.7 Stream Bed and Bank
This habitat type is composed of coldwater mountain streams capable of
• supporting wild trout populations.
3.8 Soils
Soils mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Jackson
County Soil Survey, Map #79 and 83 for the Lonesome Valley site include:
Chestnut-Edneyville complex (8-50 percent slopes), Cleveland -Chestnut -Rock
outcrop complex (50-95 percent slopes), Cullasaja fine sandy loam (30-50 percent
slopes), Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex (15-30 percent slopes), Edneyville—
Chestnut complex (8-95 percent slopes), Nikwasi fine sandy loam (0-2 percent
slopes), Plott fine sandy loam (30-50 percent slopes), Rock outcrop Cleveland
Complex (30-95 percent slopes), Saunook gravelly loam (8-15 percent slopes),
Statler loam (1-5 percent slopes), Tuckasegee-Whiteside complex (8-15 percent
slopes), Tuckasegee-Whiteside complex (8-15 percent slopes), Whiteside-
Tuckasegee Complex (2-8 percent slopes).
M�I11.*=04_0�3 W_X*1 *Y:VTy 1140[I1+AIV"Rill! 91 I7: Ell 1.11 IFN
The following is a brief description of each listed species included in the survey, its
recognized habitat, and comments regarding survey results for that species:
• 4.1 Carolina northern flying squirrel
Federally listed as an endangered species, the northern flying squirrel is known
from five isolated localities: three in the western mountains of North Carolina
[Yancey County, Haywood
County, and in the vicinity of Mt.
Mitchell (exact county
undetermined)], and two
localities in the eastern "a
mountains of Tennessee (Carter
and Sevier Counties). The
northern flying squirrel is
typically found in more northern
areas. No population estimates
are available, but the northern
flying squirrel seems to be extremely rare and also extremely difficult to
collect and study.
According to Professor Peter D. Weigl of Wake Forest University (1977), the
northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in the ecotone, or vegetation
transition zone, between the coniferous and northern hardwood forests. Both
forest types are used in the search for food, while the hardwood areas are
needed for nesting sites. Areas occupied by the northern flying squirrel are
generally cool and wet, largely as a function of altitude.

•
0
Because of the flying squirrel's small size, the climatic severity of its habitat,
and the abundance of avian and mammalian predators, nesting sites represent
critical resources. During the cooler months, squirrels commonly occupy tree
cavities and woodpecker holes (Jackson 1961; Bakerl%3); but they may also
construct and use leaf nests - especially in the summer (Weigl. and Osgood
1974). The interior of both types of nests is lined with lichens, moss, or finely
chewed bark.
Potential habitat for the northern flying squirrel is limited on this property due
to a lack of coniferous/northern hardwood ecotone on the property. Therefore,
impacts to this species are not anticipated for this project.
4.2 Indiana bat
Federally listed as an
endangered species, the
Indiana bat is a medium-sized
Myotis species, closely
resembling the little brown bat
(Myotic lucifugus) but differing
in coloration. Its fur is a dull`
grayish chestnut rather than
bronze,
with the basal portion of the
hairs of the back dull lead
colored. This bat's underparts
are pinkish to cinnamon, and its feet are smaller and more delicate than in M.
lucifugus. The calcar is strongly keeled.
This species uses limestone caves for winter hibernation. The preferred
caves have a temperature averaging 37 degrees to 43 degrees Fahrenheit in
midwinter and a relative humidity averaging 87 percent. Summer records are
rather scarce. A few individuals have been found under bridges and in old
buildings, and several maternity colonies have been found under loose bark
and in the hollows of trees. Summer foraging by females and juveniles is
limited to riparian and floodplain areas. Creeks are apparently not used if
riparian trees have been removed. Males forage over floodplain ridges and
hillside forests and usually roost in caves. Foraging areas average 11.2 acres
per animal in midsummer. This bat has a definite breeding period that
usually occurs during the first 10 days of October. Mating takes place at
night on the ceilings of large rooms near cave entrances. Limited mating
may also occur in the spring before the hibernating colonies disperse.
Riparian corridors adjacent to Logan Creek may provide suitable summer
foraging habitat for the Indiana bat.

.7
•
4.3 Appalachian elktoe
Federally listed as endangered,
this mussel has a thin but not
fragile, kidney -shape shell,
reaching up to about 3.2 inches
in length, 1.4 inches in height,
and 1.0 inch wide (Clarke 1981).
Juveniles generally have a
yellowish -brown periostracum
(outer shell surface) while the
periostracum of the adults is
usually dark brown to greenish -
black in color. Although rays are prominent on some shells, particularly in
the posterior portion of the shell, many individuals have only obscure
greenish rays. The shell nacre (inside shell surface) is shiny, often white to
bluish -white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central
and beak cavity portions of the shell; some specimens may be marked with
irregular brownish blotches (adapted from Clarke 1981). Only two
populations of the species are known to survive. The healthiest of these
populations exists in the main stem of the Little Tennessee River between
Emory Lake at Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina, and Fontana
Reservoir in Swain County, North Carolina. The second population occurs in
the Nolichucky River system. The Appalachian elktoe has been reported
from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, well -
oxygenated, moderate- to fast -flowing water. It has been observed in gravelly
substrates often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks in bedrock, and
occasionally in relatively silt -free, coarse, sandy substrates (Department of
the Interior 1994).
The perennial streams on-site are much smaller than is typically associated
with this species are generally not considered suitable habitat for this species.
No impact to this species on-site is likely from this project.
4.4 Swamp pink
Federally listed as threatened, this species
is found in wetlands that are saturated but
not flooded. This habitat includes
southern Appalachian bogs and swamps.
Swamp pink would also be found in
Atlantic white cedar swamps and swampy
forests bordering small streams, boggy
meadows, and spring seepage
areas. This species is commonly
associated with some evergreens,
including white cedar, pitch pine,
• American larch, and black spruce. The
basal rosette of light green, lance -shaped,
and parallel -veined leaves with a hollow-

stemmed flower stalk that can grow 8-35 inches during flowering and up to 5
feet during seed maturation distinguishes the swamp pink species. Flowering
• occurs March through May, and flowers are clustered (30-50) at the tip of the
stem in a bottlebrush shape.
•
Potentially suitable habitat for swamp pink exists within the larger wetland
areas adjacent to Logan Creek. These wetlands were surveyed for swamp pink
by Bob Thomas in May. No swamp pink plants were observed during this
survey. The wetlands will not be impacted by filing activities.
4.5 Small -whorled pogonia
This plant, federally listed as an endangered
species, occurs on upland sites in mixed -
deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forest
that are generally in second or third growth
successional stages. Characteristics common to
most sites include sparse to moderate ground
cover in the species' microhabitat, a relatively
open understory canopy, and proximity to
features that create long persisting breaks in the
forest canopy. Soils at most sites are highly
acidic and nutrient poor, with moderately high
soil moisture values. Light availability could be a
limiting factor for this species. The stem is
smooth, hollow pale green and 3.7-9.8 inches tall
with a single whorl of 5 to 6 light green elliptical
leaves 3 inches long and 1.6 inches wide. A
flower is borne at the top of the stem. It is distinguished from the similar I.
verticillata by the latter's purplish stem and long, dark sepals.
Potential habitat does exist on the property; however the pedestrian survey
conducted during May (the peak flowering period for the small whorled
pogonia) did not identify any specimens.
4.6 Rock gnome lichen
Federally listed as an endangered species, rock
gnome lichen occurs on rocks in areas of high
humidity either at high elevations (usually vertical
cliff faces) or on boulders and large rock outcrops
in deep river gorges at lower elevations.
Distinguishing characteristics include dense
colonies of narrow (.04 inch) straps that are blue -
grey on the upper surface and generally shiny -
white on the lower surface. Near the base they
grade to black (the similar species of Squamulose
• cladonias are never blackened toward the base).
Fruiting bodies are borne at the tips of the straps

and are black (similar Cladonia species have brown or red fruiting bodies).
Flowering occurs July through September.
Suitable habitat for this species does exist within the project area. This
habitat is composed of the extensive vertical cliff faces found on the
property. It was not possible to survey these areas however no impacts are
proposed to these cliff faces. Therefore, no impact to this species is likely.
5.0 CONCLUSION
During completion of threatened and endangered species assessments for the
Lonesome Valley site, potential habitats for listed species were observed for the
Indiana bat, swamp pink, small whorled pagonia, and rock gnome lichen. It is
unknown at this time if rock gnome lichen occurs on the vertical cliff faces found on
the property. Preliminary project designs do not affect these cliffs. Indiana bat
summer habitat does exist on the project site, however USFWS records indicate that
Jackson County N.C. records of this species have all been winter records. No winter
hibernation habitat was observed on the project site. The pedestrian survey for the
small whorled pogonia did not identify any individuals, despite the presence of
potential habitat. Pedestrian surveys for swamp pink did not identify any individuals.
As such, the proposed residential community is not likely to cause an adverse impact
to any federally listed threatened or endangered species.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified
during these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened
and endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is
possible that endangered species populations and locations may change over time.
Therefore, any potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and
coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
0

El
1 all Ritlge
i 1 1 j i
Q. y—R,dge Aj
Wrrrdy/aP
SYawp GP,"'
—J-
-01
, r.,,
r
r
r if Lbuble Hnob Gap
Ghestrtut Ritlge
1"NN Rr 4fMachirse :- +l �� '\
Webb Lake Dam 1 \ /. �
I ,` _ -- 4 Gtd.prsrt9 Ridge
Ltyb— Gap
2aaharys GaA 8umt Cabin Gap
,\ Project Site pyldennair aus sone m Gip
a11a nyort , --
! 7
Sheep GrH � airHeJd Fa!!r
r 107
( t Lupt .L'ake Dam
Id
g
rtield Lake•D— /
\ ack
L,
moi— \_Hogba cN Dam
6 r nL—W _
ph re LV
Vake
Lake Dam
1pam �I /
_ Ceshier�.;
C ashlers
;
i
'^aamrera uey - _
Hampton Lake Dam 1 /
RmberR,
3i n
CLEARWATER
Lonesome Valley Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Jackson County 718 Oakland Street Site Vicinity Map
North Carolina
Hendersonville, NC 28791 Figure 1
828-698-9800

..........
N
,,INA
I ji-

0 Appendix A
Species List
Trees
Acer rubrum (Red Maple)
Betula lenta (Cherry)
Carya glabra (Pignut Hickory)
Cornus Florida (Flowering Dogwood)
Hamamelis virginiana (Witch Hazel)
Liriodendron tulipifera (Yellow Poplar)
Nyssa sylvatica (Black Gum)
Pinus strobus (White Pine)
Quercus rubra (Red Oak)
Quercus prinus (Chestnut Oak)
Tsuga canadensis (Eastern Hemlock)
Shrubs
• Alnus serrulata (Hazel Alder)
Clethra acuminate (Mountain Sweet Pepper Bush)
Gaylussacia ursina (Bear Huckleberry)
Ilex verticillata (Common Winterberry)
Kalmia latifolia (Mountain Laurel)
Leucothoe fontanesiana (Dog Hobble)
Lindera benzoin (Spicebush)
Rhododendron maximum (Rosebay)
Rosa multiflora (Rose)
Sambucus canadensis (Elderberry)
Vaccinium spp. (Blueberry)
Herhs
Actaea pachypoda (White Baneberry)
Arisaema triphyllum (Jack in the Pulpit)
Aster puniceus (Swamp Aster)
Carex erinata var. erinata (Fringed Sedge)
Carex folliculate (Northern Long Sedge)
Carex frankii (Frank's Sedge)
Carex intumescens (Bladder Sedge)
Carex leptalea (Bristly -Stalk Sedge)
Carex lurida (Shallow Sedge)
Carex spp. (Sedges)
Cicuta maculate (Water Hemlock)
2

•
Chamaelirium luteum (Devils Bit)
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (Oxeye Daisy)
Clintonia umbellulata (Speckled Wood Lily)
Chelone sp. (Turtlehead)
Conopholis Americana (Squaw Root)
Convallaria majalis (Lily of the Valley)
Dulichium arundinaceium (Three Way Sedge)
Galium sp. (Bedstraw)
Galax aphylla (Galax)
Glyceria melicaria (Melic Manna Grass)
Hypericum mutilum (Slender St. John's -Wort)
Houstonia sp. (Bluet)
Impatiens capensis (Jewelweed)
Iris pseudacorus (Yellow Flag)
Juncus effuses (Soft Rush)
Juncus diffussimus (Slim -Pod Rush)
Lobelia spicata (Pale -Spike Lobelia)
Lycopodium lucidulum (Shining Club Moss)
Lysimachia lanceolata (Lance -Leaf Loosestrife)
Medeola virginica (Indian Cucumber Root)
Osmunda regalis (Royal Fern)
Osmunda cinnamomea (Cinnamon Fern)
Platanthera (Habenaria) clavellata (Small Green Woodland Orchid)
Prenanthes sp. (Rattlesnake Root)
Polystichum acrostichoides (Christmas Fern)
Polygonum sp. (Tearthumb)
Prunella vulgaris (Heal -All)
Pteridium aquilinum (Bracken Fern)
Ranunculus sp. (Buttercup)
Rosa palustris (Swamp Rose)
Scirpus cyperinus (Wool Grass)
Scirpus polyphyllus (Leafy Bulrush)
Sisyrinchium sp. (Blue Eyed Grass)
Solidago patula (Rough Leaf Golden Rod)
Sphagnum sp. (Moss)
Trillium sp. (Pink Trillium)
Woodwardia areolata (Netted Chainfern)
Vernonia novaboracensis (New York Iron Weed)
Viburnum cassinoides (With -Rod)
Viola cucullata (Marsh Blue Violet)
Viola spp. (Violets)
Xanthorhiza simplicissima (Yellow Root)
3

•
Appendix B
USFWS and Natural Heritage Correspondence
•
•

ENT OF;,,
o�QP
United States Department of the Interior
: p
y O
A
• FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�ggCH 33 �Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 22, 2005
Mr. R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Dear Mr. Riddle:
Subject: Site Assessment for Property Located North of Highway 64 in Cashiers, Jackson
County, North Carolina
In your letter of March 25, 2005, you requested our comments on the subject project. We have
reviewed the information you presented and are providing the following comments in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended .(16 U.S.C.
661-667.e), and.section 7 of the Endangered Species.Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Your letter does not include a description of the project or any potential impacts. Based on the
information available through Jackson County's GIS web site and our knowledge of the project
area, the property is almost entirely wooded (though some development has taken place near
Highway 64) and has multiple streams (Logan Creek and an unnamed tributary to Logan Creek)
flowing north to south. Also, several areas of high -elevation granitic domes are located within
the project area.
Endangered Species. You do not present evidence of any surveys of the project area for
federally listed species known from Jackson County. Unless an area has been specifically
surveyed for listed species or no appropriate habitat exists, a survey should be conducted to
ensure that these resources are not inadvertently lost. Adjacent to the project area we do have
records of the federally endangered rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) and several
federal species of concern--Cuthbert's turtlehead (Chelone cuthbertii), Fraser's loosestrife
L simachia raseri and green salamander Aneides aeneus as well as threespecies listed b
•

the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) as significantly rarer --granitic dome
bluet (Houstonia longifolia var. glabra), pink -shell azalea (Rhododendron vaseyi), and bog Jack
• in -the -pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum ssp. Stewardsonh). We would like to see a detailed account
of the botanical analysis for this project. Enclosed is a list of federally endangered and
threatened species and federal species of concern for Jackson County. In accordance with the
Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal agency or its designated representative to
review its activities or programs and to identify any such activities or programs that may affect
endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is determined that the proposed activity
may adversely affect any species federally listed as endangered or threatened, formal
consultation with this office must be initiated. Please note that federal species of concern are not
legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7,
unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them. We also recommend close coordination with Ms. Linda Pearsall (Director,
NCNHP) before any actions are taken.
Erosion Control and Wetland/Stream Protection. Given the proximity of the project to
multiple streams (the project area should also be surveyed for wetlands), we want to emphasize
that stringent measures to control sediment and erosion should be implemented prior to any
ground disturbance and should be maintained throughout project construction. All
wetland/stream crossings should be made perpendicular to the stream, and spanning structures
should be used rather than culverts. Wetland/stream buffers (a minimum of 100 feet on
perennial streams and 50 feet on intermittent streams) should be maintained throughout the
project area.
The treatment of storm water leaving the project area is also a concern. The expansion of
urban/suburban areas creates more impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots),
which collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants, and quickly transmit them to
receiving waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source
pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in the United States and is linked to chronic
and acute illnesses from exposure through drinking water and contact recreation.
Best management practices can reduce, but not eliminate, pollutant loadings of common
storm -water pollutants. Designs that collect runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil have the
highest documented pollutant -removal efficiency, eliminating nearly all lead, zinc, .and solids
and more than 50 percent of total phosphorous. Ponds and wetlands, which allow contaminants
to settle out of the water column or be broken down by sunlight and biological activity, can
remove more than 70 percent of bacteria. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
has developed a "Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative
Significantly rare species are those that are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1 to 100 populations in the
State and with substantial reductions in numbers as a result of habitat destruction (and sometimes by direct
exploitation or disease).
2
0

Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality" that we support and
encourage you to use. It can be accessed via the Internet as follows:
http://www.ncwildlife.orglpg07 wildlifespeciescon/pg76_impacts.pdf.
We offer the following recommendations to help address the secondary and cumulative impacts
that may be associated with this project and to help minimize impacts to fish and wildlife
resources:
1. The construction of new roadways can produce short-term direct impacts as
well as long-term cumulative effects. Studies have shown a serious decline in
the health of receiving waters when 10 to 15 percent of a watershed is
converted to impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces should be limited to no
.more than 7 percent, curb and gutter should be limited in new developments,
and the direct discharge of storm water into streams should be prevented. We
recommend the use of grassed swales in place of curb and gutter and on-site
storm -water management (i.e., bioretention areas) that will result in no net
change in the hydrology of the watershed. These designs often cost less to
install and significantly reduce environmental impacts from residential
development.
2. Efforts should be made to avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of
construction corridors. Disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures
that are beneficial to wildlife. Fescue -based mixtures should be avoided;
fescue is invasive and provides little benefit to wildlife. Native annual small
grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. Where
feasible, use woody debris and logs from project area clearing to establish
brush piles and downed logs at the edges (just in the woods) of the cleared
areas to improve habitat for wildlife. Additionally, herbicides should not be
used in wetland areas or near streams.
3. We strongly suggest the use of bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of
streams and associated wetlands to eliminate the need to fill and install
culverts. All stream crossings should be made perpendicular to the stream. If
culverts are the only option, the culvert must be buried at least'a foot below the
natural streambed to allow for proper water depth and the movement of aquatic.
organisms. Under no circumstances should stream channel widening for
culverts occur nor should riprap be placed in the stream channel.
4. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary.
Equipment should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes
disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected daily and
should be maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels,
lubricants, and other toxic materials should be stored outside the riparian
0

management area of the stream, in a location where the material can be
contained. Equipment should be checked for .leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling
system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.
Also, all fueling operations should be done outside the riparian management
area.
At this stage of project development and without more specifics about construction locations or
techniques, it is difficult for us to assess potential environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and
cumulative). We therefore recommend that any environmental document prepared for this
project include the following (if applicable):
1. A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (the build
and no -build alternatives).
2. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas, that
may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
3. The acreage and a description of the wetlands that will be filled as a result of
the proposed project. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be
mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine the need for a
Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Avoiding and minimizing wetland
impacts is a part of the Corps' permitting process, and we will consider other
,potential alternatives in the review of any permits.
4. The extent (linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be
impacted as a result of the proposed project. A description of any streams
should include the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the
biotic resources.
5. The acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be eliminated because
of the proposed project.
6. A description of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental
impacts associated with this proposed work. The assessment should specify
the extent and type of development proposed for the project area once the
work is complete and how future growth will be maintained and supported
with regard to sewer lines, water lines, parking areas, and any proposed
roadways.
7. A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction
impacts and from secondary development impacts.
• 4

• 8. Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, riverine, and upland) associated
with any phase of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of any assistance or if
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-05-170.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
0
5

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 30, 2005
Mr. R. Clement Riddle
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Subject: Lonesome Valley Project; Jackson County
Dear Mr. Riddle:
The Natural Heritage Program considers nearly all of the project area to lie within a State
significant natural area identified in the Jackson County natural area inventory (1994) as the
Dillard Canyon and Cliffs. I am enclosing the report for -that site, from the inventory, conducted
by Dr. J. Dan Pittillo, of Western Carolina University. The enclosed map indicates the boundary
of the natural area, as well as the two rare plant locations and the locations of several high quality
natural communities. The two rare plants are found on the very steep cliffs on the west face of
• Cowrock Mountain.
Because of the importance of the natural area, we would like to see as much of the natural area
placed into some type of protection status. If the project involves development of the area, we
hope that construction would be limited to the floor of the canyon and not on the mid- and upper
slopes, nor on the tops of the mountains at the edge of the cliffs. (You did not indicate in your
letter what the scope or intent was for the Lonesome Valley property.) Let us know if our
Program can be of assistance in protection efforts for the Dillard Canyon and Cliffs natural area.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at <www.ncnhp.org_> for
a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on -the
topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have
questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosures
•
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Orlearoli/na
Phone: [phone] •FAX: [phone] •Internet: www.enr.state.nc,us NbhffiC�latural[L�
An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Post Consumer Paper

L
U
SITE SURVEY REPORT
N.C. Natural Heritage Program
P.O. Box 27687 / Raleigh NC 27611
Dillard Canyon and Cliffs 1
Date: May 1994 (April 1992)
Quad Name: Big Ridge
Jackson County
Province: Blue Ridge
Name of Site: Dillard Canyon and Cliffs (Cow Rock and Laurel Knob)
Surveyors: J. Dan Pittillo and L. L. Gaddy
Location & Directions: This site is located about two air miles from Cashiers. To
reach Dillard Canyon, proceed east on U.S. 64 for about 2.7 miles. Turn left at paved
road after Jennings Building Suppy. Park at the first left on this road and follow
small logging road into canyon. Permission must first be obtained before visiting
the site.
Size: 1092 acres. Watershed: Logan Creek/ Horsepasture River
Owners and address: Mr. Dick Jennings, Lonesome Valley Corporation, P. 0. Box
1459, Cashiers, NC 28717 (Phone [phone]); Tom and Gorgene German, Route 3, Box
310, Savannah, GA 31406 (Phone [phone] or 704/743-5378).
Status: Unprotected.
Owner contacted & Attitude: Both owners were open to the survey and may be
interested in the natural areas designation.
General Landscape Description: Resembling the canyons of the west, the
headwaters of Logan Creek valley make up what is called Dillard "Canyon." The trail
into the canyon leads through even -aged White Pine forests, into cut -over Cove
Forest dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendro tulipifera), and on to Canada Hemlock
and Pine-Oak/Heath forests occur under the sheer cliffs of Laurel Knob and Cow
Rock. A large cleavage in Laurel Knob is supposedly passable, leading to the crest of
the knob. Laurel Knob, which has a greater diversity of communities than Cow Rock,
is gently sloping on the top.
Physical Description:
Aspect: All but mainly west, northeast, and east along the valley sides.
Slope: Nearly flat in the valley floor to almost vertical on the lower cliff slopes.
Topog. Position: Upper, mid, and lower slopes and .alluvial flats.
Hydrology: Terrestrial.
Moisture: Mesic to dry mesic.
Elevation: 3200 - 4440 feet
Geology:
Quartz diorite to granodorite: Previously this formation was called Whiteside Granite
(Pzw; Hadley and Nelson, 1971) or Cashiers Gneiss (McKniff, 1967). These igneous
rocks are of Devonian age (390 million years) and are classed as Quartz diorite to
granodiorite (NC Geological Survey, 1985).
Biotite schist and gneiss (pCgc; locally called granite): Biotite-quartz-plagioclase
gneiss and schist, commonly characterized by porophyroblasts of muscovite,
microcline, garnet, or kyanite; locally contains sillimanite, graphite, or hornblende;
commonly thin interlayered with micaceous quartz -feldspar gneiss(metasandstone);
less commonly interlayered with amphibolite and hornblende schist (Hadley and
Nelson, 1971).
Soils: The following soil series are listed by the Soil Conservation Service (Sherrill,
1994):
Cleveland -Chestnut -Rock outcrop complex (CpF) - Lithic to Typic Dystrochrepts

Dillard Canyon and Cliffs 2
• Cullasaja (CsE) - Typic Haplumberpts
Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex (CuD) - Typic Haplumbepts
CwA - Cullowhee......
Edneyville-Chestnut complex (EdC, EdE, EdF) - Typic Dystrochrepts
Nikwasi (NkA) - Cumulic Humaquepts
Plott (PwE) - Typic Haplumberpts
Rock outcrop -Cleveland complex (RkF) - Typic Dystrochrepts
Saunook (SaQ - Humic Hapludults
Tuckasegee (TwQ - Typic Haplumberpts
Udonthents (Ud) - Disturbed soil complex
Whiteside-Tuckasegee complex (WtB) - Aquic Hapludults (W)
and Typic Haplumbrepts (T)
Comments on Physical Description: The area is quite complex based on the long
list soil types present in the area.
Biological Description: Atop Laurel Knob High Elevation Granite Dome, and
Heath Bald communities are found on bare rock. The dwarfed Montane White Oak on
the crest of Laurel Knob is dominated by trees less than fifty feet in height. Two ring
counts on trees that had recently been cut (one was 12 inches in diameter; the other
was 14 inches in diameter) revealed that the canopy here was 175-200 years old. Cow
Rock is generally dominated by Montane Oak -Hickory with cliffs dominated by High
Elevation Granite Dome, Heath Bald, and Pine-Oak/Heath communities. A small
seepage bog is found on the top of Cow Rock.
Pine-Oak/Heath: Around the base of the cliffs a mixture of pine and oaks occur.
White pine (Pinus strobus) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) dominates the
conifers while tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and oaks (Quercus alba, montana,
rubra) dominate the deciduous species in this community type. Understory heaths
include mostly mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and rosebay rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum).
High Elevation Granite Dome: On the crest and south slopes of Laurel Knob and
Cowrock is an extensive High Elevation Granite Dome community. Several pines are
found here: shortleaf, table mountain, pitch, and white (Pinus echinata, pungens,
rigida, strobus), Carolina hemlock (Tsuga carolinana), and red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana) that give the area a dark green color year-round. Several deciduous
species are also present: hickory (Carya sp.), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), oaks
(Quercus alba, montana, rubra, and velutina). In addition, several heaths add to the
evergreenness: mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), rhododendrons (Rhododendron
catawbiense, minus), and sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium). Herbs of the
outcrops include mats of twisted haircap moss (Selaginella tortipila), switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Schizachirium scoparium), mountain oat grass
(Danthonia spp.), goldenrods (Solidago sp.), michaux's saxifrage (Saxifraga
michauxii), aster (Aster surculosus), and granite dome bluer (Houstonia longifolia
var. glabra).
Special Status Species present:
Plants:
Carex bilnnoreana (Biltmore sedge) SR 3C S3 G3
Houstonia longifolia var. glabra (Granite dome bluet) SR S3 G573
Juncus gymnocarpus (Seep rush) Wl 3C S3 G3
Potential for other special Status Species: No animal species were reported
and this area is potentially ripe for several species.
Other noteworthy species or features present:
•

Dillard Canyon and Cliffs 3
• Site integrity: Good. Some timber removal has occurred in the past.
Average DBH of canopy trees: 12-24 inches (30-60 cm)
Maximum DBH of canopy trees: to 36 inches (90 cm)
Fire regime: No evidence noted.
Logged: Probably 1940-50's.
Even -aged canopy: White pine plantations.
Non-native or weedy spp.:
Others:
Adjacent land use: Second -home sites and fish farming.
Significance of site: State (level 2).
Discussion: 1) The cliffs of Cashiers gneiss that surround Dillard Canyon (the rock
faces of Laurel Knob and Cow'Rock) drop 1000-1100 feet and are second only in
height to those of Whiteside Mountain (1200-1300 feet) in the region and represent
the highest contiuous cliffs in the region (those of Whiteside Mountain drop in two
stages). 2) The dwarf Table Mountain pine (Pinus pungens) forest and the dwarfed
montane white oak ( Quercus alba) forest on top of Laurel Knob are among the best of
the region. 3) The rare Biltmore sedge (Carex Biltmoreana) (C, 3C, S2), naked -fruited
needlerush (Juncus gymnocarpus) (C,S2), and the uncommon granite dome bluer
(Houstonia longifolia var. glabra) (W2, S2) are found at the site.
Protection Considerations and Management Needs: Much of site is protected
by the Jennings Family. The lower canyon, the lower slopes of Cow Rock, and much
• of Laurel Knob are currently being developed.
Documentation:
Gaddy, L. L. 1992. Report on Dillard Canyon and Cliffs. Report to the Natural Heritage
Program, Department of Health, Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 14
P.
Hadley, J. B. and A. E. Nelson. 1971. Geologic map of the Knoxville quadrangle, North
Carolina, Tennessee,..and South Carolina. US Department of Interior, Geological
Survey, Washington, DC.
Sherrill; Michael L. 1994.- Personal communication, USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Cullowhee, NC.
Survey boundaries: This large boundary is mainly based on maps rather than field
examenation. It may need adjustment, both for the protection of private land rights
and for potential extension, especially to the north or east.
Priority for further survey: This superficial survey needs a more thorough
evaluation. Data on the various community types not described in detail is a primary
need. Animal surveys also are high on the priority recommendations.
Specimens collected: Plants (Pittillo) Repository: WCUH
Photographs made of. Distant views and outcrops. Repository: Pittillo coll.
Others knowledgeable about site:
Topo map attached: Big Ridge quadrangle.
0

SNAGGY B/
"EI.FV. 3,30
BEAR CREEK
F O R E S T i
BELL CONEY 0MTK
.sr,L El". 4,4oD
i ,. BIG KNOB
`.6
a,
—1 R� DEVILS
COURTHO
kNDS
COWEE
GAP C !7
RICH MTK
.I
ELEV. 3,500
!u F: Crack N A T I
i
1713
Jj171:
?
1
OokRldg
NORNEYHEAD ;,,� IZii
9 'f., 7P MANAGEMENT
Ln
DOUBLE TOP
!III
MTK
]L
BLACK O
ELEV..6,273 • \
J73L 7B1 SoII Geek I IAB
J
TANASEE BALD
0 5.677
7jj 30 \+
ry~ 154
BEAR CREEK
F O R E S T i
BELL CONEY 0MTK
.sr,L El". 4,4oD
i ,. BIG KNOB
`.6
a,
—1 R� DEVILS
COURTHO
kNDS
COWEE
GAP C !7
CHIMNEY TOP MM
ELEV. 44,673
ifif
73°13� A
_ D
PISGAH z
ROCK
Y
r
--TANASK GAP
NATIONAL
+`
z
..OWENS GAP
5 TO RRflrARO_
D
FOREST
�c
a• R IpGE ?`l
LITTLE HOGBACK MTK /
TOXAWAYI/
IRFIELD /
1,140 'Is d. FAP
TO BREVARO
19 O' J O
I
/ O
SAPPHIRE C
LAKE/ELF/. 3,104
j Z
33°p3�
� T
Map 1
DILLARD CANYON AND CLIFF
Jackson County
North Carolina
N. C. Dept. of Transportation, 199(
SHERWOOD
i
ti WILDLIFE
LU -
9 'f., 7P MANAGEMENT
• �{::
Jit . .
u'.:"? : `';{ ..;°:F•;.7: AREA
ROUGH BUR BALtt• _ ' tij4:iutiF4'` •4�1))�,. y
BLACK O
ELEV..6,273 • \
TANASEE BALD
0 5.677
PI AH
rs°` WILDLIFE
'lr•:::
ROCKY";,`;
715 MANAGEMENT
^4
+`Zr
c
N e 1 �
ti �: AREA
CHIMNEY TOP MM
ELEV. 44,673
ifif
73°13� A
_ D
PISGAH z
ROCK
Y
r
--TANASK GAP
NATIONAL
+`
z
..OWENS GAP
5 TO RRflrARO_
D
FOREST
�c
a• R IpGE ?`l
LITTLE HOGBACK MTK /
TOXAWAYI/
IRFIELD /
1,140 'Is d. FAP
TO BREVARO
19 O' J O
I
/ O
SAPPHIRE C
LAKE/ELF/. 3,104
j Z
33°p3�
� T
Map 1
DILLARD CANYON AND CLIFF
Jackson County
North Carolina
N. C. Dept. of Transportation, 199(

'•i` _ _ `" \v;''°t`. J;�"—�)� }Jif"!� \il'���•., `�.'\ `��—,`��`'--' �r '�"-�
1 / � ��.� � `� ; ' � i'^� ('. � � o' Y �\ � ° i w ,/rte_ , ,� �_• �,
.�.: j t`•I: ' i �i<�' ,�r��'r �"�� 1 i r `�:.. I �•�•li'ti—��ll �( 1'� ` \`frf-\!/ '^'1 ('•. �.:"I i (`�: fes,-,
�;�� r r�Ji /lri �� ,'' ,� \ ! f i"`•::J 1 �,�'��') (� ��"r�����_� ) :;`f/.�t.\ ,. _I ,:
i ;`:;•� - �; ij� �// � '�+\j \(�,`�`.�//� Jjl�/�..,\�i / ��"�\�/�r� /i--� \� J �•..; jam..,, •�:
K 'I ���^ j `✓OO�I /;i" l\\ail \ i:/ 1\`•,1 / / AnD��/ i� �, i^'.�
-
W.
;.I ;•, v ;
,; �`. I / / �, ',:� '\•.�� i. ` �'•. 1 '•\ a`
'=iii •�i>. � ��'t � . V/ L f '\•' � ���� % � ✓;?/ �"' �'---
�;•�
z \'
U.
QK
IN �l\ /tai ,�,,��� aur / ( i +✓ l-�"�:�:
\. �•' � // -3600 / .. � / 1,:, // � I•'�•-
_ � • J �.. �� / � ;~*°° �1� � .Illi !�/ �>� /�.�° � �� n L!� rr �� ��'
%i 90� �l/.:.�. � . .:if; .`.;_.;.. 9pQO��"' - \ - _ \ _ \ •� \`40.\1 _�, . � _
Vt`� �• o� _ ° ; % . Map
DILLARD CANYON AND CLIFFS
Bi
g Ridge g Quadrangle
North Carolina
Nantahala National Forest, 1987
1' 780,000 FEET :� CASHIERS ST. 107 1.6 Mi, • f ��" `�`I��(/• � �,'� ' v''� r`• HIGHLANDS 12 MI. (Cashie s 176 -SE) JUNCTION ST. 28 , 9.7 Ml. 2'30'
SCALE 1:24 000 ROSMAN FED. 178, 19 MI.
0 I MILE
1000 0 1000 ---- 3000 4000 5000 6000 71w0 FEET
1 .5 0
—^� r— I KILOMETER

•
C�
Dillard Canyon, Cow Rock, Laurel Knob Page 6
Species
Presence and Abundance: Gaddy and Pittillo note
TREES
Acer rubrum
LK/U
Amelanchier arborea
17266
Betula lenta
ILK
Carya glabra
7279
Carya sp.
CR/LK
Hamamelis virginiana
7281
Juniperus virginiana
7256, LK/CR/A
Nyssa sylvatica
7269
Oxydendrum arboreum
7277, CR/LK
Pinus echinata
CR/LK
Pinus pungens
7258, LK/A
Pinus rigida
7259, LK/CR
Pinus strobus
CR
Quercus alba
CR/LK
Quercus montana
7280, CR/LK
Quercus rubra
CR/LK
Quercus velutina
CR
Sassafras albidum
7270
Tsuga canadensis
7257
Tsuga caroliniana
LK/C
SHRUBS
Aronia arbutifolia
7264
Aronia prunifolia
7265
Chionanthus virginicus
7267
Gaultheria procumbens
LK/A
Gaylussacia frondosa
7257
Gaylussacia ursina
CR
Hypericum buckleyi
7283
Kalmia latifolia
7274, CR/LK
Leiophyllum buxifolium var. prostratum
7272, LK/A
Rhododendron catawbiense
7278, CR/LK.
Rhododendron minus
7273, CR/LK
Robinia hispida
7282
Vaccinium stamineum
7276
HERBS
Agrostis elliottiana
7253
Andropogon virginianum
LK
Aster surculosus
7291, LK
Calamagrostis cinnoides
7251
Carex biltmoreana
CR/R
Carex umbellata
CR/LK/R
Coreopsis major var. stellata
7289
Crotonopsis elliptica
7284
Cypripedium acaule
7260

s
Dillard Canyon, Cow Rock, Laurel Knob
Page 7
Species
I Presence and Abundance: Gaddy and Pittillo note
Danthonia sericea
17254
Danthonia sp.
CR/LK/R
Dennstaedtia punctilobula
7247,
Houstonia longifolia var. glabra
17288, CR
Krigia montana
17290
Lilium michauxii
7263
Lobella amoena
7282
Lycopodium dendroideum
7246
Maianthemum canadense
17261
Melampyrum lirieare
17286
Panicum virgatum
LK/A
Polygala sanguinea
7285
rtermum aquunum
11248
Rhynchspora globularis
17250
Saxifraga michauxii
CR
Schizachyrium scoparium
17252, LK/CR
Scleria triglomerata
17249
Selaginella tortipila
7245, CR/LK
Solidago roanensis
17292
Solidago sp.
CR/LK
NONVASCULAR
Cladonia spp.
CR/LK
Parmelia conspersa
LK
A = Abundant
C = Common
U = Uncommon
R = Rare ------ -
LC = Locally Common
CR = Cow Rock
LK = Laurel Knob
Numbers: Pittillo coils. at WCUH from
Laurel Knob

racnNuil �.Vut1Ly Dt1Ud11geICU JpeCWS, Inreatenea opecies,reaerai 6pecies or Loncern, an... rage 1 of -i
I
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species,
Jackson County, North Carolina
Updated: 04-27-2006
Critical Habitat Designations:
Appalachian elktoe - Alasmidonta raveneliana - The main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little
Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North
Carolina, downstream to the N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North
Carolina. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing, cool,
clean water; (ii)Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii)Pool, riffle, and run sequences
within the channel; (iv)Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no more than
low amounts of fine sediment; (v)Moderate to high stream gradient; (vi)Periodic natural flooding; and
(vii)Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Federal Register Reference: September 27, 2002, Federal Register, 67:61016-61040.
Common Name
Vertebrate:
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Bog turtle
Scientific name
Thryomanes bewickii altus
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Eastern small -footed bat Myotis leibii
Green salamander
Hellbender
Indiana bat
Northern pine snake
Northern saw -whet owl
Aneides aeneus
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Myotis sodalis
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus
Aegolius acadicus pop. I
Federal Record Status
Status
FSC
Historic
T (S/A)
Probable/potential
E
Current
FSC
Current
FSC
Current
FSC
Current
E
Historic
FSC
Current
FSC Current
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/J*ackson.httnl 11/15/2006

•
•
•
jat,navu %-,vU11Ly LAWC 1gc1cU 3PUU1Gs, 1111CULU11CU Jpuwes,reuefal 3pckaes U1 k-oncern, an... rage G 01J
(Southern Appalachian
population)
Olive darter
Pygmy salamander
Red crossbill (Southern
Appalachian)
Sicklefin redhorse
Smoky dace
Southern Appalachian black -
capped chickadee
Southern Appalachian eastern
woodrat
Southern rock vole
Yellow -bellied sapsucker
(Southern Appalachian
population)
wounded darter
Invertebrate:
Appalachian elktoe
Diana fritillary (butterfly)
French Broad crayfish
Southern Tawny Crescent
butterfly
Whitewater crayfish ostracod
a harvestman
Vascular Plant:
Blue Ridge Ragwort
Butternut
Cuthbert turtlehead
Darlington's spurge
Fraser fir
Fraser's loosestrife
Gorge filmy fern
Granite dome goldenrod
Gray's saxifrage
Lobed Barren -strawberry
Mountain Thaspium
Mountain bitter cress
Mountain catchfly
Radford's sedge
Small whorled pogonia
Southern Oconee -bells
Percina squamata FSC
Desmognathus wrighti FSC
Loxia curvirostra . FSC
Moxostoma sp. I C
Clinostomus funduloides ssp. FSC
Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Microtus chrotorrhinus FSC
carolinensis
Sphyrapicus varius FSC
appalachiensis
Etheostoma vulneratum FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Speyeria diana FSC
Cambarus reburrus FSC
Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC
Dactylocythere prinsi FSC
Fumontana deprehendor FSC
Packera millefolium
Juglans cinerea
Chelone cuthbertii
Euphorbia purpurea
Abies fraseri
Lysimachia fraseri
Hymenophyllum tayloriae
Solidago simulans
Saxifraga caroliniana
Waldsteinia lobata
Thaspium pinnatifidum
Cardamine clematitis
Silene ovata
Carex radfordii
Isotria medeoloides
Shortia galacifolia var.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/J*ackson.html
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
T
FSC
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Historic
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Obscure
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Historic
Historic
Historic
Current
Current
Current
Current
Historic
11/15/2006

•
•
Mcxsun t,uunLy r,naangerea opecies, inreaienea apecies,reaerai species or Concern, an... rage s of s
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
P = proposed. A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information
to support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.)
FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the
future, and many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened
species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
Defmitions of "Record Status" qualifiers:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of
known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/jackson.html
11/15/2006
galacifolia
Swamp pink
Helonias bullata
T
Current
Sweet pinesap
Monotropsis odorata
FSC
Current
Tall larkspur
Delphinium exaltatum
FSC
Current
Torrey's Mountain -mint
Pyenanthemum torrei
FSC
Historic
Nonvascular plant:
Gorge moss
Bryocrumia vivicolor
FSC
Historic
a liverwort
Plagiochila sharpii
FSC
Historic
a liverwort
Plagiochila sullivantii var.
FSC
Historic
spinigera
a liverwort
Plagiochila sullivantii var.
FSC
Historic
sullivantii
a liverwort
Plagiochila virginica var.
FSC
Historic
caroliniana
a liverwort
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
FSC
Historic
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
P = proposed. A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information
to support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.)
FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the
future, and many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened
species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
Defmitions of "Record Status" qualifiers:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of
known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/jackson.html
11/15/2006

ivk, ivnr t-ounry r,iement ,earcn
Yage 1 of 3
http://207.4.179.38/nhp/find.php 11/15/2006
NC NHP County Element Search Results
New Search
Returned Elements: 72 using:
JACKSON LISTED
[Invertebrate Animal 12] [Nonvascular
Plant 12] [Vascular Plant 24] [Vertebrate Animal 24]
Major Group Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Federal
State
Global
County -
Map -
status
Status
Rank
Rank
Status
Habitat
Invertebrate Alasmidonta raveneliana
Appalachian Elktoe
E
E
S1
G1
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Invertebrate Cambarus chaugaensis
Oconee Stream Crayfish
SC
None
S2
G2
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Current
Invertebrate
Cambarus georgiae
Little Tennessee River
SC
None
S2S3
G1
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Crayfish
Current
Invertebrate
Cambarus reburrus
French Broad River
SR
FSC
S2S3
G3G4
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Crayfish
Current
Invertebrate Dactylocythere prinsi
Whitewater Crayfish
W3
FSC
S1
GNR
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Ostracod
Historical
—
Invertebrate Fumonelix orestes
Engraved Covert
T
None
S1
G1
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Invertebrate Inflectarius ferrissi
Smoky Mountain Covert
T
None
S2
G2
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Obscure
Invertebrate Lampsilis fasciola
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
SC
None
S1
G5
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Invertebrate Pallifera hemphilli
Black Mantleslug
Sc
None
S2
G4
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Obscure
Invertebrate Patera clarki clarki
Dwarf Proud Globe
SC
None
S2
G3T3
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Obscure
—
Invertebrate Phyciodes batesii maconensis
Tawny Crescent
SR
FSC
S2
G4T2T3
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Invertebrate
Villosa iris
Animal
Rainbow
SC
None
S1
G5
Jackson-
Current
Link
Nonvascular
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Gorge Moss
E
FSC
SH
G1G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Historical
Nonvascular Bryoerythrophyllum
A Red Foot Moss
W7
None
S2?
G5
Jackson -
Link
Plant recurvirostrum
Current
Nonvascular Cheilolejeunea
Jackson-
evansii
Plant
A Liverwort
E
None
S1
G1
Current
Link
Nonvascular Chilosc hus a
Yp ppalachianus
A Liverwort
SR -T
FSC
S1
G1G20
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascular Gymnoderma lineare
Rock Gnome Lichen
T
E
S2
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascular Plagiochila sharpii
A Liverwort
SR -L
FSC
S2
G2G4
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
—
Nonvascular Plagiochila sullivantii var.
Jackson-
Plant spinigera
A Liverwort
SR -L
FSC
S1
G2T1
Historical
Link
Nonvascular Plagiochila sullivantii var.
Jackson -
Plant sullivantii
A Liverwort
SR -T
FSC
S2
G2T2
Historical
Link
--
Nonvascular Plagiochila virginica var.
Jackson -
Plant caroliniana
A Liverwort
SR -T
FSC
S1
G3T2
Historical
Link
Nonvascular Schlotheimia lancifolia
Highlands Moss
T
None
S1
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascular Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
A Liverwort
E
FSC
S2
G2?
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Historical
---
Nonvascular
Tortula ammonsiana
Ammons's Tortula
E
None
S1
G1
Jackson-
ackson -
Link
Plant
Plant
Current
Vascular Cardamine clematitis
Mountain Bittercress
SR -T
FSC
S2
G2G3
Jackson -
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
Carex radfordii
Plant
Radford's Sedge
E
FSC
S1
G2
Jackson -
Link
Current
Vascular Chelone cuthbertii
Cuthbert's Turtlehead
SR -L
FSC
S3?
G3
Jackson-
Link
http://207.4.179.38/nhp/find.php 11/15/2006

ivy, tvrtr i,ounty memem 6earcn
rage 2, of s
http://207.4.179.38/nhp/find.php 11/15/2006
Plant
Current
Vascular
Danthonia epilis
Bog Oatgrass
SR -T
FSC
S2?
G3G4
Jackson -
Link
Plant
Current
—
Vascular
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall Larkspur
E -SC
FSC
S2
G3
ackson -
Jackson-
Link
•
Plant
Plant
Current
Vascular
Euphorbia purpurea
Glade Spurge
SR -T
FSC
S2
G3
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
Helonias bullata
Swamp Pink
T -SC
T
S2
G3
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
—
Vascular
Hydrastis canadensis
Goldenseal
E -SC
None
S2
G4
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
—
Vascular
Hymenophyllum tayloriae
Gorge Filmy Fern
E
FSC
S1 S2
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
--
Vascular
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled Pogonia
E
T
S2
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
Lysimachia frased
Fraser's Loosestrife
E
FSC
S2
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
—
Vascular
Monotropsis odorata
Sweet Pinesap
SR -T
FSC
S3
G3
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
Packera millefolium
Divided -leaf Ragwort
T
FSC
S2
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
pycnanthemum torrei
Torrey's Mountain -mint
SR -T
FSC
S1
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Historical
Vascular
Saxifraga caroliniana
Carolina Saxifrage
SR -T
FSC
S3
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Historical
- —
Vascular
Shortia galacifolia var.
Southern Oconee Bells
E -SC
FSC
S2
G2T2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
galacifolia
Historical
Vascular
Silene ovata
Mountain Catchfly
SR -T
FSC
S3
G3
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
—
Vascular
Solidago simulans
Granite Dome Goldenrod
SR -L
FSC
S1
G1
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
- --
•
Vascular
Plant
Sporobolus heterolepis
Prairie Dropseed
E
None
S1
G5
Jackson-
Current
Link
Vascular
Thaspium pinnatifidum
Mountain Thaspium
SR -T
FSC
S1
G2G3
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Historical
Vascular
Trichomanes boschianum
Appalachian Filmy -fern
T
None
S1
G4
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
---
Vascular
Trichomanes petersii
Dwarf Filmy -fern
T
None
S2
G4G5
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
Trillium discolor
Mottled Trillium
T
None
S1
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
Waldsteinia lobata
Lobed Barren -strawberry
SR -T
FSC
S1
G2
Jackson-
Link
Plant
Historical
--
Vertebrate
Aegolius acadicus pop. 1
Southern Appalachian
T
FSC
S26,S2N
GSTNR
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Northern Saw -whet Owl
Current
Vertebrate
Aneides aeneus
Green Salamander
E
FSC
S2
G3G4
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Certhia americana
Brown Creeper
SC
None
S3B,S5N
G5
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Clinostomus funduloides ssp. 1
Little Tennessee River
SC
FSC
S2
G5T3Q
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Rosyside Dace
Current
Vertebrate
Crotalus horridus
Timber Rattlesnake
SC
None
S3
G4
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Hellbender
Sc
FSC
S3
G3G4
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Desmognathus wrighti
Pigmy Salamander
SR
FSC
S3
G3G4
Jackson-
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Etheostoma inscriptum
Turquoise Darter
Sc
None
S1
G4
Jackson-
ackson -
Link
Animal
Animal
(PT)
Current
Vertebrate
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
SC
FSC
S1
G3
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Falco peregrinus
Peregrine Falcon
E
None
S1 B,S2N
G4
Jackson -
Link
http://207.4.179.38/nhp/find.php 11/15/2006

ivk, 1Nr1r wunry r,iemeni ,-jearcn
rage .i of 3
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Carolina Northern Flying
E
E
S2
G5T1
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Squirrel
Current
Vertebrate
Loxia curvirostra pop. 1
Southern Appalachian Red
SC
FSC
S36,S3N
G5TNR
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Crossbill
Current
Vertebrate
Microtus chrotorrhinus
Southern Rock Vole
SC
FSC
S3
G4T3
Jackson -
Link
Animalcarolinensis
Historical
--
Vertebrate
Animal
Moxostoma sp. 2
Sicklefin Redhorse
SR
C
S1
G2Q
Jackson -
Link
(PT)
Obscure
Vertebrate
Myotis leibii
Eastern Small -footed
SC
FSC
S3
G3
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Myotis
Current
—
Vertebrate
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern Long-eared
SC
None
S3
G4
Jackson -
Link
Link
Animal
Myotis
Current
Vertebrate
Animal
Myotis sodalis
Indiana Myotis
E
E
Si?
G2
Jackson -
Link
Historical
—
Vertebrate
Eastern Woodrat -
Jackson-
ackson-Animal
Animal
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Southern Appalachian
SC
FSC
S3
G5T4Q
Link
Population
Current
—
Vertebrate
Animal
Notropis lutipinnis
Yellowfin Shiner
SC
None
S2
G4Q
Jackson -
Link
Current
Vertebrate
Animal
Percina squamate
Olive Darter
SC
FSC
S2
G3
Jackson -
Link
Current
VertebrateSouthern
Poecile atricapillus practice
Appalachian
SC
FSC
S3
G5TNR
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Black -capped Chickadee
Current
Vertebrate
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Southern Water Shrew
SC
FSC
S2
G5T3
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Sphyrapicus varius
Appalachian Yellow -bellied
Jackson -
Animal
appalachiensis
Sapsucker
SC
FSC
S36,S5N.
G5TNR
Current
Link
—
Vertebrate
Thryomanes bewickii altus
Appalachian Bewick's
E
FSC
SHB
G5T2Q
Jackson -
Link
Animal
Wren
Historical
NC NHP database updated on Friday, August 11th, 2006.
• Search performed on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 @ 14:48:48 EST
Explanation of Codes
is
http://207.4.179.3 8/nhp/find.php 11/15/2006

Office Use Only:
USACE Action ID No.
No.
Form Version March 05
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ❑ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
❑ Section 10 Permit ❑ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification ❑ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 12. 13 and 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ❑
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ❑
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ❑
•
II. Applicant Information
•
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mr. Thomas Bates
Mailing Address: Lonesome Valley
P.O. Box 3269
Cashiers N.C. 28717
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: R. Clement Riddle
Company Affiliation: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Mailing Address: 224 South Grove Street
Suite F
Hendersonville N.C. 28792
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: criddle(@cweriv.com
Page 5 of 13

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17 -inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Lonesome Valley -Phase I
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N / A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 7583-50-8670
4. Location
County: Jackson County N.C. Nearest Town: Cashiers N.C.
• Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Not in subdivision
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From U.S. Highway 64 in
Brevard travel west toward Cashiers N.C. After crossing the Lake Toxawav Falls on
Hi way 64 travel approximately 9 miles west The site is located on the northern side
Highway 64 The entrance is marked with two stone pillars on either side of the entrance
road.
•
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35' 7' 51.5" ON 83° 3'46.2" °W
6. Property size (acres): Approximately 770 acres - Phase I is 140 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Logan Creek and then the Horsepasture River
8. River Basin: Savannah
(Note — this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htW://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The majority of the land (70%) is mature forest. The
Page 6 of 13

• remaining land is in pasture land or woods roads and rocky cliff faces. Areas around the site
are primarily low density residential and forest lands
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves the construction of a residential community and associated amenities.
The type of equipment used will be similar to that of other construction projects and will
include bulldozers back -hoes graders and dump trucks
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the work is to construct roads
and ponds for a low density residential community.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
• construction schedules. N / A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
This application is for phase I of the project and involves approximately 140 -acres. Future
phase(s) may be built at a later date and may require additional stream crossings. All efforts will
be made to avoid future stream impacts by utilizingbridgesand half pipes wherever possible. At
this time it is unknown when Phase II may begin the types of stream crossing the locations or
the number. The applicant realizes that all stream and wetland impacts through all phases of the
development will be viewed as cumulative impacts
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
•
Page 7 of 13

• should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed impacts include
the installation of six culverts the flooding of 0.015 -acre of wetland and the filling of 0.005 -
acre of wetland Four of the culverts will be replacin existing culverts of insufficient length.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
se ar elv list im acts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Stream Name
Type of Wetland
Located within
100 -year
Distance to
Nearest
Area of
Impact
Site Number
Type of Impact
(e.g., forested, marsh,
Floodplain
Stream
(acres)
(indicate on map)
0.004
herbaceous, bog, etc.)
es/no
linear feet
Perennial
Wetland Impact I
Flooding
Wetland Ditch
No
200 feet
0.015
Wetland Impact H
Fill
Wetland Ditch
No
150 feet
0.005
1
Total Wetland Impact (acres)
0.02
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: Phase I - 2.32 -acres
• 4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip -rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
,,,,,qt hp. inchide-d- Tn calculate acreaize. multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent?
Average
Stream Width
Before Impact
Impact
Length
linear feet
Area of
Impact
acres
Impact A
UT- Logan Creek
Culvert
Perennial
5
35
0.004
Impact B
UT- Logan Creek
Culvert
Perennial
8
13
0.002
Impact D
UT- Logan Creek
Culvert
Perennial
3
36
0.002
Impact E
UT- Logan Creek
Culvert
Perennial
3
18
0.001
Impact F
UT- Logan Creek
Culvert
Perennial
3
26
0.001
Impact G
UT- Logan Creek
Culvert
Perennial
3
18
0.001
Impact I
Logan Creek
utilities
Temporary
8
20
0.003
Impact 2
Logan Creek
utilities
Temporary
8
20
0.003
Impact 3
Logan Creek
utilities
Temporary
8
20
0.003
Impact 4
Logan Creek
utilities
Temporary
8
20
0.003
Bank Stabilization
Logan Creek
Bank Stabilization
Perennial
<75
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
146
0.023
Page 8 of 13

• 5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
4;11 avr`axrnt;nn Ar,-Acr;no flnnrlino Arninnae hiilkheatic_ etc_ W/ A
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.)
Area of
Impact
(acres
Impact C
Pond
flooding
pond
0.10
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
0.10
6. List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from theproject:
Stream Impact (acres):
146 feet
Wetland Impact (acres):
0.02 acre
Open Water Impact (acres):
0.10 acre
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
0.12 acre
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
1461f
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ❑ Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
•
8. Pond Creation If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream
impacts should be included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the
proposed pond should be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this
application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ® uplands ❑ stream ❑ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw -down valve or spillway, etc.): excavation (Pond 1) excavation (Pond 2)
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): trout pond/recreational
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: pasture abandoned trout farm basins
Size of watershed draining to pond: 10 -acres Expected pond surface area: 1.92 -acres
and approximately 1.5 acres
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower -impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
• techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The applicant has designed
Page 9 of 13

project roads to follow existing logging roads on the property. This minimizes stream crossing
. impacts by utilizing four existing crossings Expansion of these crossings is necessary in order
to facilitate two way traffic and largegency vehicles More than 98% of the stream areas
within Dhase I will be avoided More than 99% of the wetlands within phase 1 will be avoided.
The applicant is also avoiding impacts by constructing two bridges over Logan Creek.
The bank stabilization is being conducted on Logan Creek This stabilization (less than 75 Leet)
is not for mitigation credit The applicant will use natural materials to construct 2-3 cross veins.
Planting of the stream banks will involve native species from the water line to top of bank. No
hard engineering,_(rip rap or gabions) will be used at this location
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE — In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
• including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htt,o://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strrn.vide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed Impacts to the aquatic environment are minimal.
Page 10 of 13

•
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wlp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information: N/A
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ❑ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
• requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ❑ No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ❑ No ❑
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
•
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar -Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ❑ No
Page 11 of 13

If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone*
Impact
(square feet
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1
3 (2 for Catawba)
2
1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. Not applicable
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
• demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N / A
•
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ❑ No
Is this an after -the -fact permit application? Yes ❑ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ❑ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
htti)://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwettands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Page 12 of 13

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
•
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw -down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
•
•
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

0
P w,
.dc
P View
/
pw�
e 2.,
Scale: 1-24,000
Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Jackson County, North Carolina
CLEARWATER
Lonesome Valley Environmental Consultants, Inc. USDA Soil Survey Map
Jackson County 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Figure 3
North Carolina Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800

0
•
•
NEW
CULVERT
SHOULDER— — — — — -
-----50tR Leer — __—
_ — — — — — — — — — ��9AD'gA'�f
------------— — — — — — — SHOULDER
X
X X �.
SILT FENCE
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
N. T. S.
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS/WATERS VARIES
OF THE US —� 5' — 50'
NEW \
CULVERT \ /
/ NEW
ROAD GRADE
TYPICAL STREAM CROSSING
N.T.S.
6' 6'
10' — 12' +10' — 12'
SHOULDER VARIES VARIES HOULDE
SLOPE 1/a" PER DISCHARGE END
FOOT TYP.) OF PIPE
tY. 19.
3" ASPHALT 2 (TYP.)
— — SURFACE
NEW CULVERT —�
TO BE BURIED BELOW STREAMBED
TO APPROPRIATE DEPTH (6-12 INCHES)
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
NATURAL
GROUND
N.T.S.
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS FIGURE y
Ag1635 Asheville Highway LONESOME VALLEY
Post Office Box 546 JACKSON COUNTY,
Hendersonville, NC 28793 NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] SCALE: N.T.S.
www.wgia.com

O
O
r
io
N
Ltd
O
O
N
fD
W
u-
��l
w a aw
N11-
�anuy
(� DAM SECTION
WILLIAM G LAPsLEY & ASSOCIATES P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS LONESOME VALLEY
Asheville HighwayJACKSON COUNTY,
Postost46Office Box 548
Hendersonville, NC 2e793 NORTH CAROLINA
828 897-7934 Phone
b26� 697-7333 Fax
(REAM OF THE US
WETLAND
FIGURE _j
SCALE: N.T.S.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 200531949 County: Jackson USGS Quad: Big Ridge
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Mr.. Thomas Bates
Address: Lonesome Valley Development, LLC
94 Lonesome Valley Road
PO Bog 3269
Cashiers, NC 28717
Telephone No.: 828-421-2636
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): Logan Creek, unnamed
tributaries, and adiacent wetlands located within an approximate 140 acre tract located on the
north side of Highway 64 near Cashiers, NC.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit verification authorizes the discharge of fill
material into Logan Creek. unnamed tributaries. and adiacent wetlands in conjunction with the
development of Phase I of the Lonesome Valley Development. Permanent impacts include the
culverting of 146 linear feet of streams for road access, the fill of 0.02 acre of wetlands for pond
construction/expansions, the retention of 330 linear feet of existing culvert in an unnamed
unimportant intermittent tributary, and the stabilization of 75 linear feet of eroding bank on Logan
Creek. Temporary imacts will be associated with four utility crossings of Logan Creek
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Numbers: 39 and 13
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached Nationwide and Special conditions, the conditions outlined in the attached June 28, 2005 North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission letter, and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or
deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or
appropriate legal action.
SPECIAL CONDITION: The permittee shall, within 60 days of the date of this verification, execute and
cause to be recorded restrictive covenants to preserve remaining on-site jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and
upland riparian buffers. The restrictive covenant, the form of which is to be agreed upon by the Corps prior
to recordation, is to preserve the remaining 11,729 linear feet of stream channels and riparian buffers, and
2.3 acres of wetlands. The permittee shall furnish the Corps with a copy of the recorded restrictive covenants
within 30 days of the recordation.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is
modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
• authorization.

Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact David Baker at 828-271-7980.
Corps Regulatory Official David Baker Date: July 28, 2005
:Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2007
-2-
Determination of Jurisdiction:
❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
•
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless
there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not
to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued _. Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: adjacent to Logan Creek. Logan Creek>Horsepasture River>Savannah
River which becomes Section 10 navigable -in -fact waters.
Corps Regulatory Official: David Baker
Date July 28, 2005
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished:
R. Clement Riddle, C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., 224 South Grove Street, Suite F,
Hendersonville, NC 28792

•
nay e5 u5 11:44a
Lonesome
Vley
May 25, 2005
Mr. Clement Riddle
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Dear Mr. Riddle
You are hereby authorized on my behalf to act as the agent for Lonesome Valley Development,
LLC, located in Jackson County, North Carolina pertaining to all wetlands permitting matters on
the above referenced project.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Si cerely,
•
Thomas Bates
Development Coordinator
Lonesome Valley Development, LLC.
TB/sfs
p.I
• 4 Lonesome Valley Road a N.O. Box 3269 0 Cashiers, NC 28717 9 [phone]

V)
CY
w
J
O
m
n
O
m
U
D
O
V
U
ry
C�
W
m
W
z
Q
oqd
>
CD
1Vnid3ONOO 2JW
z
O
I
m
0
0
ry
ry
O
U
7V09c SZ8:e
SObI'09£'8Z8 :auo4d
W
O
O ry
Q
m
I
9088Z eullaeO yIJoN 'aplAaysy
SNOIIO3S-SSOb0 ONUSIX3
o w[0z
apnS
Z z o
g peon{ pooWeH L6L
ON �l3lldA 3WOS3N0�
AeRVA awoeauo�
E a
0 o a
bs
o
" aaHeg laeyolW}o;luny
6ufaaaufBu3 hong
11332i� N`dJOI _
�o LINO e4i �c1 pelede�
Z
LL $
d
s �,
V)
CY
w
J
O
m
n
O
m
U
D
O
V
U
ry
C�
W
m
W
z
Q
>
CD
C/-)
ry
z
O
I
m
0
0
ry
ry
O
U
O
W
O
O ry
Q
m
I
0
N
N
W
J
U
U
o co
04
N
n
M
n
M
0
F=�

W
m
w
O�7-
O J
r_
m m
Q
O�
F --
_j
Li z
zm
LLJz
U = W
M L U cl:�
W O z
W W W
Y
ry m z O
W
= w O U
> z_
(n J W 0 f—
Y W w O QZ
Q Z U W
w
OLJi�
cn O w 0 Q
Q pLn
m z W
J C U
O w D Q
Q= U U
of I --
<
—
Q U) Z
U Q W
Li z Y w >
��— Uz—'
0 C2 > cLL-r
O D m Q
W O Q O
Q W
W p W O U O
Q-J
O Q W
D >
F- m 0 W W W
Un W Of M (n (n
a_ D D D
z
Q
:2 N 1-0 d- Lo
•
W
bf<
-r< Q' Lj
J
Q Y Y
z �
wQmcn
J > W
Q v J
> Z �
U Q o
zmZQ
CD F-
W U W
Zm
2 m
00 O
J m
W w D _
J Z
a
-i m 0
W W J ~
Z W Q
Z O � U
2 cn U7 H
U D� H 0
W Q Q d
ow�o'
:2Q'UO
W r
OW Q o --
F,- 0-
a_ �- Fo-
°-�-
U
orf J
W d �-
r Q O
0'20
O Z
O
Q
Z F-
00 J
Qpm
o
Z �
N
Z
O -O Y
O W Z
W a m
a
U) V)
0W
=zm
W
oW<
•
W
O
J
W
Z
z
Q
U
Z
Y �
m
ro
mw
�
U 0:�
cf J U
QV)Ch
m
JLLJ
Z
mQ
Q) >
F-L�
XQ
W
W of W
W J
U = Z_
Q 3
m N
Y
r Z 0
gmQ
Y
O 0 0
wog
U W�
W m W
W
0 >
O J O
W m O
ro�
J,
m
r- �, F-
O of U
W 0
OZ OJ W
D S
H m
W W
W � �
d
a Q
0
z
_O
F—
C)
Q
z Un
z
O
LU
CL O
LL
O
z
60b "090'M :XeJ
o e0°Na�AyS90922
ionaV
NOUVdO1S321 ivnid3ONOO
eU1l
0
o w
Boz a;ins
i