20060385 Ver 1_Complete Individual Application_20060308

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

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

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

PLANTING SOIL

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

18
For e Cove
HIGH POINT PARK
--' ? • PICNIC AREA
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FIRE TOWER
JANUARY 16, 2006 PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST PARKING I TRAIL HEAD
a } C"
\__ \
D ' , O?\. i ? Q i tJl
'?i i Q `?___?.__?'-.?, ?\ it -`Q ,' i a %' i? ?. ..? 1?1.• i? i - ? ?
I \ 1
WILDERNESS AREA
•HIKING TRAILS
• PRIMITIVE CAMPING AREAS
q ? \
PISGAH NATIONAL
a
FOREST
LONG VIEW PARK
• 1 ?.,___J \ ` VT i Ir / -.9
RUSTIC PAVILION (Q..
3 \r
i
LAKE FRONT PARK
•CANOE STORAGE
• FIRE RING ?.? '//1 Lr' I I LJI ;
COMMUNITY TRAIL SYSTEM ••?. Q \C?-`..` : i I J_:
_ LAKE \
27.17 ACRES
103 _4 .
. 10
O p O
\ LAKE PAVILION
r G7 1 ??
.? O ?. _T.._..__ _ ?•
••\`; I'I 1 L /?-\?? 1 Q,'\,-?? COTTAGE RETREAT
••\?' .?'\ Q 'v' LAKE POINT OVERLOOK
OSBORNE BRANCH LODGE ?: l yl
(12) 2 BEDROOM SUITES •
(14) COTTAGE RETREATS • `•\. i (1 `\ ;.\ _ i.?.\ / LEGEND
COMMUNITY LIVING DAY SP •\_( 1] / ---- o-__r_
BILLIARDS LOUNGE LOT LINE
CATERING KITCHEN • --\ ?. Q?
SPECIAL EVENTS DINING ROOM • ;? / p cvrral,E aETPenT
i 1 - T \. PROP0.5FD HL.K TMIL
.I ? `\ % % ? smEeal
/\ ` \ I I Q % /'??y ? caEthwarmuac aLm ACCTS
423 92 aOtES SriE OF O-LL TRACT
6 I
LOT SUMMARY
31 LAKE FRONT LOTS
60 LAKE VIEW LOTS
39 VIEW LOTS
21 a CREEK SIDE LOTS
56 a PRIVATE LOTS
12 LODGE CONDOS
14 COTTAGE RETREATS
233 TOTAL FOR SALE GATED N
0 200 400 800 1600
SCALE : 1"= 200' W E:
THIS PLAN ILLUSTRATES A GENERAL PLAN, -116 IS SU?ECT TO F RE
CHANGE AND REVISION. DIMENSIONS, BOUNDARIES, AND POSITION LO TIONS
ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ON LV AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE EXACT. S
ca_
;'`\ ?\ \ ?? O \\•, \' \'\\ GATED ENTRY
I ?
C7 ak L7
rry
•f L1[: Melrose Design Group, P.A.
L:,,x -W Aarch-l-,
V>? ,, [:mvonmental Uc?ign
?•
56 i
I.r r sZ t
,, ,, h (z z,- 2
[ 5 8701
ANen
- Plllnc f82R1684-51SIS? F,, a,(2828)681-SISfi
<"u*nm e2ow, MCim•<Ilne?c.wC.CA.
bud
'Forge Cove
?
?? HIGH POINT PARK
?
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ----- -' °°'
JANUARY 16, 2006 PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST \ ! ,

?? -?? b t r ?n r ?' l
i \
\' ?
\
` q
\
a) r
-
,,gyp _a
, a (
?
?'
i
/
:
o

WILDERNESS AREA

\
i PISGAH NATIONAL
' / I

O
?`\ ?j ` <y, p.) 1 11 .y FOREST

i
LONG VIEW PARK
a-
, ??
. .

Q ?_ .. ) r
LAKE FRONT PARK l

o
4/\
••
( r? ? Q?I

conwinm mAamlw
\
\ LAKE
.
1 1 J ?` ?. (? l CD

o\ w/.
O O

- s 4 T? o'.
''? F? a ((. -?/'l O

•
'
?? l--
R.ovtT
coo
oor WA, FR BRANCH
?.;
OSBORNE BRANCH LODGE-- •-?.?' ur
l
a
p
J f
f13)2RDROOM wrtes•
o.)
rn.nurun uvlrvc noon. •?

l i `
LEGEND
,
. / ----
sccaa E uric -??
j 4 "
o

p k
O , i
..
.
? \ i
* O
j
/
.
LOT SUMMARY i
??
31 O LME FAONT LOTS "A\
W O V1QVIEYILOTS
\ \
39 O VIEW LOTS (3 ? /
, ?. .,
\ iA
31 ? CREEK SIDE LOTS ?'-\ YY11
?,\ / '? V
y?. ?"
??
?
o PRIVATEIOTS ,- ? ?
12 LODGE CONDOS
\
11 COTTAGE RETREATS

233 TOTAL FOR S&E
CJ.TD)ENTRY _
?/ - -? I
\
-\- 1

'

wnc rort?wrsn"?n.e wwrm'o rwrwro.vz rorrxrtneen?rta N
et vwcr. W `? Aklmz 0.ven^:r??yt DA.
ni ....ziF?eW V'..®rewre
U
U
W
U
U
U
CD
C
? U
75;z
o =
U
U
N O x
\ O d W
> r Y tip
O LL cv
U
Lf) p 6
Q
nl ?/? N o
W n? cn U d v
I'
4-
0 C l
/
d
O
N
B-1
V
LM
U.
° ° ® In in
M ? - M O W M In ® lA In
4- d- p 1? -4 m N O
`

m

H _
N

d
!
A L

O
?

d v 'C

C1

L
•? V
L a
o a

N H

O
O _
} Q O i-
L ?.. O O
4- r 4- d } a.
? 4-
p O ?--
O s = cyl en a 3 O O C3
CL H
U O .
O o O o O H Q > I"I = H
O O O O O N N
?
3 -0 'p
o
a
?.. ? p I.L tL U_ ti u.. Y ? d L
v o d
_a o Z S LL Z
L L L
. p } O O O O
.? ? } D1

"C
"i3
L
'
L
'
O
.L
d 3
O
d
d
d
d
0 O O 0 a O a U_ Y L U.. U_ U- IL
_
•? 0 0 0 4- 4-
? a. 4-
?
L
L. V
L
L
L
L
Or \ \ \ O O \
L. O OD 0 C
C C C C
C
4- 4- 0 0 C L

4)

'A) 4m o

CL
cn
1?1 _ .
0)
:3
:3
:3
:3

0 0 0 0 j C 3
`n C 4-
L.
4- V
x O
x u
x
0
0
0
0 'I
"
o +
-
t o 4-
o -
SI
0
0 4-
0
t? d d d Ci Ci Ci cn Cl
H
i-
!-
?-

}
Z
0
.? .. ., e-. .-. .•. .-. o
c a a a cs cs cz o u
FE .0 0

H N

a s n n a a a
`
. .

? Q 0
O
v v ? v v v v
L Oi 0? d d d d d ? L Ol
4- c c c c 4
c c C a 4-
s u G C
U- c? c? ca c? cs v
V y N

V o

Y t C! U 0
J } CC -
o •
a 0
L
01 p OD S
o 0 3 +-

0 0
CL. V V V W U- c4 S CL.

cr)
c
V

O L
or)
LC)

M

?O

?D

I)

O%
} N OC p to co Oho -4
Q

? "i ,j

fl
tto
M

Lo

®

co
NO
NO
M . c

r $

C M
.o

M .-a
OD

M N

10 M
M
M N
3+-
C ? CM
:
O N ()0
M ON N Lo N
co
.-.e

M
?O
S
i-
Ec 3:1
S
O
® ®
?
dl' N
o O
co
m ?
It'
1-4
M
S!
a

I- -
iL -°?
? -v
oa -a
o? v
oa -o
of -v
d
- O O 0 0 0 0
O O O O O
LL LL LL LL LL
?
H

V V V w tL

O
L

V)
H
N
O
O
m
O
N
s
'O
O
Q
d
C'
L
O
4-
N
L
O
U
N
L
i.
d
Sf
s
S
L
0
3
O
N
co
O
N
I(
7
i

d

O O Lo O
0\ m N
O®

c
O

c ?-' .-

C\l N
.-a •--e .-c Lo ;4
O

it
c
O L L L L L L

_ V LL Lt_ LL LL LL. L LL.
d at_. \ \ \ \ \ O \
O
N 0 0 0 0 0 O

? C? Ut L9 L? U?

m
N
L

LL_
• d d
=
7
V
V O
0 O
0 O
O

J L L
L L L 0
N

01

d ?
V V V W LL =
O
Q
d
L
F-

e
Q
CL
a
N
S
O
S
-F-
3
-o
o?
-o
U
d
L
V)
t
U
o?
c
H
U
O
7
C'
is
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream !ndex #
McCall Creek From source to Big C;Tr 07/01/73 French Broad 6-38-24-1
(McColl Branch) Branch
Eagle Nest Branch From source to Little B;Tr 07/01/73 French Broad 6-38-25
River
Cherry Tree From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-39 -.
Branch Broad River
King Creek From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-40
Broad River
Gash Creek From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-41
Broad River
Bryson Creek From source to French C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-42
Broad River
Boylston Creek From source to a C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-(0.5)
point 0.3 mile upstream
of Murray Branch
Sutton Creek From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-1
(Sitton Creek) Creek
Polecat Branch From source to Sutton C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-1-1
Creek
Long Branch From source to Sutton C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-1-2
Creek
Osborne Branch From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-2
Creek
Dog Creek From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-3
Creek
Woody Branch From source to Boylston C 08/01/98 French Broad 6-52-4
Creek
Big Creek From source to WS-I;HQW 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-2-2
Hendersonville
Reservoir, North Fork
Mills River
South Fork From source to the WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3
Mills River upstream side of RW
mouth of Queen Creek
Pigeon Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-1
Fork Mills River RW
Bearwallow Brook From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-2
Fork Mills River RW
Barnett Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-3
Fork Mills River RW
Poplar Creek From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-4
Fork Mills River RW
Thompson Creek From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-5
Fork Mills River RW
Billy Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-6
Fork Mills River RW
West Ridge Branch From source to South WS-II;Tr,O 08/03/92 French Broad 6-54-3-7
Fork Mills River RW
Page 12 of 15
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4< Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 350 acres 8. Stream order: second
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Trans ly vania
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.322295N/82.674705W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
proposed dam location
14. Proposed channel work (if any): fill for dam
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: []Section 10 []Tidal Waters [Essential Fisheries Habitat
[]Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters [] Nutrient Sensitive Waters []Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESD NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NoF ?
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO?
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
10% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 12' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) []Gentle (2 to 4%) []Moderate (4 to 10%) []Steep (>100/.)
25. Channel sinuosity: []Straight JROccasional bends []Frequent meander []Very sinuous []Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 63 Comments:
Evaluator's Sienature

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

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

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

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

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

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) T 63
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
-r r '7f'.
! S'C'REAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
?Provide the following information for the stream reach sander assessment:

1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4, Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: Long Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 38 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ Fogr e_ Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
# 17 (see attached ma
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel restoration
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 aTidal Waters ,Essential Fisheries Habitat
D Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NO?
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO?
21. Estimated watershed land use: ._% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankftdl width: 2' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) ,,Moderate (4 to 10%) ],Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: O Straight IIOccasional bends [1Frequent meander OVery sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every. characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (frown reverse): 20 Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0- 4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max ints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
3 1 }r
! _l STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach sender assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher M ement Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ Fogr e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#15 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): -potential road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: RSection 10 DTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
],Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters OWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES[] NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOE
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YESn NOE
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested % Cleared / Logged Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): V
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) DGentle (2 to 4%) IIModerate (4 to 10%) OSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight f ROccasional bends ,[].Frequent meander IIVery sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 35 Comments:
Evaluator's
i?
2
Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CH
CTERISTICS
R ECOREGION POINT RANGE
A
A SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 38
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
j S ? `? f w d? k1
i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Dart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 18 ac. & Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fogr e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#13 see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 [],Tidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
]Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters C1 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESD NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NON
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[] NOE
21. Estimated watershed land use: Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged Other { )
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) aGentie (2 to 4%) DModerate (4 to 100%) IISteep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: MStraight Occasional bends 1317requent meander OVery sinuous ?.Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
'T'otal Score (from reverse): 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature -?- ,'Date 7/19/2005
SCAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEE'T'
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 12 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_Ep a Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#12 see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 DTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
OTrout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (MV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NON If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOE
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[-] NOS
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) DGentle (2 to 40/6) []Moderate (4 to 100%) 11Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight Occasional bends []Frequent meander ],Very sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 37 Comments:
Evaluator's
y R
1 i 444J//"
1
Date 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# S
CS
TI
CHARACTERI SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration= 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 0
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
y no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

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

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 0
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 37
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 9 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fore Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#I I (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): potential road crossing -
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 OTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
[1Trout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters E[ Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed , (I-IV)
18, Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NON If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NON
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[] NON
21, Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 3' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: f ],Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) L1Moderate (4 to 100%) IISteep (>100/.)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight [Occasional bends Frequent meander OVery sinuous IIBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 26
,, ,
Evaluator's Signature Date 7/19/2005
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# STICS
T SCORE
CHARAC
ERI
Coastal Piedmont mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
1
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints)
Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
H23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 26
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ #
(indicate on attached map)
j STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
f j' 'j 3VF,lAS ?f
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Manaizement Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 19 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):- Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
# 10 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway. classifications known: Section 10 DTidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (I-lv)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOE
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES? NOE
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / Logged Other (
22. Bankfull width: 5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 0171at (0 to 20%) L1Gentle (2 to 4%) IIModerate (4 to 100%) DSteep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight 00ccasional bends Dfrequent meander C],Very sinuous [1Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 51 Comments:
Date 7/19/2005
Evaluator's Signature
71
Site #
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

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

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

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

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

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

`ls t :
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
,
YProvide the following information for the stream reach sander assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Comoration 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 145 ac. & Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fo a Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#8 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 OTidal Waters f Essential Fisheries Habitat
OTrout Waters IIOutstanding Resource Waters n Nutrient Sensitive Waters aWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NO(]
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO?
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) (Moderate (4 to 10%) DSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight 00ccasional bends D Frequent meander ]Very sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 64 Comments:

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

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

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

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

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 64
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
I , {J
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Appl'icant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-dav
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 122 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):__FgMe Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#7 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossin
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Osection 10 DTidal Waters D Essential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters ,Outstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters ?Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NOM
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOD
21. Estimated watershed land use: ,% Residential Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 6' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) ].Moderate (4 to 10%) MSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight DOccasional bends MFrequent meander ?Very sinuous f lBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and. 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
't'otal Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
:k These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#`
DWQ#
__ . _. _ _ .
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch
7. Approximate drainage area: 28 ac.
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet
-V
2. Evaluator's name: Y'elverton. Hart
4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
6. River basin: French Broad
& Stream order:
10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N 182.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
#6 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 OTidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
O Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters M Nutrient Sensitive Waters aWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESF? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES[] NO®
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES[] NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 9' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: II Flat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) ?Moderate (4 to 10%) 0steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight f lOccasional bends ,Frequent meander IIVery sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
'T'otal Score (from reverse): 63 Comments:
Evaluator's
f?
1
Tate 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
CH
CTERIST
CS
R ECOREGION POINT RANGE
I
A
A SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)

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

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

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

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

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

21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 63
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
I L-L-'
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 17 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#5 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 QTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed _ (MV)
I& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YESn NON
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES? NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: ,% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) QSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight 00ccasional bends IIFrequent meander OVery sinuous OBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
'T'otal Score (from reverse): 56 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 7.?? '--? _..__...... _.. ._. Date 7/19/2005
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERI
TICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
S SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 1
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
p, (deeply entrenched = 0; fre uent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,F'
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F, no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

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

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 3
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 56
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAK QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the streams reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton. Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 32 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Fogr e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#4 (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossin
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: RSection 10 DTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
?Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters II Nutrient Sensitive Waters ElWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
I& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NOD
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOF1
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared / fogged Other (
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) f Gentle (2 to 4%) OModerate (4 to 10%) IISteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: F]Straight IIOccasional bends Frequent meander [,Very sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
't'otal Score (from reverse): 50 Comments:
]Evaluator's Signature .4

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

# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 0
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

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

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
i 1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

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

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

19 Substrate embeddeduess NA* 0-4 0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 T 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 50
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET )Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 18 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.3222956N / 82.6747052 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_ F=e Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#3 (see attached map,)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
fly. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of vi
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ?Section 10 IITidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
[(Trout Waters DOutstanding Resource Waters M Nutrient Sensitive Waters QWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESn NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES[] NOE]
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES? NO®
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial Agricultural
100% Forested Cleared / Logged Other (
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 40%) IIModerate (4 to 10%) OSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: OStraight 00ccasional bends IIFrequent meander OVery sinuous IIBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box. and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's

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

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
1
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
(extensive deposition-- 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA

0-4

0-5

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

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

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

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

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible ` 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
y
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 4 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.322295N/82.674705W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
#2 (see attached man) -
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rainy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 IITidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
13Trout Waters []Outstanding Resource Waters [3 Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES[] NOS If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES? NOM
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YESD NOS
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial Industrial ^% Agricultural
I00% Forested Cleared / Logged _% Other ( . )
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: DFlat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) IIModerate (4 to 10%) C1Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IRStraight []Occasional bends []Frequent meander OVery sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the continent section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 43 Comments:

]Evaluator's

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

# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
01 no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
,.., Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
6 no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 -
S

0-4

0-2

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

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

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

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

Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Fletcher Management Corporation 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton, Hart
3. Date of evaluation: 7/18/2005 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Osborne Branch 6. River basin: French Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 46 ac. 8. Stream order: first
9. Length of reach evaluated: 30 feet 10. County: Transylvania
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.322295N/82.674705W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Forge Cove
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_
#I (see attached map)
14. Proposed channel work (if any): road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: hot and rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 OTidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
[]Trout Waters []Outstanding Resource Waters [] Nutrient Sensitive Waters OWater Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES? NOE If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS -quad map? YES® NOR
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NOD
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial Industrial ._% Agricultural
100% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 7-10' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: []Flat (0 to 2%) OGentle (2 to 4%) []Moderate (4 to 10%) []Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: IIStraight Occasional bends IIFrequent meander [,Very sinuous OBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 58 Comments:
flute 7/19/2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

w. '.tl

Location 42 - Road Crossing where channel underground
Stream Quality Score 43 (in channel below this location)
Location 43 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 61
Location #5 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 56
Location 44 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 50
C.. R•.. }Y
Location #7 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 61
Location #6 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 63

a
, N17

Location #10 -Channel Flooding -- Stream Quality
WIN
Location #8 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 64
Location #11 - Road Crossing where channel underground
Stream Quality Score 26 (in channel below this location)
Location #12 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 37
Stream Quality Score 38
Location # 13 - Channel Flooding - Stream Quality Score 51
Location #14 - Road Crossing is above the endpoint of this channel
Location 415 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 35
Location #16 - Road Crossing - Stream Quality Score 49

.Location #17 - Channel Restoration - Stream Quality Score 20
(Straightened & Hardened Channel)
Pond below Location #17 - Channel Restoration (channel in pipe to right side of pond)
(Over 34011 in pipe and another 100+ otherwise impacted)
?P>2109 Y2.
t
art ;ii A\ I^
i
r ? 1,F8
I ?Q
I
CreCk
oll'I
'}. - - - `Mile ?, I rl/ / C1
i
_ _ r Mile_? •?
JI `
t; r Q??. / I,? t Mile
FI A
ooker
Fails
Laurel
BM Lq 67
Shee
LR 654 -Mountain\
r 2574
/PyG?titi ?? fl pe6G \\ w /
t I
10,
FORES p - 1 - _
Ali ?T Opp -
\\ - - .,.J
- BM A -4
1 - \\ ( - Chemical;
F-3
b RR-
6' W Cedar Rock {
Name: BREVARD Location: 035.2075733° N 082.6447553° W
Date: 11/7/2005 Caption: Cascade Lake Property
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
1997,
Fo rg e Cove
Conceptual "actor ®Iin
July 15, 2005
Lake Front
-Canoes
-Fishing Pier
-Picnic Area

I
x ?
I
I
-L
High Point P
-Fire Tower
-Trails
-Picnic Area
9 k_L51q 0 W, Lr-P=, DO
MAR R 2006
DENR - WAI L R QUALI fY
#ETlANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCF
Entrance Park
-Ponds/Waterfalls
-Remove all Existing
Ares
>rs at Entrance
p, & Greenwoys
Melee D-W, Group PA
1?m?e w?mmt?
F vswnmol Ds
irl
r ?
cem i
- 1-4
// n f \r I .t 1 ?J `1
i
I 'k,
??.,. r
.( 1
t /?? rY r\ S BM I R 657
USUS 2.20-1
/I l 2 9l4\ r.: 2222.
r -t 'RHO-..?,
\y
'i/ 'r v +? , I ,?? i? •Z HCIIp ZIn OSS~.D-? ?l _? _ _ -'"" grab
,'?• i ?. ?\\, ? f '•, - , `' Church ? ?_-- - - :.:_,,
i
U .c .I ??• J `'f/ - EK •?' -?Hoimc?:Statc''Forest
Nursery
•i! Frien;e Yctl i 1 .I
UFB 151 1
`2157 - - ice- i /;•
,reek-_ -
UM LR 669 /
2 1uF6 91 ZtzS
211. (rab - I - . , Je(rm Lake
-.. ?- I,• Q( -- /.?- / _ I ! ROAD
it
I c > / ?. i -c Sffaal Cre k 0/? \
t •:v - i' F Falls ?// ?
v V
Hickory
7Y
Z_~
1 f
P J
Ir,
l'The Flatwoods`
lie
Name: STANDINGSTONE MT
Date: 11/7/2005
Scale. 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Location: 035.2321896' N 082.5939303° W
Caption: Shoal Creek Farm 97. Maptech. Inc

G? Turk$Y
t r Khob i
J g JI" " J / ?` >
r ?. ?.
1 ?. 1 ,:JI V
Secareda
M??r7t \ Camp -l / lue.Ridge J? 4ti
41 Reasenoffer. Vi03 ,
J
Gilte ' 'IT Teen "River
15w) Gap Gre
-AN
ROAD J
a- 4
or-
i .
•. "\i \?\\`?-?,_- ? \J I Iii `\ ? `- "/\
an Mtn
-YO
Standin' 'to
- \ -= Mountair4
NES _. _
1 EE VAL t EY D1VIQ s`. ( G
y. -
Cl 1) O t Little Rich
vyQ' Mountain -=Guie ?rte ?U3ke.Sudy v
Z?A
oao Cam
G
o?Ftw? a -- \ R_- reenvi]16 5ymm s Chucai ! -
?+p? '?- -h'uinbmo FrsUA Wat:
A J,
1
r
1??0
?? ?,JtAR g : 24C?
6°W C-TARMMIER 5W\
Name: STANDINGSTONE MT
Date: 11/7/2005
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Location: 035.1477602° N 082.5919405° W
Caption: Taylor Property
nc.
Forge Cove Lake
Stream Restoration Plan
Transylvania County, North Carolina
March 3, 2006
Prepared by:

Executive Summary
The Developers of Forge Cove, Paul Fletcher and Robert Johnson, propose
this restoration plan as an outline to remove existing pipe on-site and to
restore the stream channel and adjacent riparian buffer areas. All work will
take place on site using natural channel design techniques. Proposed activities
will occur at one location on site. The plan, as outlined within this document,
serves as guidance for the proposed restoration and will serve as partial
mitigation for dam construction on site.
Restoration will be:
• removal of 345' of pipe from Long Branch stream channel
o removal of rip-rap from both ends of pipe
• restoration of 985' of same stream channel accounting for road
crossings of current pipe and current structures on property altering
natural stream f low
• allow natural unabated stream flow through channel
• creation of aquatic habitat using rock and large woody debris
• stabilization of stream bank with fine grading, if necessary
o addition of topsoil as necessary
• re-vegetation of stream banks as riparian buffers
o temporary and permanent seeding schedule as shown below
o plant list shown below
The restoration of the area will have oversight by WNR, Inc. staff to ensure
proper techniques and success, and to propose alterations during the
restoration process if necessary. Restoration success will be measured in
terms of stream aquatic life and stream buffer plant survival.
Construction Plan and Specifications
The restoration process will begin with the removal of the pipe, rip rap, and
any other stream implements. Any structures that stand in the way of the
natural stream channel will be removed at this time as well. All attempts will
be made to recreate the channel and stream bank slopes and angles as they
were on the site prior to disturbance.
At this point we will begin to harvest on site materials to be used in the
restoration process. Materials such as topsoil, vegetation, and rock will be
harvested on site during other construction activities from areas of similar
slope and aspect.
On site, natural rock will be used in the restoration of natural aquatic habitat
in the stream channel. Large woody debris also harvested on site will be used
as an amendment to the stream channel to create natural aquatic habitat.
Once the stream is restored focus will move on to the stream banks. Topsoil
harvested on site will be added to the stream banks at a minimum depth of six
inches. No soil amendments (fertilizer) will be added in order to keep the
system as natural as possible and to prevent any excess nutrient runoff into
the stream. Fine grading will be used when necessary to recreate side slopes
and micro-topography will be used for soil stabilization and to minimize
runoff.
Planting Plan and Specifications
The slopes will be planted with the appropriate species once the construction
is complete in order to recreate the natural riparian buffers that were once
there. Rosebay Rhododendron will be planted densely along the stream
channel to provide shade, woody debris, and to mimic the natural system
present on site. Rosebay Rhododendron and Dog-Hobble will be planted at a
dense ratio toward the outer edge of the stream buffer to minimize re-
colonization by invasive exotic species and mimic natural conditions on the
site. (A listing of species is found below, additional species may be selected
as needed, due to availability and site need.)
In the rest of the area, trees and shrubs will be mixed and the planting
arrangement will be on 10 X 10 foot spacing, which will result in 436 stems per
acre. Tree shelters may be used to accelerate growth and increase
survivability.
All permanent vegetation will be harvested on site to ensure they are suitable
native species. During other construction, vegetation from similar slope and
aspect will be harvested. This vegetation will be properly excavated and
prepared for transport in order to minimize damage and ensure survivability.
These plants will then be planted in the riparian buffer zone. The objective
will be to mimic most of the natural buffer that is on site, which is mainly
composed of shrubs and trees. However, winter rye will be used initially as a
temporary planting to aid with soil stabilization.
Planting ?Ncfflcations
All areas between shrubs/trees will receive 3" of mulch. The contractor will
assure percolation of all planting beds/pits prior to installation. Large trees
will be anchored into the ground with a'Duckbill' Model No. 88-DTS-0 earth
anchors or approved equal. Evergreen trees will be anchored with three
2"x2"x8' evenly spaced stakes and tied with recycled tire tree ties as
manufactured by Grostrait or approved equal to promote a straight growth
pattern and prevent wind impacts.
Woody Vegetation
Rhododendron maximum
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Tsuga canadensis
Liriodendron tulipifera
Fagusgrandifolia
Acer rubrum
Quercus rubra
Rosebay Rhododendron
Dog-Hobble
Eastern Hemlock
Tuliptree
American Beech
Red Maple
Red Oak
Herbaceous Vegetation
4.

a
Plant Material Specifications
Bare Root or Container (Herbaceous):
The plants will either be ordered as bare root or in 1-quart containers.
Plants will be planted immediately upon delivery. Plants will be stored in
shade and kept moist otherwise. Once planted, the specimens shall
appear healthy with no leaf spots, leaf damage, leaf discoloration,
chlorosis, leaf wilting or curling, or evidence of insects on leaves or
stems.
Balled and Bagged (Woody Plants):
The size of the earthen ball shall at least meet the minimum
requirements in the American Standard for Nursery Stock (1980).
Where plants are to be planted in saturated soils, the bagged root ball
shall have a surface diameter that is at least 2 of the diameter of the
un-pruned drip-line and a depth that is at least 8" per 5' of tree/shrub
height. The hole for the tree/shrub will be the rootball diameter plus
12" around the outer edge. The crown of the rootball will be placed 1"
above finish grade.
Plants will be planted immediately upon delivery. If this does not occur,
plants shall be stored in shade and root balls kept moist through
periodic watering until the time of planting. Once growing, the plants
shall appear healthy with no leaf spots, leaf damage, leaf discoloration,
chlorosis, leaf wilting or curling, or evidence of insects on leaves.
Container (Woody Plants):
The soil within the root ball shall be field capacity (1/3 atmosphere) or
wetter upon delivery to the job site. Any wilted, dry and/or
lightweight plants shall be rejected. Plants shall be planted
immediately upon delivery. If not then they must be stored in shade
and root balls kept moist through periodic watering until time of
planting.
The shrub species will be either 2' to Tor T to 4' in height. The tree
species will be 8' to 10' for the Red Maples and 7 minimum for the
Willow and Sycamores. Soil and root masses must at least meet the
minimum required container size. If soil/root masses are substantially
smaller, soil around the root mass is loose, indicating the plant has not
been in the container long enough to root itself, it shall be rejected.
If growing, plants shall appear healthy with, no leaf spots, leaf damage,
leaf discoloration, chlorosis, leaf wilting or curling, or evidence,of
insects on leaves.
For trees and shrubs, where spiraling woody roots exist on the outside
f the soil/root mass upon the removal of plants from the containers,
the landscape contractor shall separate (cutting where necessary) and
spread them out prior to planting.
Fertilization
Woody Vegetation-
Fall/Winter plantings-Use Osmocote 18-5-11, twelve to fourteen month
release fertilizer, to be placed in hole or in soil fill/amendment mix at
planting. Use grams (1 ounce) per 1-quart container, 90 grams (3 ounce)
per 1-gallon container (30 grams per each additional gallon). Use 15
grams (1 ounce) per un-rooted cutting for willow whips (if used).
Soil Amendments:
Soil amendments are required around tree and shrub plantings. The
amendments used should be leaf or pine bark compost at rates of one
part compost to one part soil (from planting hole). Fertilizer should be
mixed in with soil amendment mix. No surface mulch is required where
plants are planted at or near original grade, unless tree shelters are
used to promote growth and survival percentage. A 6" soil berm will be
constructed 12" from the outer edge of the rootbalI to hold water.

Potential Sources For Plant Material
Herbaceous Material:
Niche Gardens [phone]
1111 Dawson Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
We-Du Nurseries [phone]
Rt. 5, Box 724
Marion, NC 28752
Shrub Material:
Campbell's Nursery [phone]
2816 Campbell Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Cure Nursery [phone]
880 Buteo Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Fern Valley Farms [phone]
1624 Fern Valley Farm Road
Yadkinville, NC 27055
Tree Material:
NC Division of Forest Resources [phone]
Edwards Nursery
701 Sanford Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
Tree Shelters:
Treessentials Company [phone]
2371 Waters Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1163
\
\
-4509- ?7Q Sys
Forge Cove
Stream Restoration
48
1 \I \ 4¢0?/
I - 47,
4
43 Road
42
-
`--- ? 1 111
W ?
lP
Crossing will be Bridged
------ - ' ! i roposed Reach Of Stream Restoration
-- - 9 985 linear feet
? M 3e?
._ ? g a i 1 I \} J?
? i
s xisting Stream Channel
855 linear feet
(Red Sections are in pipe)
ae \ I
I
.. YSS \'I` ?` I
L
I
- ------
I' x0
111 \ - - >
O' I
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Y' I
To
2
t., 80
Legend
- - Property Boundary
Existing Stream
Existing Pipe
Restored Stream
?'? Proposed Road
. yI
.
L ii1
N I•j
!
II \ .?
v III 1 -t W
till
Ili' -`1, \ \\\ \\ ` Q)
1
I.P C)
--
Ilj?j
,
CL
09
\, - \\
11P
\\1 \ \\\-;' \\ - ?\ \1\-
III' \A \??1,\ \\\ll\%\\\'A'??1? ?V`\???1?\?AC, V J
t1,
III
Ili
Page 1 of 1
Subj: Aquatic 10+Data analysis
Date: 11/11!2005 10:47:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Ir;ul rC--- !_-,- ?UiwP..'=D-1 U,
To: WIN,R oc"'cC!.Ccrn, 11:`1Qi=a G0i.7T, ? N! - '?
Dear Ms. Robertson,
Attached are the data sheets for the 11 samples that I identified and analyzed.
Based on North Carolina Division of Water Quality bioassesment criteria, most sites were shown to have EPT
taxa scores of 7-19 and this range was categorized as Poor (sites 2, 3, 7 and 11), Fair (sites 1, 5, 6, 9 and 10),
and Good-Fair (sites 4 and 8).
All sites were shown to have Biotic Index scores of 1.4-2.4 and this range was categorized as Excellent.
Drunella conestee (Ephemeroptera), Parapsyche cardis, Psilotreta frontalis, and Rhyacophda nigrita (Trichoptera)
are mayfly and caddisfly species for which the tolerance values indicate that these are extremely sensitive
organisms; they were found at sites 4, 8 and 11.
The % abundance of Chironomid larvae at most sites was 0%, which is Excellent; however, sites 1, 6, and 10 had
more than 1.4% Chironomidae, suggesting little bit problems.
As a result, most of your sites were shown to have NC Biocriteria Scores ranging from 3.0-3.5. Streams with
Biocriteria Scores in this range are categorized as "Good-Fair."
I hope this is the kind of information that you can use. If you need more details or other information, please ask!
For purposes of compensation for my work, I spent 3 hours more for the data analysis.
Sincerely,
Junmi Hur
Ph. D candidate
Dept.of Entomology, Soils & Plant Sciences
Clemson University
114 Long Hail, Box 340315
Clemson, SC 29634-0315
Tel. [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Friday, November 11, 2005 America Online: WNRINC
JAN-31-2006 TUE 03:31 PM FLETCHER MANAGEMENT 00 FAX NO. 9042854157
WNI
Gansu tents, at ral Resource
DeparOcnent of ttie Army
Wl{mingm Dis cl1 corps of Erb
AM: Ken Jolley, Chief Regulatztry Division
PO Eklx 1090
Wllminoon, North Carolina 2f3g42'St
-and-
NC DMdon of Walter QualltV
Attn: Cyndl Km*
2321 CII&M Blvd-
lsilleigh, Worth CaroArm 276W2260
P. 02

1, the current lar* mer of the MV M iderMed bow, hereby autftarW WWand and Natural
to
Rewffm COnsylt r Im to ad an my bmW the US ? Dreg my apt du" ft pvcmrJng Of P4mb ed by the Goan Wdff Act and ft
Impact
Impact wetlantr and Waters Rivers and HIVI O S Ate.
Federal and S ago* are authorized to be on said property when oc companied by Wind
and Natural Rwxmce Qxwjbrft? W. staff.
Wet{altd and Nat>< W Regotm oxmAtm*j, kr. is and of the ONO or QpWoerf al
mT?arrnaaon neaded for permit: ptoceon9 at the request
property Owner of RWW'
'
Address: -rho, l'` e ri 3 62s y
Address:
Addr a ks v' )) 2STa
Phorm Number. o? 2.8 5 ~ (o
Property L= don:
owners Sgnature: V'1 asp Poevap,
Bate: ~' . 4
Uxam Umn Pty Boot 224
PO Box am rmrmc=m Nermn Nc 28m
cmmj, Nc 29716 8284"4M
020 448. OI 92t 4waoso ft
82&648 fax 1
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 325) OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
Searching existing data 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 (0710-003), 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 United 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 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. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not required)
Fletcher Management Company, Robert Johnson Jennifer Robertson, President
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
1548 The Greens Way, Suite 4 P.O. Box 882
Jacksonville, Florida 32250 Canton, NC 28716
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NUMBERS WITH AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NUMBERS WITH AREA CODE
a. Residence 904-704-3405 a. Residence 828-712-9205
b. Business 904-285-6921 b. Business 828-648-8801
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize Jennifer Robertson to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
See Agent Authorization Fore
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Forge Cave Lake
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Osborne Branch Sutton Creek Road
Brevard, NC

15. LOCATION OF PROJECT

?
Vg
D
Transylvania NC r,-.3 @
%
COUNTY STATE Z
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
Tax Pins: 9509-33-7673-000, 9509-40-4384-000, and 9508-59-1007-000
5cibBRAti?CH
VA" M
1
e
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Asheville off 1-40 merge onto 1-26 E/US-74 E via Exit 46A toward Hendersonville/Spartanburg, Go 9.2 miles, Take the
NC 280 exit #40 toward Asheville Regional Airport/Arden, At traffic light take right onto NC 280, Foilcw i\lC 280 VV for 12.5
miles, Turn right onto Sutton Creek Road, Go 0.3 miles and turn right into property at hairpin turn.
ENG FORM 4345 - ONLINE CESPK-CO-R
18. NATURE OF ACTIVITY (Description of project, include all features)
This site will be developed as a planned community with a 27 acre amenity lake that will support a reproducing population of
brook trout.
19. PROJECT PURPOSE (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The project will provide housing opportunities to the surrounding area and will provide an increased tax base to the county.
Impacts are necessary to construct the 27 acre lake.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. REASON(S) FOR DISCHARGE
Construction of Dam.
21. TYPE(S) OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS
Pipe and Rip-Rap will be placed within stream. Earthen fill will be placed above pipe. 1271382 (riffle/pool) for pipe and 21/62
(riffle/pool) for rip-rap.
22. SURFACE AREA IN ACRES OF WETLANDS OR OTHER WATERS FILLED (see instructions)
Estimated to be 0.65 acres of streams piped/rip-rapped for dam and flooded.
23. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? YES 0 NO IF YES, DESCRIBE THE WORK
24. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC. WHOSE PROPERTY ADJOINS THE WATERBODY (if more than
can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list)
See Attached List
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 NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood lain 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. I further certify that 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am
acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
3-(P-00
71-7
SI A RE OF AGENT DATE
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT RATE
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.
18 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 will fully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false,
facticious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any
false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 - ONLINE CESPK-CO-R
82.7000000° W 82.6666666° W 82.6333333° W
- H;- Cove 4 oun m
.- Sdwrrn m< /t\fJ\1 fork vineyard t,?P x 1 W
GaP ' _ a'3 GaP OJ V ?'k _ ' (.?dau'
Jim G,p,
E \ l\ P TrNeyPan Ta h \\
GeP F Q R? Mountain
S G* JA ?G 'A 'M F. I, A N w I) S / \ 1
•GaP fg?' _ Z
M ?? o
Cl)
ltj ':.Mountain ,, _ Lr)
Sandy GaP M
? Poplar Lich W go 'Read / a
'Deep GaP
Muleshoe `.1 I ?'??' ! \` o
H N A T I 0 N A I, 1?`\ F %0 R E S T
Horoe Knob ??--
' ` GaP ne` .?i\\ ? it I4•..I.i ?In?k ?? / ?; - \?
aPSaley ed ; 4' • 1. l1\, }y.o , `\
Knob ry 1 // = 3 Sutton Knob `'\ F .. `\ l4syk \
I _
Hickory ?/Q !. _ a r, i lJttle ' .1 V ^ (l l O
\ t? Mo Main t L ^ ? ti ?/(
70 \z
v? - I 1 o
\ y - ? / Meuntem -
f, 1
?' ` /< \ \ l'_ eauard GaP
t' II
Mwbnta n I l f Aoederstack Mtn /
- ? .. nob \ ftr - / b,rY I'rn r /, ?H/rrde ?? /,.
' d 8!/•-0('a < H d ?..? \\ Enon •--?` ( VIII
?" .. GaP ... / .. \\ M-W. ? . .u .. /• •
-LJ
High
in
O ?$ \
CD -..'? ..A?,• 1.. .. \ ?_ al' Map D.t _ ? ''i
N _ / \\ i i ,..r ref - N jil
C1i - - /
Lf)
l a \\ y,?1,.?' 211 ` t Cl)
i n. ? "fr{ i - A
yl;\11 Ito
IWK,
6'W 'ate
82.7004000° W 82.6666666° W 82.6333333° W
Name: PISGAH FOREST Location: 035.3011179° N 082.6752691° W
Date: 12/15/2005 Caption: Forge Cove
Scale: 1 inch equals 4000 feet Transylvania County, NC
r
z r
z
z
82.683333° W 82.6750000° IW 82.6666666° W
I
?K-3?. -? IMountaar
Sandy £ap
.r? 1 i ?4 ??? \? ! ? f Ali I? `?_\ ?.. ,??• .J ' ? / ,?? 1 ?;
r•
Gap/
17
04
N, J
%
:o ti
%
0; to
\ 1` ` r_
1 \ \ ?\ \? \ \ ??ya • ` fl
ol,
'Kno
Cl)
1 r 1 1` l `D
Lr)
Name: PISGAH FOREST
Date: 12/15/2005
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet
Location: 035.3199741' N 082.6765631' W
Caption: Forge Cove
Transylvania County, NC
(, l? t?t.Y1S t?a? tom,'` ow
ifnr. ?
AhG LM,f 1 /
F ?_JCrF
A c!?4-mot _ I:,, -_' - •, . '-I/r!. ???^ 1-? _\ \ti. __ 1?• ?? [
N-F
-jt
`-. CeG
X . ? S'J: ?. P \ ? J ':. i f 111 ?' ?' M/ >,•? ? ?.
n:n \ /v,
Tuh
C?/ nn
' Al
' ? t:r i. .. _ v..,f _ . _ .__- l i ? ?. _ / 1'uf r '?? \ -?" '? Tn 1•?.f_
CH,
CIf
l r.lr.
G1 E
4 1 J J \+ - r
_ ... \. l? fSvL ? ;? \' /,? ? !tom ? •/
ApF
Pvf ?1 _ ? \ \ A r - \ C-
A,Wa
AuA
Alit:
BvY
_? E
Ovr;
AlA
\ I i" lJ (` :- 1 •.f" tl \ //11 I /' Ta`
\J / . {{II
C f, de. Uv1i 'IF
nht: C'hr I'f'_ -
h J /
1E i
N -n T 1 n N r: o f
'•?' `l' \ `fit ??e?a?? is'j I ¢'- ` r ? /-_
1
U,F
•i --.-•- _F?l t'--1r r? i xy !/ir'r ?'` / I ( TcC / I .,'r< :.,w, //
Transylvania County, N ?`° `°', Sul
M A?
r}t ?,a?,?,L'? Vjur,Crk±
J
y a w..
xr,
f _Z s r.,
J T x _ 47

I w f r rytF 5:
t s r•
%
-'
t I•

40
4
, .

^?Y fff' l J ?I
(t l
r
rF_ 2
DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this page is NOT to be construed or used as a "legal
description". Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.
http://www.webgis.net Anderson & Associates, Inc. httpl/www.andassoc.com
Transylvania County, NC
T,
cic
MAR 8 2006
DENK - WNi tK UUr - I Y
WETLANDS ANDS' O9MWATER BRANCH
DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this page is NOT to be construed or used as a "legal
description". Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed-
http:/ANww.webgis.net Anderson & Associates, Inc. http://www.andassoc.com
Forge Cove
Transylvania County, NC
PIN numbers:
1. 9509-33-7673-000
2. 9509-40-4384-000
3. 9508-59-1007-000
WebGIS.net
quicksearch Transylvania County, North Carolina
Parcels: Record Details
Pin: 9509-33-7673-000
Owner Name: WINCHESTER ALAN W ET AL
Address: 8520 VALLEY BROOK DR
City: RALEIGH
State: NC
Zip: 27612-1127
County ID: T451 00001 01
Fire District: FR09
Use Code: 0120
Sale Date: 200305
Sale Price: 0
Num. Units: 353.36
Unit Type: AC
Township: 01
Deed Book: 00162
Deed Page: 0272
Sale Inst: QC
Sale Imp: V
Zoning:
Land Value: 1113080
Bldg Value: 0
Year Built: 0
XFOB Value: 0
Assessed Value: 87630
Legal Address: NW OF 1362
Disclaimer:
The information contained on this site is furnished by
government and private industry sources and is
believed to be accurate but accuracy is not
guaranteed. Mapping information is a representation
of various data sources and is not a subsitute for
information that would result from an accurate land
survey. The information contained hereon does not
replace information that may be obtained by
consulting the information's official source. In no
event shall Transylvania County, NC or the
consultants of Transylvania County, NC be liable for
any damages, direct or consequential, from the use
of the information contained on this site.
The WebGIS.net logo is a Registered Trademark of Anderson & Associates, Inc.
This site is best viewed in a modern browser that supports web standards.
Questions, comments or problems? Contact WebGIS Technical Support.

MAR 9 200
L LR: Ii't - VVA{ ER QU,r,
WE f LANDS AND STORUWATER' t ;; Nvvff
WebGIS.net
quicksearch
Transylvania County, North Carolina
Parcels: Record Details
Pin:
Owner Name:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
County ID:
Fire District:
Use Code:
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Num. Units:
Unit Type:
Township:
Deed Book:
Deed Page:
Sale Inst:
Sale Imp:
Zoning:
Land Value:
Bldg Value:
Year Built:
XFOB Value:
Assessed Value:
Legal Address:
9509-40-4384-000
JONES RICHARD E
P O BOX 1153
BREVARD
NC
28712
T452 00023 01
FR09
0120
200503
0
61.49
AC
01
00277
0144
CD
I
510370
76490
1963
13100
123330
SR 1362
Disclaimer:
The information contained on this site is furnished by
government and private industry sources and is
believed to be accurate but accuracy is not
guaranteed. Mapping information is a representation
of various data sources and is not a subsitute for
information that would result from an accurate land
survey. The information contained hereon does not
replace information that may be obtained by
consulting the information's official source. In no
event shall Transylvania County, NC or the
consultants of Transylvania County, NC be liable for
any damages, direct or consequential, from the use
of the information contained on this site.
The WebGIS.net logo is a Registered Trademark of Anderson & Associates, Inc.
This site is best viewed in a modern browser that supports web standards.
Questions, comments or problems? Contact WebGIS Technical Support.
WebGIS.net
quicksearch Transylvania County, North Carolina
Parcels: Record Details
Pin: 9508-59-1007-000
Owner Name: CLARK JAMES WALTER
Address: 17 DEERWOODE LN
City: BREVARD
State: NC
Zip: 28712
County ID: T452 00022 01
Fire District: FR09
Use Code: 0120
Safe Date:
Sale Price: 0
Num. Units: 2.80
Unit Type: AC
Township: 01
Deed Book:
Deed Page:
Sale Inst:
Sale Imp:
Zoning:
Land Value: 26600
Bldg Value: 0
Year Built: 0
XFOB Value: 0
Assessed Value: 26600
Legal Address: S R 1362
%ti
INDEXED
ON 2.8 Al
9508.02
1007
ss
w
a
4> INDEXED ON
9508.02
Disclaimer:
The information contained on this site is furnished by
government and private industry sources and is
believed to be accurate but accuracy is not
guaranteed. Mapping information is a representation
of various data sources and is not a subsitute for
information that would result from an accurate land
survey. The information contained hereon does not
replace information that may be obtained by
consulting the information's official source. In no
event shall Transylvania County, NC or the
consultants of Transylvania County, NC be liable for
any damages, direct or consequential, from the use
of the information contained on this site.
The WebGIS.net logo is a Registered Trademark of Anderson & Associates, Inc.
This site is best viewed in a modern browser that supports web standards.
Questions, comments or problems? Contact WebGIS Technical Support.
irections to Fors Cove Pro eM
From Asheville off of I-40, merge onto I-26 ENS -74 E via
Exit 46A toward Hendersonville/Spartanburg.
® Go 9.2 miles.
® Take the NC-280 exit #40 toward Asheville Regional
Tolerance Values
Tolerance values were taken from NCDWQ Master fist of Bentbic Macroinvertebrates
'laxa without values were not used in calculation of the biotic index
Funtional Feeding Designations
PA Parasite CF Collectorifilter
PR Predator SC Scraper
OM Omnivore SH Shredder
CG Collector/gatherer PI Piercer
HabitiBehavior Designations
cn clinger sw swimmer
cb climber dv diver
sp sprawier sk skater
bu burrower
semi agaubc, taxa not used in final evaluation results

Tolerance
Values Functional
Feeding
Designations Habitt
Behavior
Designations

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
Phylum Arthropoda
Class Crustacea
Order Decapoda
s. 1 1
Cambaridas
Cambarus . 7.6 CG 1 9
Class Ott ochasta
sp. 1

Class Insecta
Order Collembola
Entomo idae
s p. CG s 4

Order E hemerora
Baetidae
eaetis s p. CG sw 1 3 4

E hemerelfidae
E io hells . CG cnisp 1
Drunelta conestee 0 SC cnt 2 2 9

H eniidae
E rus dispar 1 CG cn 2
Epecrus sp. 1.3 CG cn 1
Stenonema carisoni 2.1 CG cn 1
Stenonsma terminatum 4.1 CG cn 9 1 6 3 2 9 5 3 11 12 10
Stenonema s. CG cn 4 6 7 2 4 3

Le to hlebiidae
Para) to lebia sp. 0.9 CG sw 1
sp. CG sw 1 3

Ison iidas
I is . 3.5 CF sw 1 1 13 5 10 8

Order Odonato
Cordul tridae
Cordul asters . 5.7 PR bu 1 2 1 3 1 12 1 8

Gom hidae
Lanthus s. 1.8 PR bu 1 3 3 5 1 5 5 9 1 8
s p. PR bu 1

Order Pleco tera
Pterona idae
Pterona s p. 1.7 SH cn I 3 1

Peito idae
Tall eria s p. 1.2 SH an 14 2 21 15 9 47 3 69 41 i 57 69

Pertodidae
Madirekus hastatus 1.2 PR cn 3 1 1
Yu us s p. 0 PR cn 2 1
s. PR cn 9 6 1 19 7 16 11
t
Leuctridae

Leuctra sp.
2.5
SH
s
6
4 G 3
96
15
3

4

4

10

Nemouridae
Am hinemura s p. 3.3 SH 5

Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 PR cn 3
Acroneuria arenose 2.3 PR cn 4
Acroneuria s p. PR cn 1 1 2
Ecao tuna xanthenes 3.7 PR cn 2 2 2 2 2
sp. PR cn 9 1 4 1 1 2

Order Megalopetra
Corydalidae
Ni nia fasciatus 5.6 PR an 2 1 1 2 1 1
Ni nia s p. PR cn 1

Order TrIchoptera
Sericostomatidae
Fatti is ele 0.9 SH (?) s ? 2 1

Philo otamidae
Wonnaldia s p. 0.7 FC cn 1 2
Dolo hilodes s p. 0.8 FC on 1 4 1

Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma s. 1.6 Sc I cn 2 2 9

Le idostomatidae
Le idostoms s. SH cb 3 1 1 1 1 2 1

Limns hildae
sp. SH cb 1

H romchidae
Diplectrona modesta
2.2
FC
cn
12
11
11
16
21
16
21
34
49
16
26
Paraps the cardis 0 FC en 11 9 1

Ps chom iidae
Lype diverse 4.1 SC cn 1

Odontoceridae
Psilotreta frontalis 0 SC sp 1 1 2

Rh acophilidae
Rhyacophila fuscula 1.9 PR cn 4 1
Rh co hila ni rita 0 PR cn 1 9

Order L ido tera
Crambidae
Crambus s p. SH bu 1

Order Coleo tera
Ps henidae
Edo ria . Sc cn 2

Order Di tera
Chironomidne
Micro sedra s p. 1.5 GC cb 1
Parametriocnemus s p. GC sp 2
Pol dilum avice s 3.7 SH cb 9
PI ittia fimbriatta 1
s. 2

Dixidae
Dixa s p. 2.6 GC sw 1 9

Ti ulidae
Hexatoma s p. 4.3 PR bu 3 1 1
Limno hila s p. PR bu 1
Ti ula s. 7.3 SH bu 1 5 9 1 2 1 4
Pedicia s p. PR bu 1

Simuliidae
Simulium s. 6 FC en 1 3

Total 70 , 38 , 63 106 70 139 148

g
Site Number

Biotic index - Mountain
score 1.9 2.4 2.3 1.4 2. 1.9 8 2.2 1.8
>7.0 = Poor value E E E E E E E E E E E
5.75-7.00 = Fair 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4.895.74 = Good-Fair
4.064.88 = Good
<4.05 = Excellent
EPT Taxa - Mountain
score 12 8 7 19 12 13 8 19 12 14 9
0-10 = Poor value F P P G-F F F P G-F F F P
-11-18=Fair 1.6 1 1 2 1.6 1.6 1 2 1.6 2 1
19-27 = Good-Fair
Iaat = r-.,...r
>35 = Excellet

Final Bloclassification
score 3.3 3 3 U 3.3 3.3 3 3.5 3.3 3.5 3
Bfocriteria -Mountain value G-F G-F G-F G-F G-F G4F G-F G-F G-F G-F G-F
1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good-Fair
4 - Good
5 = Excellent

ategory

etric

efinition Predicted
response to
increasing
erhwbadon

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1
Richness
measure Total No. taxa Measures the overall variety of the
macroinvertebrete assemblage Decrease 18 18 12 22 16 18 12 26 16 19 12
No. EPT taxa Number of twm in the insect orders
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Decrease 12 8 7 19 12 13 8 19 12 14 9
and Trich tera caddisfl'ies
No. Ephemeroptera taxa Number of mayfly texe (usually genus or species
level Decrease 4 1 2 6 4 4 2 6 2 3 2
No. Plecoptera taxa Number of stonefly taxa (usually genus or species
level Decrease 4 3 4 7 6 6 4 7 7 4 5
No. Trichoptera taxa Number of caddisfly taxa (usually genus or species
level Decrease 4 4 1 6 2 3 2 6 3 7 2
No. Diptera taxa Number of "true" taxa which includes midges Decrease 4 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 0
No. Chironomidae taxa Number of taxe of chironomid (midge) larva Decrease 2 1 2
--
No. Pteronarcys sp. The presence or absence of a Ion ived atonally Decrease 1 1
genus 23 year life cycle)
Total No. Individuals Measures the overall abundance of o isms identifi Variable? 70 38 63 106 70 139 58 202 139 133 148
Composition
measures % EPT Percent of the composition of mayfly, stonef y,
and caddisfllarvae Decrease 91 61 81 91 81 82 84 Si 88 87 89
% E hemeroptera Percentage of mayfly nymphs Decrease 17 2.6 11 13 14 23 12 9.9 15 17 7.4
% P era
% Tricho era Percentage of stoned nymphs
Percentage of caddisfl larvae Decrease
Decrease 49
26 18
39 52
17 47
31 33
36 55
13 34
38 50
24 42
38 59
17 63
18
% Di tern Percent of all "true" fl larvae increase 5.7 13 11 2.8 13 2.2 13.4 1 4 2.9 3 0
% Chironomidea Percent of mid a larva Increase 2.9 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 2.3 0
% Corbicula Percent of asistic clam in the benthic assemble Increase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Oli ochaeta Percent of aquatic worms Variable 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

i
Osborne Branch Brook -trout Survey
Mike LaVoie and Charles Lawson
Western Carolina University
Department of Biology
132 (Natural Science Building
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723
Methods and Site Descriptions:
Brook trout were sampled from Osborne Branch and its tributaries (Pisgah Forest Quad)
on 1011105 and 10/2/05 with a backpack electro-fishing unit in order to determine their
distribution throughout the watershed. Relative abundance estimates were also obtained
from a single electro-fishing pass of four 100 meter reaches in the main stem of Osborne
Branch. Site 1 consisted of a 100 meter reach beginning 1.3 meters downstream of flag
C7. Site 2 consisted of a 100 meter reach ending at flag C-32. Site 3 consisted of a 100
meter reach ending at the confluence of the mainstem (C) and tributary H. Site 4
consisted of a 100 meter reach ending at flag l Of3. The wetted stream area sampled was
calculated at each site in order to estimate brook trout densities. Water temperature,
conductivity, and dissolved oxygen were measured with a YSI meter at six main-stem
sites and nine tributary sites within the Osborne Branch watershed.
Results and Discussion:
Brook trout were the only fish found throughout the main stem (C) of Osborne Branch.
Their range ended 3.7 meters downstream of flag C-105. No brook trout were found in
any of the tributaries throughout the Osborne Branch watershed. Their absence is
attributed to low water conditions and the lack of suitable habitat. Brook trout may
utilize these tributaries on a seasonal basis when conditions permit.
A total of 42 brook trout were collected from the four 100 meter Osborne Branch
sampling sites. These samples consisted of 29 (69%) adult and juvenile brook trout and
13 (31 %) age-0 brook trout (Table 2). The presence of multiple year classes suggests a
robust self sustaining population. (Mean density of brook trout in Osborne Branch was
estimated as .041 fish / e of wetted stream. It must be stated that these abundance
estimates (Table 2), obtained from a single pass without barriers to immigration and
emigration, are conservative and not an accurate estimate of population size. In order to
obtain an accurate measure of population size a more intensive sampling procedure, such
as a three-pass depletion estimate, would be required.
The mean temperature of Osborne Branch and its tributaries on 10101105 and 10/02/05
was 14.3 °C (Table 1). Mean dissolved oxygen and conductivity was 7.56 mg/I, and 9.2
microSiemens respectively (Table 1).
Table 1: Osborne Branch water quality data
Site Date and Time Temperature Dissolved Conductivity
Collected (°C) Oxygen (mg/L) (microSiemens)
C-14 (Site 1) 10/1/2005 - 10:58 13.5 6.66 10.6
C-40 (Site 2) 10/1/2005 -14:34 14.4 7.65 10.8
C-65 (Site 3) 10/2/2005 -10:39 14.2 7.73 7.1
C-85 (Site 4) 10/2/2005 -13:45 14.3 8.01 11.3
C-104 (Last bt found) 10/2/2005 -15:20 14.4 7.89 10.1
C-142 10/2/2005 -15:05 14.5 7.54 11.4
S-7 10/1/2005 -12:55 15.8 7.47 10.1
F-14 10/1/2005 -14:50 14.5 7.68 10.1
G-40 10/1/2005 - 16:14 14.7 7.31 8.7
G-16 10/1/2005 - 18:02 13.6 7.74 8.2
3G-1 10/1/2005 -17:55. 14 6.68 9.7
H tributary 10/2/2005 -10:50 13.6 7.74 7.1
51 tributary 10/2/2005 -14:06 14.1 7.63 10.8
J tributary 10/2/2005 -15:48 15.1 7.77 2.2
K tributary 10/2/2005 -16:20 14 7.83 9.6
Mean: 14.3 7.56 9.2
Table 2: Osborne Branch Brook Trout population estimates for four 100 meter reaches
site Wetted Area Adult and Juvenile Adult and Juvenile Young of the Year Young of the Year
Area (ma) Total (# of fish) Density (# of fish/m2) Total (# of fish) Density (# of fish/ma)
1 376 14 0.037 4 0.011
2 231 4 0.017 2 0.009
3 214 6 0.028 3 0.014
4 202 5 0.024 4 0.02
Mean: 256 7 0.027 3 0.014
Osborne Branch Brook "rout Survey (addendum)
Mike LaVoie and Wes Corneilson
Department of Biology
932 Natural Science Building
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723
Methods:
Brook trout were sampled from the lower main stem (C) of Osborne Branch and two
small tributaries (Pisgah Forest Quad.) on 11/2/05 with a backpack electro-fishing unit in
order to determine their distribution.
Results and Discussion:
Brook trout were the only fish found throughout the remainder of the main stem (C) of
Osborne Branch. 'heir range extended to the property boundary. No brook trout were
found in the two tributaries sampled below the proposed dam site. Their absence is
attributed to low water conditions and the lack of suitable habitat. Approximately 150
meters of stream was sampled downstream of the property line. Brook trout were the
only fish present in this reach. Additionally, no significant barriers to upstream migration
were found in this section of the stream.
Brook. Trout Genetics Report for
Osbourne Branch, Transylvania County, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Dike LaVoie and
Wes Cornelison
Blue Ridge Fisheries
1198 Walker Road
Waynesville, NC 28786
828-400-4163
Introduction
The brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis is the only salmonid species native to the
southern Appalachian Mountains (Ding 1937; Lennon 1967). Its original range in streams
and rivers extended from about 2,000 feet elevation, upstream to the headwaters (Lennon
1967). Following the turn of the 20th century, the brook trout's original range became
significantly reduced resulting in wild populations now being restricted to headwater
streams. The reduction in range can be attributed to a number of environmental
disturbances associated with logging, road and railroad construction, frequent fires, and
harmful fishing practices. In addition, state and federal agencies, as well as private
companies, initiated stream stocking programs to supplement the sport fishery with two
exotic salmonid species: rainbow trout ®nchorynchus mykiss and brown trout Salmo
truua. These stream supplementation programs also included the stocking of hatchery-
reared brook trout from the northeastern United States, specifically Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania and Berlin, New Hampshire fish hatchery's (McCracken et al. 1993).
Attempts to culture native southern brook trout in local hatcheries were unsuccessful (PF
Galbreath, personal communication). To an undetermined extent, these hatchery-derived
fish have established populations or interbred with wild brook trout in southern
Appalachian streams (Lennon 1967; Kreigler et al. 1995).
Decent research, however, indicates that brook trout native to the southern
Appalachians represent a distinct meta-population or strain relative to populations from
the northern portion of its range. Fishery managers and fisherman have long suspected
phylogenetic differences to exist between northern hatchery-derived brook trout and
brook trout native to the southern Appalachians (King 1937; Lenon 1967; Stoneking et al.
1981). Local lore suggests the term "speckled" trout originated from local anglers
differentiating native from stocked brook trout. Lennon (1967) found that New England
strain brook trout were less hardy than the native southern Appalachian strain in softer
waters. He identified specific differences among the southern Appalachian and northern
Appalachian brook trout including size, age, fecundity and morphology and concluded
the two strains were different at either a specific or sub-specific level.
The development of protein electrophoresis in the late 1960's and early 1970's
gave scientists and researchers a diagnostic tool for strain differentiation within a species.
Protein electrophoretic studies demonstrated that native southern Appalachian and
northern hatchery-derived wild populations of brook trout are fixed for alternative alleles
at the creatine kinase A2* (CK-A2*) locus and show significant allele frequency
heterogeneity between strains at an additional 10 of 11 polymorphic loci (Stoneking et al
1981; McCracken et al 1993; Kreigler et al. 1995; Guffey 1998). The differences
observed in these studies are indicative of a substantial divergence within the species and
are of a magnitude consistent with sub-specific differentiation recognized among other
salmonids (Stoneking et al. 1981; McCracken et al 1993; Kriegler et al. 1995; Guffey
1998). Results of this research have identified wild brook trout populations as being: 1)
unaltered native southern Appalachian brook trout versus 2) purely northern-hatchery
derived origin or 3) mixed genetic origin, the result of interbreeding between the two
strains (McCraken et al. 1993; Guffey 1998).
Methods
On October 4th, 2005, 20 brook trout were collected from Osbourne Branch,
Transylvania County, NO between flag C-7 and the confluence of C and tributary F using
backpack electroshockers. Two samples of dorsal muscle tissue were collected non-
lethally using a 18-gauge Monopty Biopsy Instrument (C.R. Bard, Inc., Covington,
Georgia). For each site, therefore, two sample sets. , were obtained, one for initial
laboratory analysis and a second for re-analysis if necessary. Tissues were placed in
separate labeled microcentrifuge tubes, frozen over dry ice, transported to Western
Carolina University (WCU), and stored at -70° C in an ultra-cold freezer..
Samples were later thawed and analyzed by cellulose acetate gel protein
electrophoresis for the creatine kinase enzyme according to those procedures described
by Hebert and Beaton (1993). Nomenclature was from that of Stoneking et al. (1981) and
McCracken et al. (1993). All enzymes were electrophoresed in tris-glycine buffer
adjusted to pH 8.0 - 8.2 and run times were 25-minutes per 10 fish. Optimal resolution
was obtained after the boundary had migrated about 5 cm beyond on the origin. Specific
staining procedures for CIS activity followed those described by Duffey (1998). The CIS
allele was assigned numbers (100,78) reflecting its relative mobility (distance traveled on
the gel) with the largest number indicating the furthest migration on the gel. Allele
frequencies were calculated for the CIS-A2 locus based on the number of resolved
samples within each sample set. Genetic origin determinations were based on allele
frequencies for creatine kinase: 100% CIS-A2* 100 = native Southern Appalachian strain,
100% CK-A2*78 = northern hatchery-derived strain, and presence of both CK-A2*100
and CK-A2*78 = mixed genetic origin.
Results
Our results indicate the southern CK 100/100 allele is present in the population
however, hybridization has occurred between northern and southern strain brook trout
resulting in a population containing both homozygous (100/100) and heterozygous
(78/100) individuals (Tables 1 and 2). Six individuals were of southern origin, and the
retraining fourteen were of mixed genetic origin. No pure northern fish were present in
the population.
Table 1. Electrophoresis results for the CK-A2 locus for fish 1-10 and 1 known standard (4).
CK 1 2 3 4* 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
100 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
78 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Table 2. Electrophoresis results for the CK-A2 locus for fish 11-20 and 1 known standard (17).
CK 11 12 13 14 15 16 17* 18 19 20 21

100 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

78 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
* Known northern brook trout standard.
The allele frequencies of the prescribed allele among the 20 individuals collected were
determined to be:
CK100: 0.65
CK 78: 0.35
This is simply the proportion of all alleles at the CK-A2 locus that are of the prescribed
type: 100, 78 (numbers reflect relative mobility).
Discussion
Given previous levels of stocking and transplantation and the relatively long
history of human habitation in this region, there was concern that native southern
Appalachian brook trout allele might not be present in Osbourn Branch. The frequency
of the CK 1001100 allele in this population (65%) is consistent with similar studies
performed here in southern Appalachia (Kreigler 1995;Guffey 1990. These population
genetic studies have shown that the majority of wild brook trout populations in western
North Carolina are descendents from mixed stocks and the genetic composition of many
of these mixed populations is predominantly the CK-A2* 100 allele. This high degree of
establishment of the native southern Appalachian CK-A2* 100 allele indicates a large
portion of wild brook trout populations in North Carolina are entirely or predominantly
descended from native stocks.
In an effort to preserve rare alleles, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is currently creating a trout species distribution database for
western North Carolina to determine the genetic origin of all wild brook trout
populations. The information from this study is valuable in the sense that large gaps still
exists for trout species distribution on private lands in western North Carolina. Filling
these gaps will give fishery managers the information they need to properly manage
southern Appalachian brook trout.
Literature Cited
Bivens RD, Strange RJ, Peterson DC. 1985. Current distribution of the native brook
trout in the Appalachian region. Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of
Science 60:101-105.
Flebbe PA. 1994. A regional view of the margin: salmonid abundance and distribution
in the southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:657-667.
Guffey SZ. 1998. A population genetics study of Southern Appalachian brook trout.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Kelley GA, Griffith JS, Jones RD. 1980. Changes in the distribution of trout in the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. 1900-1977. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Technical Paper 102. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
King W. 1937. Notes on the distribution of native speckled and rainbow trout in the
streams at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Jowl of the Tennessee
Academy of Science 12:351-361.
Kreigler FJ, McCracken GF, Flabera JW, Strange RJ. 1995. Genetic characterization of
Tennessee brook trout populations and associated management implications.
North America Journal of Fisheries Management 15:804-813.
Kmeger CC, May B. 1991. Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid introductions in
North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 66-77.
Lennon RE. 1967. Brook Trout of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S.
Bureau of Sport Fish Technical Paper 15. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
McCracken GF, Parker CR, Guffey SZ. 1993. Genetic differentiation and hybridization
between stocked hatchery and native brook trout in Great. Smoky Mountains
National Park. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 122:533-542.
Stoneking MD, Wagner DJ, Hildebrand AC. 1981. Genetic evidence suggesting
subspecific differences between northern and southern populations of brook trout.
Copeia 1981: 810-819.