20181031 Ver 1_Mit Plan Final 20201113_20201130

MITIGATION PLAN
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Buncombe County, North Carolina
DMS Project Number 100066
DEQ Contract 7534
USACE AID #: SAW-2018-01168
NC DWR#: 20181031 v1
FULL -DELIVERY PROJECT
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010105
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
November 13, 2020
Prepared by:
KC1 1
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
KCI Project Staff.• Alex French, Kristin Knight -Meng, Tim Morris,
Tommy Seelinger, Adam Spiller, and Joe Sullivan
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through
(c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.

ISO 9001.201 S CERTIFIED
�- ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
KCI4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Date: November 13, 2020
To: Kim Browning, USACE
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Mitigation Plan Review — Response to IRT Comments
French Broad River Basin - 06010105
Buncombe County, North Carolina
DEQ Contract No. #7534
DMS Project #100066
USACE AID #: SAW-2018-1031 v1
Below are our responses to IRT comments received on the mitigation plan for the Round Hill Branch
Restoration Site. All of the following changes have been completed in the final mitigation plan. Please
contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. For future consideration, it is helpful when all Figures are located in one appendix, rather than
scattered throughout the document. Additionally, the mitigation plan is typically located at the front
of the document, with the drawings and appendices located at the back. This may have just been an
issue with the hard copy.
We will locate all figures in the appendices in our upcoming mitigation plans under development.
Yes, that was an error with the hard copy with the switch in order.
2. Section 4, Credit Release Schedule: The IRT will review the Record Drawing/As-Built reports according
to the 2008 Mitigation Rule's streamlined review process prior to approving the initial credit release.
Please alter the statement regarding credits being released by DMS without prior written approval of
the DE.
We have made the following change (underlined): "The initial allocation of released credits, as
specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by the NCDMS upon approval by the DE following
satisfactory completion of the following activities:
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE WWW.KCI.COM

3. It would have provided more functional uplift to the entire system to move the crossing on RHB near
the barn out of the existing wetland.
This was the existing crossing location used by the landowner and they are only planning on using
it occasionally. We do expect the footprint of the wetlands to increase in that area based on the
stream design.
4. For future projects, it is recommended to set the conservation easement back at least 30-50 feet
from roads and road culverts to prevent future potential encroachments. It's difficult to discern if
that's what the Easement Exceptions are on Figure 10.
We will keep this in mind for future projects when adjoining public roads. The two easement
exceptions within the project are 20" and 6W-wide for the upstream and downstream crossings,
respectively. We have included the widths of the easement exceptions in Section 6.4 of the
mitigation plan.
5. There is a lot of proposed channel to be filled. Please explain how a channel plug with a rock core
will function to plug the old channel?
The channel block detail was inadvertently included in the plans and has been removed. We will use
earthen plugs compacted in lifts to fill the old channel.
6. Tables 14 & 15: 1 appreciate the inclusion of wetland status in these tables.
7. Section 6.9: Please include planting dates.
In the second paragraph of Section 6.9, it states woody vegetation planting will be conducted during
dormancy and will occur before March 15. We added that the growing season ends November 8`n
(according to NRCS WETS table for Asheville). This project is anticipated to be planted during the
dormant season of 2021-2022.
8. Page 31: Volunteers will only be counted towards success if they are on the approved planting list. If
you anticipate that the additional species listed in Table 15 will establish on -site, I suggest adding
some of these species to your planting list, as availability allows. This applies to the Vegetation
Performance standard as well. Volunteers will only be counted if listed in the approved Table 14
planting list.
We have removed the volunteer list (Table 15) and altered the planting plan to include additional
species per this comment and others from IRT members.
9. Page 34: Stream Hydrologic Performance for intermittent streams should be 30-days continuous
flow, at a minimum. Perennial streams are expected to have nearly continuous flow.
We changed this section to read (changes underlined): "The intermittent project streams T1 and
T2 must also show a minimum of 30 continuous flow days within each calendar year (assuming
normal precipitation); Round Hill Branch, a perennial stream, is anticipated to have nearly
continuous flow in a normal year."
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xci.coM

10. Figure 10: Please also include photo points at the culverts along Green Valley Rd. and Bridges Cove
Rd
These have been added to the figure.
11. Since approximately 15% of the project is Proposed as Priority 2, please include a veg plot in one of
the P2 bench cut areas to address soil fertility and compaction concerns associated with veg
establishment.
We have added an additional permanent plot along the bottom of Round Hill Branch Reach 3, which
is in a Priority 2 section. We also added another random plot for a total of six veg plots; the three
random plots may also coincide with Priority 2 areas.
12. Section 4.1, Potential Site Constraints: It would be beneficial to discuss the potential for utility line
maintenance, and the future potential for road culverts to be replaced/widened, beaver activity,
invasives, etc.
We have altered the text as follows (changes underlined):
Within the project site itself, there are site constraints that shape the project. There are existing
culverts at Bridges Cove Road above T1 and Green Valley Road above T2 with permanent set
elevations for the beginnings of these project reaches; however, one older degraded culvert and
crossing just below the start of T1 will be removed. There is also an existing 60" corrugated metal
pipe running under a private driveway below the confluence of RHB and T1; the pipe is in good
condition, but will be retrofit to permanently increase the water surface elevation through the
culvert. Additional floodplain drainage pipes (two 24" HPDE) will also be added to provide a
connection for floodplain drainage at the crossing. There is a section of limited riparian buffer
both up and downstream of the driveway culvert where the stream flows near a residential
structure. An overhead electric distribution line also runs approximately along the driveway from
the main residential structure to the barns on the other side of RHB; this line will be relocated to
ensure it remains outside of the conservation easement. A 60" easement exception has been
included for the existing crossing and utility line, which will allow for sufficient area for line and
culvert maintenance or improvements without affecting the protected riparian buffer.
Invasive species are not anticipated to be a problem at the project site. There are scattered
individual plants, but not extensive areas where invasives have taken over the site. We also have
not seen any evidence of beaver activity and do not expect beavers to be a factor in the site
management. However, we will monitor the proiect for any of these elements that may arise as a
threat to proiect success.
13. Although wetland credits are not being sought, stream restoration will occur through existing
wetlands on site. It is not anticipated that overall wetland acreage will be lost, in fact it's likely that
wetlands may increase on site due to raising the channel. During monitoring year 5 please re -verify
the limits of jurisdiction to ensure that there was no net -loss of wetlands in -lieu of installing
monitoring gauges.
We have added a wetland delineation to the fifth -year monitoring requirements as reflected in
Table 18 and Section 8.0.
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xci.coM

WRC Comments. Andrea Leslie:
1. Although the existing culvert is described as 'not perched', Photo 4 on p.17 shows a culvert that
does not appear buried and is likely an issue for aquatic passage if not long term stability. We
recommend replacing this culvert.
We have added a proposed retrofit to the existing culvert. This will involve installing a boulder sill
at the end of the culvert to back water up through the culvert; rock material will be added within
the bottom of the culvert to the extent feasible during construction. The profile downstream has
been adjusted slightly to accommodate this design change. We will also install two 24" HPDE
floodplain pipes along the right bank floodplain to provide additional capacity at higher flows. The
left bank of the culvert is already constrained with a power pole and parking area (this area is not
included in the conservation easement).
We have updated both Section 6.4 Crossings and the construction plans to reflect this change.
2. We recommend finding a nearby reference reach for the vegetation community and using this to
tailor the planting list. Shafale's 2012 Natural Communities of NC does provide general community
descriptions but cannot be applied directly to every site. River Birch is found in large river
floodplains in the mountains and not small streams; this should be replaced with something more
typical of small streams, such as Sweet Birch. Likewise, Willow Oak is not a montane species. We
recommend enriching the planted species list with understory species found on small streams in the
area.
We understand the Schafale descriptions are not a perfect fit for this site and have updated the
planting plan to include more shrub species and have eliminated willow oak. We have substituted
sweet birch for river birch, but have been told by our planting supplier that sweet birch is typically
limited in quantity each year and may not be available at all. In that instance, we would adjust the
planting percentages using the remaining species listed in the planting plan. As noted elsewhere,
no bare root species will comprise more than 20% of the total quantity planted in any one zone.
WRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
1. It's a little difficult to get a highly accurate assessment of the existing driveway culvert condition and
placement, but from the picture the culvert looks fairly aged. I can't tell if it's on bedrock or was
installed on top of boulder/rip-rap, but either way it is not buried. The driveway side slopes look
extremely steep and there is a lot of fill in the valley for there not to be any additional high flow
culverts. None of those conditions are preferred and ultimately could result in a pipe failure
particularly once woody debris is introduced into the system. We have discussed the option of
including crossings within the easement in order to assure future maintenance or replacement is done
properly, but I assume the easement has already been recorded for this project. The only other option
would be to replace the crossing with a new and more adequate structure.
Please see Response #1 to Ms. Leslie's question. We are proposing a retrofit to this structure.
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xCLCOM

EPA Comments. Todd Bowers:
1. Table 8/Page 26: The measured D50 and D84 particle sizes for the proposed Reaches seems to be off
by an order of magnitude especially when considering the existing particle sizes of the same
reaches. In particular, RH13-3 and T2 are the reaches in question. This may be resulting in errors in
calculated critical shear stress for those reaches as well.
The measured values for RHB-3 and 72 are based on pebble counts and reflect the existing fine
material that has accumulated in these reaches from near -bank erosion. We anticipate the sediment
ranges to coarsen in these areas post -construction once these sources of erosion are no longer
present. The predicted grain sizes are reflective of the average shear stress of designed cross -
sections.
2. Table 10/Page 28: lam somewhat concerned that the floodprone width for RHB 2 is potentially
wider (65 feet) than the proposed riparian beltwidth of approximately 60 feet for this reach. This
may result in hydrological trespass and a risk to the nearby structures just outside of the
conservation easement.
All of our proposed channel and floodploin excavation is contained within the project easement,
and the width of the easement along RHB-2 is approximately 100'. For RHB Reach 2, the design
stream belt width is 38-48' as shown in the Round Hill Branch Morphological Criteria found in
Appendix 2. The riparian belt width of 44-65' is representative the lateral extents of the stream
when at an elevation twice the maximum depth. These widths will both be within the project
easement and are not anticipated to produce hydrologic trespass. Floodploin excavation along the
stream will also increase the quantity of flood storage at a lower elevation than is currently
available on -site.
3. Table 15/Page 31: Consider using the volunteer list of species in determining alternative species to
plant in lieu of unavailable species or as a guide to understory development in the riparian Zone 2.
Per other comments in addition to this one, we have removed the proposed volunteer list and
expanded the planting lists with more shrub species.
4. Section 8.0/Page 35: Recommend adding a couple more vegetation monitoring plots (one fixed and
one mobile) to adequately cover the site. The number of plots meets the 2% minimum coverage,
however there are two zones of vegetation planting and three main reaches so six plots may be
more appropriate to monitor the site effectively.
We have added two more veg plots, for a total of six (three permanent, three random).
Gauge on T1 needed to monitor intermittent flow of this reach. Recommend same approach and
update of Table 19.
We have added a gauge on T1.
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xCLCOM

5. Section 9.0/Page 39: Recommend listing the components of the site that may require adaptive
management actions (beaver, lack of flow, channel instability, lack of livestock exclusion, landowner
encroachment, etc.)
These items are covered in the maintenance plan in Appendix 6. We added to Section 9: "The
Maintenance Plan in Appendix 6 covers the anticipated items that may require maintenance and/or
adaptive management."
6. General: Has there been any discussion or proposal to have the confluence of T1 and RHB moved
further upstream to allow for a full riparian buffer along the entire length of T1?
No, that has not been considered at this time. Regardless of where the confluence is, there will still
need to be a section of impacted stream buffer outside of the easement at the driveway crossing
and the associated buildings in this area.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 8, Section 3.1.2 — Please provide a brief description of existing site vegetation, including a list of
invasive/nuisance species.
We have added the following paragraph to the end of Section 3.1.2: The vegetation on the site
consists of almost entirely maintained pasture or agricultural areas containing tall fescue
(Schedonorus arundinaceus). Unmaintained areas near the stream banks consist of annual prairie
species such as goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and horseweed (Conyza canadensis). There are a few
scattered red maple (Ater rubrum) and black walnut (luglans nigra) trees along Round Hill Branch
and T1. Wetland areas contain common rush (luncus effusus), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and
smartweed (Polygonum sp.). Aside from the tall fescue that covers most of the site, the understory
areas of T1 contain isolated invasive species such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense).
2. Page 20, Table 5 —Please confirm that the restoration entrenchment ratio should be a minimum of 3.2.
Yes, this is correct for this site when comparing enhancement versus restoration options. An
entrenchment ratio of 2.2 or greater is required for a "C"-channel type, but for our restoration
reaches, we have an entrenchment ratio higher than that to redevelop the appropriate bonkfull
bench within the belt width. In contrast, an enhancement reach would not necessarily have an
excavated bench with that higher entrenchment ratio. Reach RHB-3 has the lowest designed
entrenchment ratio of 3.2.
3. Page 21, Section 4.1— First, DWR appreciates that outreach was completed to relocate utilities
outside of the conservation easement. Second, what is the condition of the culverts on Bridges Cove
Road and Green Valley Road? Are any NCDCT projects planned for these roadways?
We do not know of any planned projects for these roadways. Both culverts are in adequate condition
and we do not anticipate any needed maintenance actions.
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xCLCOM

4. Page 22, Section 6.0 —With 25% of the watershed being agriculture/pasture, please confirm that
there are no offsite sediment loading concerns, particularly for T2.
We have not observed any evidence of offsite sediment loading to the site.
5. Page 24, Section 6.4 —Please provide additional photo documentation to confirm that the driveway
culvert is not perched. When was this culvert installed?
We are unsure of when the culvert was installed. The culvert is not currently perched, but based on
comments received, we are proposing retrofit of the culvert to ensure a permanent hydrologic
connection through the pipe.
6. Page 24, Section 6.6 —Please include the referenced rural mountain regional curve estimates. Also,
why weren't offsite reference reaches included for comparison? The IRT noted during the site visit
that restoration approaches needed to be justified in the mitigation plan and using only onsite stable
reference values infers that some stream sections do not warrant restoration.
When comparing the mountain rural curve to on -site estimates, we found the mountain values to
be higher than what we documented for the on -site features. Despite the site being impaired and
in need of restoration, there are still bankfull features that form that can be useful in determining
channel forming area and discharge values. We typically find these on -site features are more
reliable than regional curves. We did not find any suitable reference sites in the immediate area to
use.
7. Page 30, Section 6.9 — Please confirm the total area to be planted. This section states 3.68 acres to be
planted, but Table 4 notes 4.24 acres.
The total planted area is 3.68 acres; this has been corrected in the "Planted Acreage" box in Table
4.
8. Page 31, Table 15 — DWR does not support pre -approval of volunteer species to be counted towards
vegetative performance standard success. If veg plots are not meeting the required stem density and
diversity thresholds based on planted species, then volunteers can be requested to count during the
monitoring period review.
We have removed Table 15 and will rely on the species within our planting plan unless conditions
warrant a reconsideration of volunteers at a later date during monitoring.
9. Page 34, Section 7.0 Stream Hydrologic Performance — Please specify that "intermittent" project
stream must show a minimum of 30 continuous flow days within "each" calendar year monitored.
Please see proposed new text under Ms. Browning's Comment #2.
10. Page 35. Section 8 Stream Hydrologic Monitoring — Since T1 is an intermittent stream, please install a
flow gauge in the upper one-third of the reach.
We have added a stream gauge to Ti.
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xci.coM

11. Page 36, Table 19 — Please add reference to a flow gauge on T1. Also, should there be an asterisk
footnote associated with the invasive mapping?
We have updated Figure 10 and in Table 18 (formerly Table 19) to include the extra stream gauge.
We have deleted the errant asterisk.
12. Page 39, Section 10 — DWR recommends annual inspections to confirm compliance with easement
conditions.
We have changed out "periodic" to "annual'.
13. Figure 10 —
a. Please add a T1 flow gauge and shift the T2 gauge slightly downstream to within the
creditable reach.
We have made these changes to the gauges.
b. Please reference the two random veg plots.
We have added a reference to these two additional plots in the legend.
Please confirm that photo points for veg plots and cross sections not shown will be included
in the annual monitoring reports. Please also add a photo point downstream of the driveway
culvert crossing.
Yes, we include photos for all veg plots and cross -sections in our monitoring reports; we
have added to the legend that these photos are also included. We have also inserted the
requested photo point downstream of the driveway crossing.
14. Sheet 4 — DWR questions the use of stone at the core of the channel block. Wouldn't this facilitate
water movement? Typically, a compact high clay content core is indicated for channel block details.
We have removed the channel block detail; it was mistakenly left in the set of details and will not
be used for this project.
15. Sheet 6 —There appear to be multiple "trees to remain" dots shown within the new stream channel
design. Please confirm.
Yes, these trees will be integrated into the constructed channel as much as possible. There are
instances where our plans to keep trees do not work out in the field, but for the most part all of
these marked trees will remain.
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xci.coM

16. Sheets 6 & 7 — DWR recommends that bench width be at least 1.5 times bankfull width. Particularly
of concern are some of the bench widths on the outer meander bends where much of the flow
energy vectors are directed based on the floodplain grading extent lines shown.
We use a minimum of 1.0 times the bankfull width in certain locations on outer meander bends, but
on average our bench widths on either side of the channel range from 1.5 - 2.0 times the bankfull
width. We believe that the energy dissipation within the pools themselves combined with the
additional floodplain expansion on the opposite side of the channel provide sufficient area for
floodplain relief. in addition, in -stream structures also help to direct flow toward the center of the
channel.
17. Sheet 8 — Please indicate easement break points.
These breaks have been added to the profiles.
18. Sheet 9 — DWR requests that no species (excluding live stakes) account for more than 20 percent of a
specified planting zone in order to promote diversity within the designated community type. DWR
does appreciate the breakdown of the site into different planting zones.
We have added a note indicating no species may make up more than 20% of the total stems.
19. Sheet 11— DWR appreciates the inclusion of a fencing plan. Will there be any access points to the
easement area east of the driveway for site monitors and regulatory staff?
Yes, at each crossing location, there will be access gates to gain entry to the easement on either
side. We have revised Sheet 11 to better show where new fence is, where old fence will remain, and
where only easement markers will be installed (no fencing needed if not in pasture).
Sincerely,
f
Tim Morris
Project Manager
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE www.xci.coM

ISO 9001.201 S CERTIFIED
�- ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
KCI4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Date: 7/20/2020
To: Matthew Reid, Project Manager
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Review
French Broad River Basin — CU# 06010105
Buncombe County
DMS Project ID No. 100066
Contract # 7534
Dear Mr. Reid,
Please see the below responses to your comments from June 30, 2020 on the draft of the Round Hill
Branch Mitigation Plan. We have addressed your comments in the report and have outlined our changes.
Following your acceptance of these changes, we will submit hard copies of the final draft report (quantity
to be determined) along with the supporting digital files.
Table of Contents:
Several of the figures (2, 3, 4, and 5) in the report have different titles than what is shown in the Table of
Contents. Please update for consistency.
The TOC for figures 2 and 3 were updated and the titles of figure 4 and 5 were updated.
Consider adding planting tables in Section 6.8 to Table of Contents and update as necessary.
We have added these and updated the table numbers.
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection:
Second paragraph incorrectly refers to stream as "RBH" instead of "RHB". Please update.
This has been fixed.
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
W W W. KCI. COM

Figure 3:
Please use points or conservation easement shape files for the three additional DMS sites listed on the
Figure instead of the symbols currently selected.
The DMS sites have been changed to points.
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response:
First paragraph refers to NCSAM forms being located in Appendix 8. This should be Appendix 7.
This has been fixed.
Page 11: A small headcut is described as "just past the property line". It is unclear if this headcut is on the
RHBRS property or adjoining property. Please clarify. If it is off the property, does KCI have permission to
address and stabilize the headcut during construction?
The headcut is located about 15 feet within the property. The wording had been changed and the
headcut is now shown in Figure 7.
Page 12: T2 is described as lacking defined channel pattern unlike the other two project reaches. This
description is unclear, because the other reaches are also described as straight and lacking pattern. Please
update.
We have removed the word pattern in the above sentence — it is more of a lack of defined channel
than defined pattern. It now reads: "Unlike the other the two project streams, T2 lacks a defined
channel due to the history of grazing and agriculture disturbing the riparian zone. The existing stream
is characterized by diffuse flow through a wide cross -sectional area that is limited by eroding, vertical
banks at the outer edge of the valley slopes; the assessment cross-section of T2 showed a
width/depth ratio of 28.8. It flows south in this condition until the confluence with RHB."
Figure 7:
Please include existing features as points, call outs, etc. for:
o Headcut on RHB-1
o Existing Ford Crossing on RHB-1
o Headcut on RHB-2
o Bedrock
These have been added to the figure.
Please label roads: Bridges Cove Estate Road and Green Valley Road.
The roads have been labeled (in the NCDOT database, the road is called Bridges Cove Road).
Figure is mislabeled as page 17. Should be page 16.
The page number has been fixed.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
Www.KCl. Com

Figure 8 and 9:
Please show existing wetlands on these figures and all future figures including CCPV.
The existing wetlands have been added to these figures.
Please label roads.
The roads have been labeled.
Figure 9 page number is incorrectly labeled.
The page number has been fixed.
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential:
This section needs additional discussion. Please compare/contrast existing conditions to the target
potential of higher function. Was there any alternative analysis completed to support the design
treatments and the proposed level of treatment? Please include any available data and resources used to
inform functional uplift opportunities, constraints and optimization. The draft briefly discusses Hydraulic,
geomorphology and physicochemical potential. Was Hydrology and biological considered? Please discuss
further.
We have added a discussion of all of the functional levels and included a table comparing
Enhancement I and Restoration. We do not anticipate any uplift at the hydrologic level. At the
biological level, we do anticipate uplift but not enough to be significantly measurable throughout the
monitoring period.
The P2 sections are for transition and tie-in sections only, correct? Suggest making that clarification here
since the majority of the restoration is P1. This action will result in the most uplift.
Yes, the site will consist of primarily P1. We have added a discussion of this in the second paragraph
of Section 6.0.
There is a statement saying that considerations of future impacts to the area is important when assessing
project potential, but there is no further discussion. Please include a "Site Constraints to Functional Uplift"
subsection. This section should include discussions about natural and anthropogenic constraints within the
project area and/or watershed that limit the uplift potential. What is the anticipated growth or build -out
that may limit success? What is the maximum uplift that will be achieved given landscape, current
conditions and constraints? Easement breaks, culverts and stream crossings are considered site constraints
since fragmentation can impact the site's potential functional uplift. Please address these concerns in the
constraints section.
We have added this section, which includes a discussion of development pressure on the project
watershed and existing site constraints.
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan:
Consider adding additional justification for Restoration work on T1 and RHB upstream from confluence
with T1 to satisfy comment from the Post Contract Site Meeting minutes. Both of these reaches have a
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
WWW.KCI.Com

great potential for uplift. This just needs to be explained further. Additional photos would be helpful as
well.
We have added new material to both of the sections for T1 and RHB-1.
Additional photos have been added to Section 3.1.3 in keeping with the descriptions of the existing
streams in that location.
The headcut mentioned in 3.1.3 is not included in the design approach for RHB-1. If this headcut is off
property, how will the design account for any future impacts?
The headcut is located about 15 feet within the property. The wording had been changed and the
headcut is now shown in Figure 7.
All Reaches: Approximately how many linear feet of Priority 2 is expected for each reach in the transition
zones?
We have added a section in the second paragraph of Section 6.0 listing the areas of Priority 2 work,
which totals approximately 3221f or 15% of the creditable stream length.
Please describe how KCI will construct the Priority 2 sections. Will topsoil be stockpiled? Minimum bench
and side slopes? Since establishment of vegetative cover and vigor can be a challenge on Priority 2 banks
and benches, please include a discussion on how the soil restoration will be addressed during construction
and reference potential adaptive management. Please elaborate for clarity.
Furnished or salvaged topsoil will be used to surface treat all planting areas within the floodplain
extents shown on the plans. Adequate lime and fertilizer will be used to ensure adequate vegetative
stabilization. This has been added to the end of the second paragraph of Section 6.0.
It is stated that livestock will be removed from RHB. Woven wire fence is shown on the Boundary Marking
Plansheets, but is not discussed in the mitigation plan. Please include fencing discussion in report and add
to figures and plansheets. Please include fence detail and location of gates as well in plansheets.
In addition to the channel work, livestock exclusion fencing will be installed to keep all livestock out
of the channel. This has been added to Section 6.5. We have added the location of the gates in the
plansheets; the fence to be installed is described as woven wire to NRCS standards.
Is drinking water being provided for excluded cattle? If so, please show on figures if possible. If waterers
are not being provided, where will the cattle get water? How will they be excluded from gathering in
crossings or other open areas? This has been an ongoing problem for DMS and stewardship.
Per the landowner agreement, we will be providing one well and two drinkers for the sheep and goats
on the property. Gates will be used on either side of the ford crossing to prevent cattle from
congregating in this area. See Section 6.5.
There are several culverts on the project site. Some will be replaced and others will remain. Please include
a discussion regarding the current condition, confirm that sizing is appropriate and that they are not
perched, buried or otherwise inhibiting aquatic passage.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
WWW.KCI.Com

We have updated Section 6.4 to better include this information. There will be one culvert remaining
once the project is complete, a 60" corrugated metal pipe at the driveway crossing. Both T1 and T2
enter the site from roadway culverts that are not within the purview of the project. A derelict culvert
on T1 will be removed.
There is no mention in the report regarding relocation of utilities on the site. Please include a discussion.
One overhead electric distribution pole will be relocated to ensure the electric line along the existing
driveway is in alignment with the existing easement exception at the driveway culvert. This is included
now in Section 4.1.
Please provide a statement identifying risks or uncertainties. Describe the range of uncertainty in terms
of estimated magnitude and direction as needed. Examples include but are not limited to legacy sediment
constraints, hydrologic trespass, land use/build out and/or easement restrictions. Was discharge
estimated based on measured velocity, Manning's equation or was another method used?
We provided a section describing the risk and uncertainty at the end of Section 6.0. We added a
sentence explaining that discharge was based on Manning's equation in Section 6.6.
6.8 Planting:
Please indicate how the pasture grasses will be managed. Will the grasses be treated prior to or during site
construction or something else? DMS recommends treating pasture grasses to prevent impeding planted
vegetation establishment and vigor.
At the end of Section 6.9 (now the Planting Section), we added: "Existing undesirable pasture grasses
will be sprayed with herbicide and left fallow until full mortality is achieved. The areas will then be
scarified or disked to break up any existing compaction prior to seeding and stabilizing with
temporary and permanent seed mixes as prescribed in the project plans."
There is no mention of planting in the jurisdictional wetlands. What species will be used in these areas?
Update report and plansheets as necessary to include wetland zone or other.
We have clarified that the existing jurisdictional wetlands will be planted with species from the Zone
1 list in Section 6.9.
The IRT has requested recently that a figure noting the different planting zones be included in the mitigation
plan. Please consider adding this figure within this section.
We have added this as Figure 9. The Monitoring Figure is now Figure 10.
Please note that planting should occur before March 15 per the 2016 Monitoring Update.
This has been added to Section 6.9.
Consider adding the planting tables to Table of Contents (same comment as above).
We have added these and updated the table numbers.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
WWW.KCI.Com

Plansheets:
Sheet 6 and 8: Show existing culvert to be removed.
These have been added to the plan sheets.
Digital Deliverables:
Please provide DMS with the monitoring feature shape files displayed on Figure 9, including proposed
stream gauges, veg plots, photo points, and cross sections.
These have been added to the deliverable.
Please submit spreadsheet used to generate the particle size distribution figures.
These have been added to the deliverable.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWWv xcl. CoM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
2.0
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION................................................................................3
3.0
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................6
3.1
Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions...........................................................................6
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics.....................................................................................................
6
3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover and Chronology ofImpacts ................................................................
8
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response...............................................................................11
3.1.4 Site Photographs.................................................................................................................17
4.0
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL....................................................................................................19
4.1
Site Constraints to Functional Uplift...........................................................................................
20
5.0
MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................................22
6.0
DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN.......................................................................22
6.1
Round Hill Branch........................................................................................................................23
6.2
Tributary 1...................................................................................................................................24
6.3
Tributary 2...................................................................................................................................24
6.4
Crossings.....................................................................................................................................
24
6.5
Fencing and Livestock Watering.................................................................................................
25
6.6
Design Determination.................................................................................................................25
6.7
Sediment.....................................................................................................................................27
6.8
Morphological Essential Parameters Tables...............................................................................
28
6.9
Planting.......................................................................................................................................31
6.10
Project Assets..............................................................................................................................32
7.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS...........................................................................................................35
8.0
MONITORING PLAN.........................................................................................................................35
9.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................................41
10.0
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.................................................................................................41
11.0
REFERENCES CITED..........................................................................................................................43
APPENDICES
1. Plan Sheets
2. Data Analysis/Supplemental Information and Maps
3. Site Protection Instrument
4. Credit Release Schedule
5. Financial Assurance
6. Maintenance Plan
7. Stream and Wetland Delineation (Incl. Stream Identification Forms)
8. Approved Jurisdictional Determination
9. Invasive Species
10. Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
11. Agency Correspondence
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2
Figure2. USGS Topographic Map.................................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Project Site / TLW Watershed Map...............................................................................................
5
Figure4. Soil Survey Map..............................................................................................................................7
Figure 5. Land Use/Land Cover Map.............................................................................................................9
Figure6. Historic Aerials.............................................................................................................................10
Figure 7. Current Conditions Plan View Map..............................................................................................16
Figure8. Project Asset Map........................................................................................................................
26
Figure 9. Proposed Planting Plan................................................................................................................39
Figure 10. Proposed Monitoring Plan.........................................................................................................40
TABLES
Table1. Credit Summary...............................................................................................................................1
Table 2. Existing Bank Height and Entrenchment Ratios............................................................................11
Table 3. Existing Stream and Wetland Conditions......................................................................................13
Table 4. Project Attribute Table..................................................................................................................14
Table 5. Comparison of Functional Uplift Alternatives (Hydraulics and Geomorphology) ........................20
Table 6. Project Goals, Objectives, and Functional Outcomes...................................................................
22
Table 7. Bankfull Determination.................................................................................................................25
Table 8. Sediment Summary for Project Reaches.......................................................................................
27
Table 9. Morphological Essential Parameters for RHB Reach 1..................................................................
28
Table 10. Morphological Essential Parameters for RHB Reach 2................................................................
29
Table 11. Morphological Essential Parameters for RHB Reach 3................................................................
29
Table 12. Morphological Essential Parameters for T1................................................................................
30
Table 13. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2................................................................................
30
Table14. Planting Zones.............................................................................................................................31
Table15. Project Asset Table......................................................................................................................33
Table 16. Length and Summations by Mitigation Category........................................................................34
Table 17. Overall Assets Summary..............................................................................................................34
Table 18. Monitoring Requirements...........................................................................................................38
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Round Hill Branch Restoration Site (RHBRS) is a full -delivery stream mitigation project being
developed for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in the French Broad River Basin
(06010105 8-digit cataloging unit) in Buncombe County, North Carolina. The site's natural hydrologic
regime has been substantially modified through the relocation and straightening of the existing stream
channels, livestock impacts, and clearing of the riparian buffers. This site offers the chance to restore
streams impacted by pasture and agriculture to a stable stream ecosystem with a functional riparian
buffer and floodplain access.
The project site is located approximately 4.0 miles south of Leicester, NC in Buncombe County. The
existing primary stream, Round Hill Branch (RHB) and its two tributaries, Tributary 1 (T1) and Tributary 2
(T2), are comprised of 2,142 proposed linear feet (If). RHBRS is on Green Valley Road (SR 1383) south of
NC-63. The center of the site is at approximately 35.6305 N and-82.7369 W in the Leicester USGS
Quadrangle.
The RHBRS will restore a stable stream ecosystem through various restoration techniques. The majority
of the project streams will use a Priority 1 Approach aside from those areas where Priority 2 is necessary
for transitional sections to match existing site constraints. Approximately 0.24 acre of existing
jurisdictional wetlands are also being protected in the conservation easement. Altogether, the project will
restore and protect a vital headwater watershed in the French Broad Basin.
Once site grading is complete, the unforested portions of the stream buffer will be planted with riparian
species. The site will be monitored for a minimum of seven years or until the success criteria are met. The
table below summarizes the credits that will be produced from this project.
Table 1. Credit Summary
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site, Buncombe County
DMS Contract 7534; DMS Project Number 100066
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian
Non -riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Wetland
Wetland
Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Linear
Feet/Acres
2,142
Credits
2,142.000
TOTAL
2,142.000
CREDITS
R=Restoration RE=Restoration Equivalent
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
1
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

�
0 �
,
� � G
} !¥
Q,D_k Rd
5,
.e x N,.,V tw�I« HW¥
R+
ZI ®41a
\XCI
«a\
/
:
�^
¥
\ �f
�
® �0
p t ( _
CL
L
¥�»
_ 7 �
�
z Lwces ter
f
�
\
�
4
<
.%
6 -
� aw �
Q s
7 ® *
�6 0
Project Easement g24a%
FIGURE IPROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N
e ra 0.5 ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORAT ON SITE Image »u»:e,
Miles
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC Woes « Map
Mitigation Plan Round aG Branch Restoration Site
November 1$2020 2 DMSProject Number 100066
y� c

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The site's 14-digit watershed, Hydrologic Unit (HU) 06010105090020, Newfound Creek, was identified in
the 2009 French Broad River Basin RBRP as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) (NCEEP 2009). The
watershed is largely rural in nature with 42% agriculture and 47% forest with 61% of streams lacking
forested buffers at the time of the report. For this TLW, the RBRP listed impacts from agriculture use,
including stream bank erosion, excessive sedimentation, livestock access to streams, excess nutrients, and
high fecal coliform bacteria as the major stressors. The goals and priorities for the RHBRS are based on
the information presented in the French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities: maintaining and
enhancing water quality, restoring hydrology, and improving fish and wildlife habitat (NCEEP, 2009). The
project will support the basin priorities, which are to implement wetland and stream restoration projects
that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients by:
- Restoring riparian buffer vegetation,
- Stabilizing banks,
- Excluding livestock,
- Restoring natural geomorphology, especially in headwater streams,
- Improve management of stormwater runoff,
- Restore and protect habitat.
The project section of Round Hill Branch (RHB) is identified as Reach 6-84-3 by the State of North Carolina,
and is classified for surface water as Class C. RHB was not listed as impaired on the 2018 303(d) list. The
project watershed is shown in Figure 2, and another map illustrating the project location in relation to the
TLW is shown in Figure 3. In addition to RHBRS, there are three other DMS mitigation sites within the TLW:
Newfound Creek, a closed -out stream project under stewardship that is 1.4 miles to the east, and two
forthcoming full -delivery stream projects also being completed by KCI, Morgan Branch, approximately 1.5
miles to the southwest, and Dale's Creek, 2.0 miles to the south.
The TLW also has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) developed in 2005 for Newfound Creek (Waterbody
ID NC_6-84b, Waterbody ID NC_6-84c, and Waterbody ID NC_6-84d) for fecal coliform. The project is a
direct tributary to Newfound Creek and will permanently eliminate livestock access to the streams and
provide a vegetated riparian buffer to capture and reduce upslope bacterial sources.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
3

aProject Easement (4.24 ac)
Project Watershed (471 ac / 0.74 sqmi)
O14 Digit HUC Boundary
Buncombe County Parcels
06010105090040
/ 8780897217
N �
� p
'w 0000
0j 0CIO
00pm 0j 00
00 00w0
O'
00
B�BOB1&0 rn����j
�B
OBS
3
8790142822
8790040496
8780649415
8�8019
3,944 8>809�8821
8'8063j3s 8j900�0�3
8780732282
19 6
O9?
8g88
N� 8)809� 1
�)
8780726481 0
8780821198
06010105090020
FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP N
0 750 1,500 ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE n Image Source: USGSTopo
Feet BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC r/ `\+ Leicester Quadrangle
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 4 DMS Project Number 100066

030
HU
105080020
'EA/ c
O
D
HU :70
Bch 06010105090020
.011 ,k,Newfound Creek D
;DMS Site Y
r • *yam,
e -
r
0
e, o
Morgan Branc,, dory p'1
Morgan Branch
DMS Site
Dales Creek, ��
DMS Slte 06010105090010
Au
06010105060030
HU #�
06010105060010
fig _

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics
The site lies within the Broad Basins (Level IV 66j) ecoregion of the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The
Broad Basins is drier, has lower elevations, and less relief than the more mountainous portions of the Blue
Ridge. It also has less boulder colluvium than the surrounding regions and more saprolite. Although some
areas are forested, overall it has more pasture, cropland, industrial land uses, and human settlement than
other Blue Ridge ecoregions. The natural vegetation generally contains a mix of oaks and pines more
similar to the Piedmont, with more shortleaf and Virginia pine, and white, southern red, black, and scarlet
oaks (Griffith et al. 2002).
The project watershed consists of steep, confined first -order stream valleys converging onto the
floodplain of RHB. The valleys along the RHB streams are predominantly open with minor inclusions of
bedrock. The geology is mapped as Amphibolite throughout the project site and for the lower portion of
the project watershed. Amphibolite is described as equigranular, massive to well foliated, interlayered,
rarely discordant, metamorphosed intrusive and extrusive mafic rock; the formation may also include
metasedimentary rock. The remainder of the watershed intersects with the Migmatitic biotite-
hornblende gneisses formation with the major constituent being gneiss with minor inclusions of
amphibolite and calc-silicate rock (USGS 2020).
According to the Soil Survey of Buncombe County, the majority of the proposed project's soils are mapped
as Tate loam (TaB and TaC) along the upper portions of RHB, T1, and T2 and French loam (FrA) along their
lower portions (USDA, NRCS 2020). Tate loams are well -drained, moderately permeable soils that allow
for potential seeps and springs. French loams are very deep, moderately drained, highly permeable soils
formed from alluvial sedimentation. The project site is overlaid on the soil survey in Figure 4. These soil
types do not present any major limitations for construction activities typically associated with stream
restoration.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Soils Key.
t,
Arf: Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex
CkC2, CkD2- Clifton clay loam
EvD2, EvE2- Evard-Cowee complex
FrA. French loam
TaB, TaC- Tate loam
lot
MOM
CkC
lUil
tTaC
Project Easement (4.24 ac) �► �^ r ;
NRCS Soils
FIGURE 4. SOIL SURVEY MAP N
0 100 200 ^ Image Source: SSURGO
Feet ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE ,,�\\V Soils for Buncombe County,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC NRCS; INC One Map2019.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 7 DMS Project Number 100066

3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover and Chronology of Impacts
The project watershed for the RHBRS is comprised of 0.74 square miles (471 acres). Current land use
within the project watershed consists of forest (62%), pasture/farmland (25%), low -density residential
development (12%), and roads (1%); the estimated percent impervious is 3%. The development pressure
within the project watershed is low. Current land use is shown in Figure 5.
Historic aerials were examined for additional information about how the site has changed over recent
history. The reviewed aerials are included in Figure 6. Historic aerials were obtained from the USGS
Earth Explorer for 1969 and NCOneMap for 1993, 2006, and 2010.
This evidence shows that the site has been systematically impacted by vegetative clearing and stream
channelization in support of agricultural and livestock grazing over the past 50 years with most of the
impacts occurring prior to the earliest aerial photo available. In the 1969 image, all of the project streams
have already been cleared and straightened. The visible portion of the project watershed to the north had
been cleared of vegetation at that time as well.
In the 1993 photo, more clearing has occurred just upstream of the project area and by 2006, this area
has been completely cleared. This area has started to grow back by 2010, particularly in the vegetative
coverage at the top of T1, but there is little change within the actual project area between 1969 and
current conditions.
The vegetation on the site consists of almost entirely of maintained pasture areas containing tall fescue
(Schedonorus arundinaceus). Unmaintained areas near the stream banks consist of annual prairie species
such as goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and horseweed (Conyza canadensis). There are a few scattered red maple
(Acer rubrum) and black walnut (Juglans nigra) trees along Round Hill Branch and T1. Wetland areas
contain common rush (Juncus effusus), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.).
Aside from the tall fescue that covers most of the site, the understory areas of T1 contain isolated invasive
species such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
8

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 n DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 10 DMS Project Number 100066

3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
The project watershed and the site itself have experienced landscape and vegetative modifications to
convert forested land for agriculture and grazing. A site -wide assessment was performed to show the
degree of departure from a stable stream system and to identify causes of impairment. An existing site
conditions map is shown in Figure 7 and additional site photographs are found in Section 3.1.4. Further
detailed data is included in Appendix 2. The NC Stream Assessment Method was also performed on the
project streams (see Appendix 7).
The three project reaches of RHB along with the two other project streams, T1 and T2, are generally in
Stage IV (Degradation and Widening) in the channel evolutionary process (Simon and Rinaldi 2006). The
primary disturbance to the system has been the relocation and straightening of the project streams, which
has disconnected stream flows from a frequently accessible floodplain or bankfull bench. As a result, the
streams are in the process of adjusting by widening at the bottom of the banks, inducing erosion. A bed
mixture of gravel and small cobble has helped protect the bed from excessive bed degradation.
Disturbances to the sediment regime of the site are localized on -site from upslope erosion induced by
cattle and direct impacts on stream banks made by cattle hooves. Table 2 below shows the range of bank
height and entrenchment ratios at the site based on the assessment cross -sectional data (see Appendix
2).
Table 2. Existing Bank Height and Entrenchment Ratios
Stream
Existing Bank Height Ratio
I Existing Entrenchment Ratio
RHB
1.0-1.7
1.9-11.7
T1
1.0 — 1.9
1.9 — 7.7
T2
1.0
1.2
RHB (1,583 existing If) has been divided into three reaches for assessment and design: Reach 1 (RH13-1),
691 If from its start until the confluence with T1, Reach 2 (RH13-2), 575 If from T1 to T2, and Reach 3 (RH13-
3), 317 If from T2 until the end of the project.
RHB-1 begins as it flows onto the project parcel from the south. A small headcut has developed
approximately 15 feet within the project property line (Figure 7), and there is evidence that the stream
has been historically channelized through the flat valley bottom. Former spoil materials are visible at the
beginning of the reach on the right bank. The two assessment
�? x cross -sections (RHB-XS A and B) in this location show bank
*� height ratios of 1.1-1.3 and eroding, vertical banks. The
channelized stream is constrained in its lateral adjustment
and erosion is occurring at the outer bends as a result. The
stream also has low width/depth ratios (4.3-5.1) and little to
s t no variation in the bed profile. In addition to the instability
evidenced through the morphological parameters, the
existing stream is routinely trampled by the livestock that
k-
routinely access the channel for water. Additionally, while this
reach does have a base layer of gravel and cobble, most of the
Bank erosion at outer -left bend as RHB-1 interstitial space is choked with fine sands and silts that are
attempts to adjusts laterally upstream of the coming from the surrounding bank and channel erosion. After
ford crossing. approximately 300 If, there is an existing ford crossing, which
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
11

has been maintained in adequate condition, but is experiencing erosion up and downstream of the
structure.
Below the ford crossing, RHB-1 continues in a similar
condition with a straight, channelized pattern and spoil piles
along the right bank. There is a series of spoil remnants along
the right bank, which are preventing diffuse flow of runoff
through the riparian zone. Wetland W1 is present along the
floodplain in this area, originating from hillside seepage from
the western slope. Riparian vegetation is limited to isolated
trees along the tops of banks.
After the confluence with T1, RHB-2 begins as stream turns
to the east and enters a culvert under the landowner's
driveway. After this point, RHB-2 has developed more severe RHB-1 as it nears the confluence with T1;
bank erosion as a result of the culvert and fewer trees along straightened stream is to left of fence and spoil
the banks. Livestock historically had access to the entire is blocking overland flow on right of fence.
length of RHB, but cattle have recently been excluded from the lower two reaches. This section is incised
with vertical banks and no floodplain access. There are several areas where piles of concrete are present
in the channel and banks, possibly as a result of failed bank stabilization efforts. The channel conditions
here consist of a straight, narrow channel with steep vertical banks, and severe erosion along the right
bank. This section of the reach flows east for approximately 420 If before a headcut forms at a fence that
crosses the stream.
Below the fence line, RHB-2 has meanders that are starting to form and improved floodplain connectivity
compared to the upper portion. The stream still lacks a riparian buffer and both banks are experiencing
erosion. There is also a terrace present on the right side of the stream that is possibly a remnant of an old
borrow area, pond or significant cattle wallow. RHB-2 flows for another 100 If before its confluence with
T2. The area surrounding the confluence contains Wetland 2 (W2) where the channel has widened. After
the confluence with T2, RHB-3 continues with much the same characteristics before exiting the project
site. At the end of the reach, there is a section of bedrock on the right that limits the planform in that
location.
Looking upstream at the old roadbed and
culvert in T1 causing a blockage.
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
T1 enters the project site flowing east after exiting the 24"
CMP culvert under Bridges Cove Road. After 15 If, T1 then
flows through an older, unused road crossing with a crushed
and failing 18" CMP pipe. The channel fill from the old
crossing is severely impacting the channel dynamics and
altering the flow and sediment transport downstream of the
blockage. Approximately 130 If downstream of the beginning
of T1, a wetland seep (W4) joins enters T1 from the left bank.
This seep was historically ditched and is currently functioning
more as a vegetated ditch with a combination of pasture
grasses and soft rush (Juncus effusus). After the seep enters,
T1 flows straight along a fence line to the confluence with
RHB and lacks any distinct bed feature morphology. There is
12
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

spoil evident along the right bank side similar to RH13-1. The assessment cross-section in this section of T1
indicates a bank height ratio of 1.9 and a width/depth ratio of 5.9 along with severe undercut and eroding
banks.
T2 enters from a culvert under Green Valley Road and flows for 248 If before reaching the confluence with
RHB. At the outlet of the culvert, there is a large plunge pool, but then the stream enters an entrenched,
overwidened valley. Unlike the other the two project streams, T2 lacks a defined channel due to the
history of grazing and agriculture disturbing the riparian zone. The existing stream is characterized by
diffuse flow through a wide cross -sectional area that is limited by eroding, vertical banks at the outer edge
of the valley slopes; the assessment cross-section of T2 showed a width/depth ratio of 28.8. It flows south
in this condition until the confluence with RHB.
Ajurisdictional determination was received from the US Army Corps of Engineers on January 27, 2019 and
was approved on April 25, 2019. The approved jurisdictional determination is included in Appendix 8 and
Table 3 below shows the delineated features on -site. Following the completion of the mitigation plan, a
pre -construction notification (PCN) will be completed to apply for a Nationwide 27 Permit (NWP) to
comply with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act with the Wilmington District of the US Army
Corps of Engineers and the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources.
Table 3. Existing Stream and Wetland Conditions
Reach
Flow Status
DWQ Score
NCSAM Rating
Name
RHB
Perennial
35.0
Low
T1
Intermittent
25.5
Low
T2
Intermittent
22.5
Low
Wetland
Hydrologic
NCWAM
Cowardin
Size
NCWAM
Location
ID
Class
Rating
Class
(Acres)
W1
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
Low
PEM
0.17
Left bank along RHB-1
Overwidened channel at the
W2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
Low
PEM
0.06
confluence of RHB and T2
Left bank of T2 adjacent to
W3
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
Low
PEM
0.01
plunge pool
Seep entering the left bank
W4
Headwater Forest
Riparian
Low
PEM
< 0.01
of T1
The project attribute table below summarizes current conditions at the site and Figure 7 displays the
current conditions at the site.
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
13
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Project Information
Project Name
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
County
Buncombe County
Project Area (acres)
4.24 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
35.6305 N and-82.7369 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody
Stems Planted)
3.68 acres
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Mountain
River Basin
French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
06010105 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 06010105090020
DWQ Sub -basin
04-03-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
471 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Forest (62%), Pasture/Farmland (25%), Low -density Residential Development (12%),
and Roads (1%).
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
All Reaches Combined
Length of reach (linear feet)
2,214
Valley Confinement
Partially confined to confined
Drainage area (acres)
471 acres
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent- Perennial
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C (Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation)
Rosgen Stream Classification
(Existing/Proposed)
F4/G4/E4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
Stage IV
FEMA classification
Zone X
Existing Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
W1 & W3
W2
W4
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.17 & 0.01
0.10
0.10
Wetland Type
Riparian Non-Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Riparian Non-Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Tate loam
French loam
Tate loam
Drainage class
Well drained
Somewhat poorly drained
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Restoration or Enhancement Method
N/A (Preservation)
Areas of erosion tostabilize
N/A (Preservation)
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States —Section
404
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
Preliminary.ID approved
Waters of the United States —Section
401
Yes
Applying for NWP 27
Preliminary.ID approved
Endangered Species Act**
Yes
Yes
USFWS
Historic Preservation Act**
No
Yes
NCSHPO
Coastal Zone Management Act **
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat**
No
N/A
N/A
**Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix.
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
14
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Table 4 continued
Stream Parameters
RHB-1
RHB-2
RHB-3
T1
T2
Length of reach (linear feet)
691
575
317
383
248
Drainage area (acres)
307 acres
403 acres
474 acres
77 acres
74 acres
NCDWR Classification
C
C
C
C
C
Rosgen Classification
F4
F4
F4
F4
G4
Evolutionary trend
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
Stage IV
Mapped Soil Series
Tate loam
French loam
French loam
Tate loam /
French loam
Tate loam /
French loam
Drainage class
Well drained,
Somewhat
Poorly Drained
Somewhat
poorly
drained
Somewhat
poorly
drained
Well drained,
Somewhat
Poorly Drained
Well drained,
Somewhat
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric status
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Non-Hydric
Slope
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Existing vegetation
community
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Thermal regime
Cool
Cool
Cool
Cool
Cool
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
15
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

.V•F
i
�.
a
in
T2+XS-A
�,j
L Bedrock
C3
RHB XS-G
°
'' XS-C
RHB XS-F
RHB XS-E
�T41
_
I
RHB XS-D
T1 XS-A
T1 XS-B:
r`
RHB XS=C
Existing or
"
Crossing
RHBS-B
F
RHB XS-A
Project Easement (4.24 ac)
Existing Streams (2,214 If)
Existing Wetlands (0.24 ac)
Cross -Sections
Existing Utilities
Existing Culverts
Bedrock/Boulders
Headcuts
Cattle Wallow
FIGURE 7. CURRENT CONDITIONS
0 100 200
Feet
ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE
Image Source: NCOneMap
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC
— 20190rthoimagery.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 16 DMS Project Number 100066

3.1.4 Site Photographs
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
17

Photo 7: Looking at RHB-2 downstream of the confluence Photo 8: Looking at RHB-2 unstable and slumping banks.
with T1 and the driveway culvert.
Photo 9: Looking at RHB-3 downstream of the confluence Photo 10: Looking at bank erosion along the right bank of
with T2. RHB-3 near the end of the property.
kown
Photo 11: Looking downstream at the start of T2 just south Photo 12: Looking north at the top of T2 and the culvert
of the Green Valley Road crossing. crossing at Green Valley Road.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
18

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
We analyzed the potential functional uplift at the project site using the Stream Functions Pyramid
Framework (Harman et al 2012). Each of the five levels was reviewed as to what changes and
improvements are anticipated at RHBRS depending on the mitigation approach. For hydrology, we
determined that there would be no measurable change in the hydrologic base conditions coming from
the surrounding watershed. At the second level, hydraulics, functional improvements will come either
from relocating project streams to a location with a historic floodplain or establishing an accessible bench
for out -of -bank events. Reestablishing this type of connectivity will return a hydraulic routing system
through this stream corridor that will distribute flood flows through a broader area with reduced in -
channel stress rather than within a confined channel. The existing debilitated culvert at the top of T1 will
also be removed, eliminating that restriction in the channel and returning unimpaired flow dynamics to
that section of the stream.
The uplift at the third level, Geomorphology, will be achieved by sizing the project streams to the bankfull
flow, developing a planform and profile design emphasizing bedform variation with woody debris for bank
protection and habitat, and the reestablishment of a forested riparian corridor. As a result, bank migration
and lateral stability will be restored to a sustainable level and the banks and bed will accommodate design
flows. Sediment inputs from bank erosion will decrease and sediment transport can return to a point that
will accommodate watershed inputs. Riparian plantings will further support geomorphological
functionality by increasing bank stability.
The potential for uplift at the hydraulic and geomorphological levels was further compared between
different mitigation treatments — Enhancement I and Restoration — to determine what level of benefit
each treatment would have for the project. Restoration would include the redevelopment of a more
natural stream pattern from the current straightened condition of the streams and the grading of a well -
developed floodplain or bankfull bench along with the restored pattern. Enhancement I would consist
more of stabilized in -place work.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
19

Table S. Comparison of Functional Uplift Alternatives (Hydraulics and Geomorphology)
Functional
Function -Based
Assessment/
Existing
Proposed Uplift Alternative
Level
Parameter
Effects
Measurement
Condition
Enhancement I
Restoration
Flood Frequency
Rarely out of
Bankfull occurrence
Bankfull occurrence
Floodplain
bank
—1.5 years
—1.5 years
Hydraulics
Bank Height Ratio/
1 - 1.7 BHR /
1.0 BHR /
1.0 BHR /
Connectivity
Entrench. Ratio
1.2 Min. ER
2.2 Min. ER
3.2 Min. ER
Cross -Sectional
F4 G4
C4/B4c
C4/B4c with
Bank Migration/
Form
associated flood p lain
Visual Inspection
Shear, eroding
Selective bank grading
Vegetated banks with
Lateral Stability
of Bank Stability
banks
treatment
slopes 3:1 or less
90/10%
70/30% riffle/pool,
60/40% riffle/pool,
Percent Riffle and
riffle/pool, little
pool development
pools located in
Pool, Facet Slopes,
to no bed
limited to straight line,
geomorphologically-
Bed Form
Visual Inspection
variation
structured pools
appropriate meander
Geomorph.
bends
Diversity
Visual Inspection
Straight channel
Predominantly
riffle/run enhanced
Maintained riffle -pool
of Feature
with little bed
with in -line pool
sequencing
Maintenance
variation
structures
Lack of feature
Sorting within
Sorting within
Bed Material
Pebble Count
sorting; fine
features; coarsening
features; coarsening
Characterization
sediment from
of reachwide material
of reachwide material
bank erosion
At the fourth level, Physicochemical, functions will improve with the reductions in bacterial and nutrient
inputs to the project streams from converted land use (pasture to forested buffer) and filtering capabilities
of the riparian buffer. These nutrient and bacterial parameters will not be monitored directly, but rather
have been estimated as a reduced contribution to project streams of 2.56 x1014fecal coliform colonies,
250 pounds of total nitrogen, and 18 pounds of total phosphorus per year (based on NCDMS 2016
guidance; see Appendix 2). Long-term functional improvements are expected in the fifth level, Biology;
however, the amount of uplift is not anticipated to be significant over the course of monitoring.
In addition to the functions pyramid, we also used the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC
SAM) to evaluate the quality of the existing streams; the results indicate that all of the stream channels
have low functional values (see Appendix 7).
4.1 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
Consideration of existing and future impacts to the area that could limit functional uplift opportunities is
important when assessing project potential. The surrounding land use is predominantly rural with the
lower part of the watershed comprised of rural residences and agricultural and the upper part
transitioning into forested ridges. The project site and the adjacent parcels are zoned as an Open Use
District within Buncombe County, but have experienced little change in recent years as evidenced in the
historic aerial photographs. If development were to occur within the watershed, the proposed restoration
would ensure that the project streams are more resilient to changes in the runoff hydrograph with an
accessible floodplain to reduce erosion potential compared to the currently constrained condition of the
straightened channels.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
20

Within the project site itself, there are site constraints that shape the project. There are existing culverts
at Bridges Cove Road above T1 and Green Valley Road above T2 with permanent set elevations for the
beginnings of these project reaches; however, one older degraded culvert and crossing just below the
start of T1 will be removed. There is also an existing 60" corrugated metal pipe running under a private
driveway below the confluence of RHB and T1; the pipe is in good condition, but will be retrofit to
permanently increase the water surface elevation through the culvert. Additional floodplain drainage
pipes (two 24" HPDE) will also be added to provide a connection for floodplain drainage at the crossing.
There is a section of limited riparian buffer both up and downstream of the driveway culvert where the
stream flows near a residential structure. An overhead electric distribution line also runs approximately
along the driveway from the main residential structure to the barns on the other side of RHB; this line will
be relocated to ensure it remains outside of the conservation easement. A 60' easement exception has
been included for the existing crossing and utility line, which will allow for sufficient area for line and
culvert maintenance or improvements without affecting the protected riparian buffer.
Invasive species are not anticipated to be a problem at the project site. There are scattered individual
plants, but not extensive areas where invasives have taken over the site. We also have not seen any
evidence of beaver activity and do not expect beavers to be a factor in the site management. However,
we will monitor the project for any of these elements that may arise as a threat to project success.
As part of the project, the site easement will also protect 0.24 acre of existing wetland. Wetlands 1
through 4 along RHB-I, T1, top of T2, and confluence of RHB-2 and T2 will be integrated into the
restoration of the stream floodplains. These non-credit generating improvements to the project will help
create additional functional improvement of this system. The table below summarizes the project goals
and objectives that will lead to functional improvements and the monitoring tools that will be used to
track these changes to the site.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
21

5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Table 6. Project Goals, Objectives, and Functional Outcomes
Goals
Objective
Functional Level
Function -Based
Monitoring Measurement
Parameter Effects
Relocate or stabilize
channelized and/or
Flood Frequency
incised streams to
Hydraulics
Floodplain
connect to
Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio and
Restore
or floodproarea
Entrenchment Ratio
channelized and
livestock-
Install a cross-section
Bank
Cross -Sectional Survey
impacted
sized to the bankfull
Geomorphology
Migration/Lateral
streams to
discharge
Stability
Visual Inspection of Bank Stability
stable C and B-
type channels
Create bedform
Percent Riffle and Pool, Facet
diversity with pools,
Slopes, Visual Inspection
riffles, and habitat
Geomorphology
Bed Form Diversity
Visual Inspection of Feature
structures
Maintenance
Fence out livestock to
Bed Material
reduce nutrient,
Geomorphology
Characterization
Pebble Count
bacterial, and sediment
Restore a
impacts from adjacent
Nutrient and
forested riparian
grazing and farming
physicochemical
Bacteria
Estimated Reductions based on
buffer to provide
practices to the project
p p 1
Reductions
Converted Land Use
bank stability,
tributaries.
filtration, and
shading
Plant the site with
Geomorphology/
Density
native trees and shrubs
and an herbaceous
Species
Vegetation
seed mix.
Composition
Species Composition/Diversity
Table adapted from Harman et al 2012
6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Mitigation at the RHBRS will include: the realignment of the project streams to their relic floodplains or
development of bankfull benches, exclusion of livestock, long-term protection of existing wetlands, and
the establishment of a native riparian buffer.
The project will restore a total of 2,142 If, which will generate 2,142 stream credits within the conservation
easement. An overview map of the proposed mitigation is shown in Figure 8 and the project plan sheets
are included in Appendix 1. Based on the deficiencies described above, a mitigation work plan has been
developed to restore the project streams and achieve functional improvements. Mitigation will occur
along RHB and its two tributaries. The majority of the project will be restored using a Priority I Approach
to redevelop a natural planform and bring the streambed elevation up higher in connection with a
floodplain. Limited areas (approximately 15%) will be implemented with a Priority 2 Approach due to
existing site constraints: RHB in vicinity of the driveway crossing (Stations 16+47 to 17+93), the end of
RHB as it ties out at the property line (Stations 25+25 to 26+32), T1 where the valley is constrained near
the top (Stations 100+00 to 101+12), T1 near the driveway crossing (Stations 103+35 to 103+84), and T2
as it enters the site from a culvert (Stations 200+00 to 200+53). In these Priority 2 areas, furnished or
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
22

salvaged topsoil will be used to surface treat all planting areas within the floodplain extents shown on the
plans; adequate lime and fertilizer will be used to ensure adequate vegetative stabilization.
The project streams were designed using a modified reference reach approach using three stable on -site
cross -sections (see Section 6.6 and Appendix 2 for data). The common reference values from Harmon et
al. 2012 were also used to adjust the design criteria as necessary to fit the existing site conditions.
Based on our analysis and design for the project, we would assign RHBRS a low level of risk in the path
toward long-term stability and resilience following restoration implementation. As with other impaired
stream systems, the determination of the bankfull field indicators presents a margin of uncertainty given
the eroding bank features and adjusting channel conditions. However, the project streams have been
designed with channels that will accommodate frequent out -of -bank events and allow room for
adjustment. The sediment load from the watershed is low, with current fine sediment within the project
reaches coming from localized bank erosion. Given the establishment of a diverse and well -vegetated
riparian buffer, the project streams should be resilient enough to handle any slight modifications in stream
discharge that may happen due to watershed development or climate change.
6.1 Round Hill Branch
RHB is the primary stream channel at the site and involves 1,509 If of Restoration over three reaches. This
stream has been channelized and largely disconnected from a floodplain and riparian buffer. In addition,
remnant spoil piles along the upper half of the stream are blocking diffuse flow into the riparian area to
allow treatment of agricultural runoff.
The first section, RHB Reach 1 (RHB-1), will involve the restoration of 670 If. The reach begins shortly
downstream of the property line where the stream enters the site. A Priority 1 approach will be used for
the majority of the reach. The stream will be realigned through the valley bottom to create sinuosity and
riffle -pool sequencing in the bedform. Realigning the stream in its proper position in the valley will
eliminate bank erosion that is occurring presently as the RHB-1 widens and erodes its banks in an attempt
to redevelop a pattern. The near -bank stress will also be reduced with a new pattern, as larger flow events
will be reconnected to a floodplain instead of confined to a channelized reach. Woody habitat will be
improved by installing a wood toe within the live lifts and woody debris within the in -stream cascade
structures to increase aquatic habitat variability within the channel. Spoil materials that were stockpiled
along the former channel will be regraded or removed to develop a reconnected floodplain and natural
transition to the upper slopes. Just upstream of the confluence with T1, the design will transition to a
Priority 2 approach to match the existing elevation of the driveway culvert that will remain in place.
Livestock will be excluded from this reach of RHB.
RHB Reach 2 (RHB-2) begins at the confluence with T1 and will provide 555 If of Restoration until the
confluence with T2. A portion of the stream buffer immediately up and downstream of the driveway
culvert will be excluded from the easement to allow for maintained streambank near a residence and
power line easement. Following the driveway culvert, the design will begin transitioning back to a Priority
1 approach, similar to RHB-1 upstream. The stream will be reconnected to its historic floodplain with a
new pattern with riffle and pool sequence.
After the confluence with T2, RHB Reach 3 (RHB-3) begins, which is a restoration reach of 284 If until the
end of the project site. The same design approach will continue as outlined for the upper reaches of RHB.
At the bottom of the site, the project design takes into account existing bedrock in the stream while
transitioning back into a Priority 2 approach for the tie -out of the reach to the downstream property.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
23

6.2 Tributary 1
T1 (375 If) will be restored using a Priority 1 approach along with limited areas of Priority 2 at its beginning
and end. The design will remove a failing culvert and road crossing, restore a straightened channel to a
natural stream pattern, reconnect the channel to an active floodplain along its length, remove spoil piles
that are preventing diffuse flow through the riparian buffers, and improve and protect an existing wetland.
Near the beginning of the reach, a remnant culvert crossing and roadway that is a major blockage will be
removed. The fill material placed for the former road will be taken away and the banks will be graded
back to redevelop the design cross-section dimensions to allow full expansion of flow in this area.
Downstream of the culvert removal, the restoration design will continue to redevelop the straightened
channel into a more sinuous stream pattern to allow full integration with a floodplain and the riparian
buffer. The restoration of this reach will also include improving and protecting an active seepage wetland
coming in from the north. The banks of the seep will be sloped back to transition and distribute flow into
a connected riparian zones. Downstream of the wetland, T1 will be restored by developed a riffle -pool
sequence with a connected floodplain; similar to RHB, woody material will be incorporated into the
structures to improve habitat variability.
6.3 Tributary 2
The restoration of T2 will be below the existing culvert crossing for 258 If. The design will focus on
redeveloping a single -thread channel with a new pattern with riffle -pool sequencing. A short section of
Priority 2 restoration below the roadway culvert with transition to a Priority 1 approach that will follow a
similar design method used for RHB and T1.
6.4 Crossings
There are two existing crossings that will be included as a part of the project, one on RHB-1 and the other
just downstream of the confluence of RHB-1 and T1. The first on RHB-1 is an existing ford crossing, which
will be improved with a riffle grade control to ensure long-term stability. The crossing will also be fenced
to exclude livestock and opened only temporarily when the landowner will need access to the other side
of the stream. A ford crossing is preferable to installing a new culverted crossing in this location, because
the current floodplain is connected to the stream, and adding additional fill for a culverted crossing would
create a floodplain impairment.
The second crossing on RHB-2 consists of an existing 60" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) driveway culvert,
which is in stable condition. We have designed a proposed retrofit to the existing culvert to ensure a long-
term hydrologic connection and improved floodplain connection. This will involve installing a boulder sill
at the end of the culvert to back water up through the culvert; within the extent feasible during
construction, rock material will be added within the bottom of the culvert. We will also install two 24"
HPDE floodplain pipes along the right bank floodplain to provide additional capacity at higher flows. The
left bank of the culvert is constrained with a power pole and parking area.
Both crossings are excluded from the conservation easement, which are shown on Figure 8. In addition
to culverts within the project, both T1 and T2 enter the site from roadway culverts, which are in stable
condition.
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
24
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

6.5 Fencing and Livestock Watering
Livestock exclusion fencing and gates will be installed to keep livestock out of the portions of the project
adjacent to pasture (approximately half of the site). New fencing locations as needed are shown on the
project plan sheets and will be constructed of woven wire built to NRCS standards. KCI will provide one
well and two livestock drinkers for the sheep and goats on the property (see Figure 8) to provide water
away from the stream.
6.6 Design Determination
KCI conducted bankfull verification by using three cross -sections on -site that had evident bankfull
indicators (see Figure 7 for locations). The locally determined bankfull data were then compared to the
North Carolina rural mountain regional curve estimates (Harman et al. 2000). The cross -sectional areas
determined from the on -site indicators were found to trend lower than the rural mountain regional curve
estimates. Based on our analysis, we used our local bankfull determination values to set our design cross -
sectional area to match the site -specific conditions. Manning's equation was used to relate the field -
determined bankfull calls to the discharge values shown below.
Table 7. Bankfull Determination
NC Mountain
Field-
Field
Cross -Section
Drainage Area
Drainage Area
Rural Regional
determined XS
Calculated
Location
(Acres)
(Sq. Miles)
Curve XS Area
Area (sf)
Q (cfs)
(sf)
RHB-1 XSD
304
0.48
13.1
6.2
26.4
FHB-2 XSF
401
0.63
15.8
7.1
35.5
T1 XSB
71
0.11
4.8
2.5
10.0
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
25
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 26 DMS Project Number 100066

6.7 Sediment
In order to analyze the existing sediment conditions within the project stream, 11 pebble counts were
completed across the site and 1 bulk sample was done on RHB Reach 2 for trend analysis. These data are
provided in Appendix 2 and summarized in Table 8 below. The sediment sampling shows that the
predominant sizes are in the coarse gravel range through the project streams. More impaired cross -
sections, like RHB XS G along RHB-3, showed signs of finer materials as a result of localized bank erosion.
Other sections, such as the reference cross -sections identified on XS D on RHB-1 and XS F on RHB-2, had
similar ranges for their D50 and D84 classes in the coarse gravel range. These material sizes in the
reference cross -sections are what are anticipated following construction. Bedrock does exist along
isolated sections of RHB, but is not the predominant bed material. Based on the sampling and site
observations, we anticipate RHB to have an active bed system with a low to moderate supply of incoming
gravel moving through the project.
Using the collected sediment and cross -sectional data, shear stress values were calculated using both
average channel boundary shear stress and a modified critical shear stress (USDA, Forest Service 2008).
The modified shear stress was calculated using the D84 values from field samples and compared to the
average channel boundary shear stress based on the existing and proposed channel dimensions and
slopes. The shear stress results are shown in the table below.
Table 8. Sediment Summary for Project Reaches
Reach
XS Type
XS ID
Avg Shear
Stress (lb/sf)
Measured
D50 (mm)
Measured
D84 (mm)
Sample
Type
Modif.
Critical Shear
Stress (lb/sf)
Predicted
Grain Size
Movement
(mm)
RHB-1
Existing
RHB XSA
1.06
19
68
PC
0.441
RHB-1
Existing
RHB XSB
1.09
3.3
58
PC
0.102
RHB-1
Existing
RHB XSC
1.03
39
100
PC
0.871
RHB-1
Existing
RHB XSD (Ref)
1.08
37
80
PC
0.785
RHB-2
Existing
RHB XSE (Pool)
1.08
14
39
PC
0.282
RHB-2
Existing
RHB XSF (Ref)
0.88
43
85
PC
0.888
RHB-2
Existing
RHB XSF
0.88
43
85
Bulk
Sample
0.796
RHB-3
Existing
RHB XSG
0.72
1.3
17
PC
0.037
T1
Existing
T1 XSA (Pool)
1.07
0.89
0.12
PC
0.001
T1
Existing
T1 XSB (Ref)
0.51
19
31
PC
0.348
T1
Existing
T1 XSC
1.16
9.2
34
PC
0.202
T2
Existing
T2 XSA
2.02
0.62
0.62
PC
0.001
RHB
Proposed
RHB-1
0.98
37
80
PC
0.785
76
RHB
Proposed
RHB-2
0.76
43
85
PC
0.888
58
RHB
Proposed
RHB-3
0.97
0.089
0.12
PC
0.001
75
T1
Proposed
T1
0.62
19
31
PC
0.348
47
T2
Proposed
T2
0.91
0.062
0.062
PC
0.001
71
Based on the calculated average channel boundary shear stress for the proposed channels, the stream
will have adequate stream power to transport the existing D84 material during a bankfull event. We
anticipate coarsening of certain areas of the project streams once bank erosion and other localized
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
27

sources of fine sediment are eliminated following project completion. However, since newly constructed
streams may be susceptible to bed scour in the short-term, we will install riffle enhancements on all riffles
not otherwise projected to prevent excessive scour in the immediate post -construction period. Proposed
riffle enhancement structures have been designed with a mix of Class A and B stone topped with 10%
native stream material; Class A (the smallest among Classes A and B) has a modified critical shear stress
that is large enough to withstand all of the predicted average channel boundary stresses. The last column
in Table 8 provides a predicted grain size that will move at the calculated modified critical shear stress for
the proposed channel. The largest grain size predicted to be mobilized is 76 mm (1.7 inches). Given the
mix of the constructed riffle, 106 mm equates to the midrange of the Class A Stone (approximately 4 in.).
Additionally, our experience has revealed minimal movement of constructed riffle material when it is well
mixed and placed in the stream bed in similar design conditions.
6.8 Morphological Essential Parameters Tables
Table 9. Morphological Essential Parameters for RHB Reach 1
Reference
Parameter
Existing Condition
Proposed
Condition
Floodprone Belt Width (ft)
19 - 32
N/A
30 - 38
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
307
N/A
307
Channel/Reach Classification
F4
C4/B4/B4c
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5.2-6.8
N/A
9.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.9-1.2
N/A
0.8
Design Discharge Area (ftz)
5.4-6.3
N/A
7.6
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
4.2-5.2
N/A
5.1
Design Discharge (cfs)
26.4-29.5
N/A
39.2
Water Surface Slope
0.022
0.020
0.023
Sinuosity
1.07
1.1-1.2
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
4.3-7.6
12-18
12.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0-1.3
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4-11.7
1.4-2.2+
4.1 - 5.3
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
14/29/37/80/140/-0.05/2.4
Gravel
Gravel
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
28
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Table 10. Morphological Essential Parameters for RHB Reach 2
Reference
Parameter
Existing Condition
Proposed
Condition
Floodprone Belt Width (ft)
35
N/A
44 - 65
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
403
N/A
403
Channel/Reach Classification
F4/E4
C4/B4/B4c
B4c/C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
5.5
N/A
11.4
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.3
N/A
0.9
Design Discharge Area (ft')
7.1
N/A
10.2
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
5.0
N/A
4.7
Design Discharge (cfs)
35.5
N/A
47.5
Water Surface Slope
0.02
0.020
0.14
Sinuosity
1.05
1.1-1.2
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
4.2
12-18
12.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
6.4
1.4-2.2+
3.9-5.7
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp
10/29/43/85/130/-0.18/3.1
Gravel
Gravel
(mm)
Table 11. Morphological Essential Parameters for RHB Reach 3
Parameter
Floodprone Belt Width (ft)
Existing Condition
29
Reference Condition
Proposed
38 - 55
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
474
N/A
474
Channel/Reach Classification
F4/E4
C4/B4/B4c
C4/B4c
Design Discharge Width (ft)
11.5
N/A
11.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.8
N/A
0.9
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
9.0
N/A
11.2
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
4.7
N/A
5
Design Discharge (cfs)
42.7
N/A
55.6
Water Surface Slope
0.01
0.020
0.017
Sinuosity
1.12
1.1-1.2
N/A
Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
12-18
12.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
1.4-2.2+
3.2 - 4.7
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.32/0.69/1.3/17.0/37/0.19/8.6
Gravel
Gravel
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
29
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Table 12. Morphological Essential Parameters for T1
Parameter
Floodprone Belt Width (ft)
Existing Condition
9
Reference Condition
Proposed
35 - 45
N/A
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
74
N/A
70
Channel/Reach Classification
F4
C4/B4/B4c
C4c
Design Discharge Width (ft)
3.8-4.1
N/A
6.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.7
N/A
0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft')
2.5-2.9
N/A
3.7
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.5-4.0
N/A
3.9
Design Discharge (cfs)
10.0
N/A
14.2
Water Surface Slope
0.02
0.020
0.021
Sinuosity
1.10
1.1-1.2
1.13
Width/Depth Ratio
5.8-5.9
12-18
3.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0-1.7
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9-7.9
1.4-2.2+
5.1 - 6.6
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip /disp (mm)
8.6/15/19/31/53/-0.9/1.9
Gravel
Gravel
Table 13. Morphological Essential Parameters for T2
Parameter
Floodprone Belt Width (ft)
Existing Condition
12
Reference Condition
Proposed
N/A
27 - 34
Contributing Drainage Area (acres)
74
N/A
74
Channel/Reach Classification
G4
N/A
B4/C4b
Design Discharge Width (ft)
9.7
N/A
6.4
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.3
N/A
0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
3.3
N/A
3.1
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.1
N/A
4.6
Design Discharge (cfs)
10.3
N/A
14
Water Surface Slope
0.03
N/A
0.031
Sinuosity
1.06
N/A
1.13
Width/Depth Ratio
28.1
N/A
13.2
Bank Height Ratio
-0.2
N/A
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
N/A
4.2 - 5.3
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip /
0.062/0.062/0.062/0.062/0.62/-/1.0
Gravel
Gravel
disp (mm)
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
30
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

6.9 Planting
All unforested portions of the project easement will be planted to establish a forested riparian buffer. The
target community type will most closely resemble a Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype) as
described by Schafale (2012) albeit on a lower order stream. This community type is found on the smaller
spectrum of alluvial systems in the North Carolina Mountains. While the riparian forests at RHBRS may
be on a smaller scale than that described in Schafale, the species are expected to have a similar
composition and distribution. The existing vegetation at the project site consists of primarily pasture
grasses aside from isolated trees on the tops of banks along the upper portions of T1 and RHB-1.
The planting plan is shown in Figure 9 as well as in the attached project plan sheets (Appendix 1). Trees
and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing) in an area of
approximately 3.68 acres to achieve a mature survivability of 210 stems per acre after seven years. Woody
vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy (growing season ends November 8t") and will
occur before March 15. Species to be planted may consist of the following shown in two separate zones.
The existing jurisdictional wetlands will be planted with species from the Zone 1 list.
Table 14. Planting Zones
Zone
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Status (Eastern
Mts & Piedmont)
Hazel Alder
Alnus serrulata
OBL
Pawpaw
Asimina triloba
FAC
Yellow Birch
Betula alleghaniensis
FAC
American Hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
1
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
FACW
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
FACW
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
FAC
Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
FAC
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
Yellow Buckeye
Aesculus flava
FACU
Sweet Birch
Betula lento
FACU
Bitternut Hickory
Carya cordiformis
FACU
Pignut Hickory
Carya glabra
FACU
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
FACU
2
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
White Oak
Querca alba
FACU
Southern Red Oak
Quercus falcata
FACU
Chestnut Oak
Quercus montana
UPL
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
FACU
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
FACW
Black Willow
Salixnigra
OBL
Live
Stakes
Silky Willow
Salixsericea
OBL
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
FAC
Ninebark
Physocarpus opulifolius
FACW
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
31
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

A custom herbaceous seed mix composed of native species will be used to further stabilize and restore
the site (see plan sheets for detailed seed mixes). Existing undesirable pasture grasses will be sprayed with
herbicide and left fallow until full mortality is achieved. The areas will then be scarified or disked to break
up any existing compaction prior to seeding and stabilizing with temporary and permanent seed mixes as
prescribed in the project plans.
6.10 Project Assets
The tables below outline the anticipated project assets that will be produced from the RHBRS project and
are shown in Figure 8. A buffer analysis was completed to ensure that the site complies with required
buffer widths; stream with limited buffer widths, such as at the top of the site and at the driveway
crossing, are not being claimed for credit, and are described in Table 15.
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
32
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Table 15. Project Asset Table
Project
Existing
Restoration
Creditable
Approach
Component
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Footage/
Stationing
Footage or
Footage or
Priority
Notes/Comments
-or-Reach
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Acreage
Acreage
Acreage
Level
ID
R
10+21 to
Crediting at top begins at full 30'-width buffer; 20' exception
691
705
670
Restoration
1/11
1 :1
670.000
for crossing STA 13+51 to 13+71; exception at crossing STA
Reach 1
17+26
17+11to 17+26
RHB
to
575
622
555
Restoration
1
1 :1
555.000
No credit (limited widths/crossing) from STA 17+26 to 17+92
Reach 2
23+26
RHB
317
48 to
284
284
Restoration
1/11
1 :1
284.000
Reach 3
26+32
100+09 to
Crediting begins at full 30'-width buffer; no credit at crossing
T1
383
387
375
Restoration
1
1 :1
375.000
103+97
from STA 103+84 to 103+97
T2
245
200+53 to
258
258
Restoration
I/II
1 : 1
258.000
Crediting begins at full 30'-width buffer
203+11
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
33
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Table 16. Length and Summations by Mitigation Category
Non -riparian
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Restoration Level
Wetland
Buffer (square feet)
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
Non-
Riverine
Riverine
Restoration
2,142
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
Table 17. Overall Assets Summary
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site (Project ID - 100066)
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category
Overall Credits
Stream
2,142.000
RP Wetland
NR Wetland
Buffer
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
34
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Monitoring of the RHBRS shall occur for a minimum of seven years following construction. The following
performance standards for stream mitigation are conform to the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT 2016) and will be used to judge site success.
Vegetation Performance
The site must achieve a woody stem density of 260 stems/acre after five years and 210 stems/acre after
seven years to be considered successful. Trees in each plot must average 6 feet in height at Year 5 and 8
feet at Year 7. A single species may not account for more than 50% of the required number of stems within
any plot. Volunteers must be present for a minimum of two growing seasons before being included
performance standards in Year 5 and Year 7. For any volunteer tree stem to count toward vegetative
success, it must be a species from those listed in Section 6.9 from the planting zones. If monitoring
indicates that any of these standards are not being met, corrective actions will take place.
Stream Hydrologic Performance
During the monitoring period, a minimum of four bankfull events must be recorded within the seven-year
monitoring period forthe project streams. These bankfull events must occur in separate monitoring years.
Bankfull events will be verified using an automatic stream monitoring gauge on RHB-2 to record daily
stream depth readings. The intermittent project streams (T1 and T2) must also show a minimum of 30
continuous flow days within each calendar year (assuming normal precipitation); Round Hill Branch, a
perennial stream, is anticipated to have nearly continuous flow in a normal year. A "normal" year will be
based on NRCS climatological data for Buncombe County with the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as
the range of normal, as documented in the USACE Technical Report "Accessing and Using Meteorological
Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology, April 2000."
Stream Geomorphology Performance
The site's geomorphology for all reaches will be monitored per the NCIRT 2016 monitoring guidelines. The
bank height ratio (BHR) should not exceed 1.2 and the entrenchment ratio (ER) must not fall below 2.2 for
C and E channels. BHR and ER at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%
from the baseline condition during any given monitoring interval (e.g., no more than 10% between years
1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 5, or 5 and 7). There will be an overall assessment for each reach to distinguish
localized versus systemic concerns for that stream. Adjustment and lateral movement following
construction and as the channel settles over the monitoring period are to be expected. Geomorphological
measurements of cross -sections will be used to determine if any adjustments that occur are out of the
range typically expected for this type of stream.
8.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of the RHBRS shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream hydrology, stability, and
vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established performance
standards described above. The Proposed Monitoring Plan in Figure 10 shows the proposed locations of
monitoring features described below.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will take place between July 15T and leaf drop. The success of the riparian buffer
plantings will be evaluated using six 0.02-acre square or rectangular plots within the planted stream
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
35

buffer. Three plots will be permanently installed, while the other three will be randomly placed at the
time of each monitoring visit. Vegetation must be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior to
the start of the first year of monitoring.
In the permanent plots, the plant's height, species, location, and origin (planted versus volunteer) will be
noted. In the random plots, species and height will be recorded. In all plots, invasive stems will also be
recorded to determine the percentage of invasive stems present. Additionally, a photograph will be taken
of each plot. Beginning at the end of the first growing season, the site's vegetation will be monitored in
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Stream Hydrologic Monitoring
Bankfull events on -site will be verified using one automatic stream monitoring gauge on RHB-2. Additional
gauges and/or recording devices such as a camera (set to record a photo or video a minimum of once per
day) will be installed at the tops of T1 and T2 to document the presence of flow.
Stream Geomorphology Monitoring
For stream monitoring, the purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream.
Following the procedures established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites
(Harrelson et al. 1994) and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification
system (1994 and 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension measurements, longitudinal
profiles, and bed materials sampling.
Dimension
Ten permanent cross -sections (5 riffles and 5 pools) will be established throughout the site to capture
each reach that is being either restored. The distribution of the cross -sections is as follows and as shown
on Figure 10: RHB-1 (1 riffle and 1 pool), RHB-2 (1 riffle and 1 pool), RHB-3 (1 riffle and 1 pool), T1 (1 riffle
and 1 pool), T2 (1 riffle and 1 pool). The extents of each cross-section will be recorded by either
conventional survey or GPS. The cross -sectional surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the
stream and banks and will include points on the adjacent floodplain or valley, at the top of bank, bankfull,
at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg. Width/depth, bank height and entrenchment ratios,
as well as bankfull cross -sectional area, width, max depth and mean depth will be calculated for each riffle
cross-section based on the survey data. The BHR will be measured by using a constant bankfull area over
the monitoring period and adjusting the bankfull elevation each monitoring event based on how this area
fits in the cross -sectional data. The revised bankfull elevation will then be used to calculate BHR along
with the current low bank height. Width/depth ratios, bankfull cross -sectional area, width, max depth and
mean depth will be calculated for each pool cross-section. Cross-section measurements will take place in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Profile
Detailed longitudinal profile will be conducted along the lengths of all restoration reaches during the as -
built survey. Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, and riffle) as well as calculations of pool -
to -pool spacing. No additional profile measurements will be taken during the monitoring period unless
deemed necessary due to concerns about bed elevation adjustments.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
36

Wetland Delineation
A wetland delineation will be completed during the fifth year of project monitoring to ensure the existing
on -site wetlands described in Section 3.1.3 have not been reduced due to the project. KCI will conduct a
delineation of wetlands in accordance with methodologies outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the regional supplement.
Visual Assessment
An annual site walk will be conducted at the end of each monitoring period to document any problem
areas. Specific problem areas that could arise include excessive bank erosion, bed deposition or
aggradation, problems with the installed structures, or sparse vegetative cover. The findings of the visual
assessment as well as any recommended corrective actions for problem areas will be summarized in the
monitoring reports by way of a Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) figure.
Photograph reference points (PRPs) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be marked in the
monitoring plan and the bearing/orientation of the photograph will be documented to allow for repeated
use.
Reporting
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the most current DMS monitoring template from June
2017. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding
of project status and trends, population of DMS databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in
decision making regarding project close-out. The report will document the monitored components and
include all collected data, analyses, and photographs. The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted
during the first full growing season following project completion. The site will be monitored for
performance standards for seven years after completion of construction. Full monitoring reports will be
completed in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Limited monitoring reports (CCPV, photos, stream gauge data, and
site narrative) will be submitted in Years 4 and 6.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
37

Table 18. Monitoring Requirements
Round Hill Branch Restoration
Site
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Pattern and
2,142 If (all restoration
Once, during as-
Additional measurements in later years
Yes
Profile
reaches)
built survey
may be taken as necessary.
Yes
Stream
10 cross -sections
Monitoring Years
Dimension
(5 riffles, 5 pools)
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1 pressure transducer
Yes
Stream
gauge; 2 other gauges or
Annual—
1 pressure transducer on RHC-2
Hydrology
cameras on T1 and T2 for
throughout year
flow documentation
Wetland
Delineate existing on -site wetlands during
Yes
1 wetland delineation
Monitoring Year 5
the fifth year of monitoring to ensure no
Extents
loss of wetland due to stream restoration.
6 vegetation monitoring
Monitoring Years
3 permanently fixed, 3 randomly located
Yes
Vegetation
plots
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
each monitoring visit
Exotic and
Locations of invasive vegetation will be
Yes
nuisance
Annual
mapped
vegetation
Yes
Project
Semi-annual
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
38
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 39 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 40 DMS Project Number 100066

9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, KCI shall notify DMS and members of the IRT
and work with these two organizations to develop contingency plans and remedial actions. The
Maintenance Plan in Appendix 6 covers the anticipated items that may require maintenance and/or
adaptive management.
10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation
easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct annual inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by
the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing
Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be
governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund
may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable. The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to
identify boundary markings as needed. Any fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the
owner of the underlying fee to maintain.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066
41

Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
42
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

11.0 REFERENCES CITED
Griffith, G., J. Omernik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, Regional Descriptions. US
E.P.A. Last accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-
region-4#pane-31
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M. A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.
Clinton, and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
In: Kane, D.L. (Ed.). Proc. AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage,
AK. Pp. 185-190.
Harman, W. and R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington, D.C. EPA 843-B-12-005
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: an Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services. 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock
Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. Last accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guid
ance%20and%20Template%20Documents/Estimates%20for%20nutrient%20and%20FC%20red u
ctions_June15_2016.pdf
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services. 2017. Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements,
and Content Guidance. Last accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guid
ance%20and%20Template%20Documents/13_DMS_Mon_Rep_Templ_June_2017.pdf
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources. 2018 Final 303(d) list. Raleigh, NC. Last accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeg/Water%20QuaIity/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d--List-
Final.pdf
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources. 2018. Surface Water Classification. Last accessed at:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
43
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2005. Total Maximum
Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for Newfound Creek, North Carolina, Waterbody ID NC_6-84b,
Waterbody ID NC_6-84c, and Waterbody ID NC_6-84d. Last accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeg/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/FINAL%20TMDLS/French%2OBroa
d/NewfoundCreekApproved FCTMDL.pdf
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. Last accessed at: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-
District-Mitigation-Update.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Last
accessed at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-nhp/documents/files/Natural-Community-Classification-
Fou rth-Approxi mation-2012. pdf
Shields, FD Jr, RR Copeland, PC Klingeman, MW Doyle, and A Simon. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129 (8), 575-584.
Shields, Ing. A., W. P. Ott, and J. C. Van Uchelen. 1936. Application of Similarity Principles and
Turbulence Research to Bed -load Movement. Pasadena, CA: Soil Conservation Service, California
Institute of Technology.
Simon, Andrew and Massimo Rinaldi. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The
roles of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response.
Geomorphology, Volume 79, Issue 3-4, p. 361-383.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
USDA, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program. 2008. Stream Simulation: An
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road -Stream Crossings.
Appendix E: Methods for Streambed Mobility/Stability Analysis. Last accessed 9/2016 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020. Web Soil Survey. Last accessed at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
USGS. 2020. Geologic Units by Geographic Area, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/geog-units.htmI
Mitigation Plan
November 13, 2020
44
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 100066

APPENDICES
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Plan Sheets
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

U
O
U
Reach ID
1220
w
w
PROJECT z
ova& LOCATION
N T
o�
9
GREEN VALLEY
RD. GREED V PCIEN �O"QO
Oq
ate.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
i0cal101x•=1101WIN N1c030=011=1ulr18180any W1EnemaMeansSol
��
ROUND HILL BRANCH
RESTORATION SITE
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
BEGIN
TRIBUT
Project
Component
Existing
Restoration
Creditable
Restoration
Approach
Mitigation
Mitigation
Footage/
Stationing
Footage
Footage or
Priority
Notes/Comments
-or-
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
TO SITE
FROM ASHEVILLE, TAKE U.S. 74 ATL.
USE THE TWO RIGHT LANES TO TAKE
A RIGHT ONTO NC-63 WEST. TURN
LEFT ONTO NEWFOUND ROAD. TAKE
RABBIT HAM ROAD TO GREEN VALLEY
ROAD. THE STREAM PROJECT ENTRANCE
WILL BE ON ON THE LEFT AT 588 GREEN
VALLEY ROAD, LEICESTER, NC 28748.
INDEX OF SHEETS
1
TITLE SHEET
2
GENERAL NOTES &PROJECT LEGEND
3-5
DETAILS
6-7
SITE PLAN
8
PROFILES
9-10
PLANTING PLAN
11-12
BOUNDARY MARKING PLAN
13-19
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 4.47 ACRES
CATALOGING UNIT 06010105
I RHB SHEETS 4, 6, 9, II I
CONTRACTNUMBERSHEET
TOTAL
NO.SHEETS
���A
�53J
7534
1
19
Prepored In the Office of:
=:4:=KC1
�� .15HUCIA'I'156 OIL SG
ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•ECOLOGISTS
4505 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD
SUITE 400
RALEIGH, NC 27609
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
KRISTIN E. KNIGHT. PE
MATTHEW REID
PROJECT ENGINEER
DMS PROJECT MANA(iEX
ALEX FRENCH
PROJECT DESIGNER
PROJECT ENGINEER
��iysllelrrrr
-� �OQ'.F 55 D;y�f�.� '-
:Q4 9f'
_ SEAL
040899 - -
.GTIV�,
1�17 5 5 5��7,
10-GU-LOGO A.E.
SIGNATURE:

H A
GENERAL NOTES:
CONTROL POINTS:
1
�o¢�FESS,o`��9:
DESC.
NORTHING
EASTING
ELEV.
_ SEAL
BEARINGS AND DISTANCES:
040899
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1983 GRID BEARINGS.
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL
GPS 1
GPS 2
705359.06
705212.26
890136.60
889485.47
2171.12
2182.58
_
Z
O
UJ
(GROUND) VALUES.
GPS 3
705368.42
888964.71
2218.47
WE-
/�7-
�'
4
GPS 4
704925.08
889131.44
2178.10
UTILITY/SUBSURFACE PLANS:
KCI # 200
705185.20
890235.08
2155.38
NO SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT.
10-28 -2020
EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED.
KCI # 201
705017.64
889840.76
2163.21
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING A UTILITY
KC1 # 202
705060.21
889494.48
2169.86
LOCATOR AND ESTABLISHING THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND
KCI#500A
704939.49
889407.65
2169.87
ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT REACH.
KCI#501
704959.15
889308.46
2171.35
KCI#500
704939.48
889407.66
2169.86
KCI#503 704528.44 889427.22 2181.21
KCI#504
704434.43
889386.61
2184.71
aL)
KCI#550
704919.78
889225.81
2174.17
aw
KCI#551
704493.12
889284.02
2219.89
oa
KCI#552
704924.97
889131.34
2178.09
as
u~
KCI#553
705368.40
888964.62
2218.43
Z�
LU
H Ln
` Nz
PROJECT LEGEND:
W
w Q
- O O
ce
W
O O
O
�w �
¢ Z OS
Z
O
N M
W
Z O
Proposed Thalweg
°Z
w/Approximate Bankfull Limits
Minor Contour Line (lft.)
z �W
_
z
Major Contour Line (5ft.)
Proposed Riffle Enhancement
0
Proposed Riffle Grade Control
Proposed Cascade Structure
a
z
2
Lu
J
O
cl�
Proposed Step Pool
Z E
L
Proposed Live Lift
0° O
°z
Floodplain Grading Extents - •_„_.._•
_ <
o
Z 0O
Existing Channel to be Filled
Z:)O LU
co
�
o
z
D
m
DATE: OCTOBER 2020
WALE: N.T.S.
GENERAL
NOTES
&
PROJECT
LEGEND
SHEET 2
OF 19

USE 7000 COIR MATTING BACKED WITH WESTERN
EXCEL CC-4 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. BACKFILL
WITH SUITABLE GROWING MATERIAL.
z
INSTALL LIVE WHIPS ON TOP OF LAYER OF
USE 700 GRAM COIR MATTING
m
SUITABLE SOIL (0.1' - 0.2') WITH APPROX.
ON ANY GRADED BENCHES
OR TERRACE SLOPES
O
1 FOOT OF PLANT MATERIAL EXPOSED.
MINIMUM LENGTH OF CUTTINGS SHALL BE
3' MINIMUM
BENCH
4'. DISTANCE BETWEEN CUTTINGS SHALL BE 4".
r44'EXPOSED
III
STONE BASE
BASEFLOW
O
0 _
o
no
00 0�
0
5' MINIMUM
PER DESIGNER'S DIRECTION,
10% NATIVE SOIL r
, INTERSPERSE WITH WOODY
12%CLASS A STONE
DEBRIS THAT EXTENDS INTO
20%CLASS BSTONE
60%CLASS 1 STONE
SECTION (ROCK BASE)
POOL TO ENHANCE HABITAT.
LIFTS AT STATIONS 15+38. 20+79
SEE ROCK BASE SECTION
FOR MATERIALS
INSTALL SOIL FOR
WHIPS ON TOP OF
FILTER FABRIC
EXPOSED
/ TOE
BRUSH FILL
/OOD
BASEFLOW
CROSS LIMBS
5' MINIMUM
r
SECTION (WOOD BASE)
LIFTS AT STATIONS 12+87, 18+79, 22+63
NOTES:
USE 1.51x1"x2" WOODEN STAKES ON
2' CENTERS. •STAKES SHALL HAVE A
LIVE LIFT
'ROOFING'NAIL AT TOP TO KEEP
FABRIC FROM SLIPPING OFF.
SCALE:NTS
LAY FILTER FABRIC OVER UPSTREAM
TOP EDGE OF SILL ROCK(S): BEHIND
FILTER FABRIC. BACKFILL CLASS A
AND NATURAL STREAM MATERIALS.
PROPOSED
PROFILE
FILTER FABRIC:— STONE-
BACKFILL WITH A BOULDERS
STONE MIXTURE OF
50% CLASS A STONE.
50% NATIVE STONE / SOIL.
ENSURE THAT THE MIXTURE
IS WELL PACKED TO ELIMINATE
WATER PIPING.
A
12FT WIDE - 18" DEPTH
ROCK FORD CROSSING:
OOp
20%#57 STONE
60% CLASS A STONE
Q O
209/. CLASS B STONE
PROPOSED'RIFFLE
goO QO
PROPOSED'RIFFLE
GRADE CONTROL'.
GRADE CONTROL'.
SEE DETAIL BELOW.
O(_1l_/
SEE DETAIL BELOW.
TOP OF BANK
FLOW _
O��
d(f)QOOO
OD OO CO OOO
Oo U" U
)o ((0���/�
OO O C O OO
O:JL/
TOP OF BANK
OOpO
O
O
- ((((\0
EXTEND ROCK MIXTURE
MINIMUM OF 15 FEET PAST
Ol_1l_/
BOTTOM OF BANK, BOTH
O OpO
SIDES. TIE INTO EXISTING
DRIVE.
O O
A J
12FT WIDE - 18" DEPTH
ROCK FORD CROSSING:
20%#57 STONE
PLAN
MATCH EXISTING
60% CLASS A STONE
SLOPE OF ACCESS DRIVE
20% CLASS B STONE
(BOTH SIDES)
UNDERLAY STONE MIXTURE
WITH FILTER FABRIC
NOTE:
SECTION A -A
TOP 4" OF ROCK MIXTURE SHALL
BE FINISHED WITH A COMBINATION
OF CABC STONE AND NATIVE BED
MATERIAL TO ENSURE THAT A
SMOOTH, TAMPED SURFACE.
ROCK FORD CROSSING
SCALE: NITS
— SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR
rp
STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
W
w
T
Y Y
Y
1
z z
m Q
m
z
m
INSTALL CENTER BOULDER
a O
pa
W
J
SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN SIDE
o 0
0LL
LL
BASEFLOW
FINISHED
BOULDERS TO FORCE FLOW
TO CENTER OF CHANNEL
GRADE
MIN
5F,
INSTALL SILL AT TANGLE
TO ENCOURAGE FLOW
MIN.
_ _ = III— III=III=III=III=III
AWAY FROM OUTER BANK
18" NOM. THICKNESS MIX OF.
FILTER FABRIC
18" NOM. THICKNESS MIX OF:
OIL
6FT. MIN.
(SINGLE
30% CLASS A STONE
(KEY IN UNDER
30% CLASS A STONE
O �O
STEP
70% CLASS B STONE
STREAM BED)
70% CLASS B STONE
0
POOLS)
NOTES:
FOR DOUBLE STEP POOLS, CONTINUE ROCK MIXTURE
FROM FIRST SILL ALL THE WAY TO THE SECOND SILL.
❑O NOT STOP AT THE BET MINIMUM AS SHOWN IN THE
SINGLE STEP POOL PLAN VIEW.
BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE STONES OR SHOT
ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG, WITH AN AXIS
APPROXIMATELY 3' L x 2' W x 1.5' D.
BOULDER SILLS TO EXTEND S MINIMUM INTO STREAM
BANKS FOR STEP POOL STRUCTURES.
STONE INSTALLATION: START BY INSTALLING STONE
MIXTURE. THEN ADD SURGE STONE TO FILL IN VOIDS.
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM MATERIAL
TO OBTAIN FINAL GRADE.
IF APPROVED BY DESIGNER, BOULDER SILLS CAN BE
REPLACED WITH LIVE HARDWOOD LOGS FOUND ON
O
SITE. LOGS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10" DIAMETER
AND STACKED IN A TRIANGLE FORMATION. NAIL
(ROOFERS NAIL OR NAIL WITH WASHER) FILTER FABRIC
TO THE TOP LOG AND CONTINUE DOWN AND UNDER
.. ..
STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON STEP POOL DETAIL.
LOG SILL
STONE TOE:
START ROCK 2FT
BELOW WATERS EDGE
AND EXTEND TO 0.5FT
ABOVE WATERS EDGE i
Q
-O'
Q
E
Ft\FF\
PLAN VIEW
ROCK MIXTURES
REACH
CLASS A
CLASS B
NATIVE SOIL
yllllllt4l,1,
- SEAL
- 040899 -
i V T• � J � t�`
r2r, ��ll 11E1 01 5 L,a1
10 -28 -2020
Y Y
O
m ti m
I o m o SEE ROCK
MIXTURES BELOW
SEE CROSS-SECTION
SHEET FOR EXACT
6" MINIMUM DIMENSIONS
(SEE ROCK MIXTURE
TABLE, THIS DETAIL) SECTION
ROCK MIXTURES
REACH
CLASS A
CLASS B
NATIVE SOIL
Ti
504
40%
10%
T2
50%
40%
10%
RHB-xsA
40%
50%
10%
RHB-xsB
40%
50%
10%
RHB-xsC
40%
50%
1 10%
STONE INSTALLATION
START BY INSTALLING STONE / SOIL MIXTURE.
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM BED
MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS AND OBTAIN FINAL
GRADE. ENSURE THAT THE MIXTURE IS WELL
PACKED TO MINIMIZE WATER PIPING.
RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT
SCALE:NTS
Y Y
Z O Z
m � m
OLL O
F O m O SEE CROSS-SECTION SHEET
FOR EXACT DIMENSIONS
WRAP AND STAKE COIR
MATTING UNDER
1' MIN. CONSTRUCTED BANK
SEE NOTE °�
BELOW
2' MIN. SEE ROCK
MIXTURES BELOW
NOTE:
SECTION PER DESIGNER'S DIRECTION,
INTERSPERSE WITH WOODY
DEBRIS TO ENHANCE HABITAT.
z�
c5 LL SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR
m STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS z LL
FOR BEGIN AND END OF w
RIFFLE
TAPER STONE INTO
FLOW —+ — — — — — - 7—MSEFLOW F EXISTING STREAM BED
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _
GV�pE O �6.l0. ..00O CJ OOP �o POOL
II
PROFILE I
STONE INSTALLATION:
START BY INSTALLING STONE / SOIL MIXTURE.
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM BED
MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS AND OBTAIN FINAL
GRADE. ENSURE THAT THE MIXTURE IS WELL
PACKED TO MINIMIZE WATER PIPING.
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
SCALE: NTS
u
z
J
U Q
z I­_U
< U
m z
J 0 o
Q z
D
Z0
LO O
LI inOfO
U
Z
D
m
DETAILS

NOTES:
-MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR
TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER TO
A STREAM SECTION.
-MATTINO SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG
BOTH SIDES OF NEW STREAM LENGTH
-MATTING SHALL EXTEND FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO THE TOP OF BANK
COIR MATTING
UNDERLAIN BY STRAW,
SEED, AND FERTILIZER
1" x 2" STAKE
W/ ROOFING NAIL
COIR MATTING
SCALE: NTS
——— Wbkf ———
INSTALL TO ONLY HALF TYPICAL RIFFLE
BANKFULL ON INNER
BENDS OF POOLS
Wbkf
-- BANKFULL
— GROUND SURFACE
NOTE:
COIR MATTING SHALL BE
WATER SURFACE
INSTALLED ALONG ENTIRE TYPICAL POOL
BANK HEIGHT FOR STEP
COIR MATTING
POOL STRUCTURES
EXAMPLE COIR MATTING PLACEMENT
SCALE: NTS
FILTER
FABRIC
O O
6" NOM. THICKNESS MIX OF:
10 % NATIVE SOIL
40% CLASS A STONE
STONE INSTALLATION: 50 % CLASS B STONE
START BY INSTALLING STONE / SOIL MIXTURE. (WASH IN NATURAL STONE AND
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM BED SOIL MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS)
MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS AND OBTAIN FINAL
GRADE. ENSURE THAT THE MIXTURE IS WELL
PACKED TO MINIMIZE WATER PIPING.
STABILIZED ROCK OUTLET
SCALE: NTS
10 FEET
4" OF CRUSHER RUN
PROOF ROLL AND
ROCKCOMPACTED
SLOPE 1/4" SLOPE 1/4"
STABILIZE
FOR SMOOTH FINISH
PER FOOT PER FOOT
P7 0
oO
0l
O00 00
O OO�OOO
��PROOF
CRUSHER RUN STONE
ROLL AND
UNDERLAIN WITH WOVEN
STABILIZE SUBGRADE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
STABILIZED ACCESS DRIVE
SCALE: NTS
•�''` ICARI!''�•
a� FSSIp ��2
SEAL -
040899 -
GTIN
E�
10 -28 -2020
SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR 1
STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS I
1 FOR BEGIN AND END OF
I RIFFLE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESIGNED END
DESIGNED BE
RIFFLE ELEVATION
RIFFLE ELEVATION
ON (SEE PROFILE SHEETS)
(SEE PROFILE SHEETS)
BOULDER OR
TAPER RIFFLE MATERIAL LOG DROP BOULDER OR
INTO FINAL GRADE LOG DROP BOULDER DISTRIBUTE RIFFLE GRADE
COMING OUT OF POOL OR LOG SILL
------------------------ EVENLY THROUGHOUT
SIGNED BOULDER DROPS. EXACT
DE
EVA POOL- 00
OC�OOO \ // FLOW —► NUMBER OF DROPS TO BE
O 000 O O - _ O O DETERMINED BY DESIGN
O O O �, Ou O O Ou REPRESENTATIVE.
O O000000
NOTE: —
PER DESIGNER'S DIRECTION,
INTERSPERSE WITH WOODY SECTION B-B' (LONGITUDINAL VIEW)
DEBRIS TO ENHANCE HABITAT.
DESIGNED POOL
ELEVATION
Y 2 Y
Z 3 Z
m ~ m STABILIZE BANKS
WITH 700 GRAM
COIR MATTING
WRAP AND STAKE COIR
�O MATTING UNDER
Q CONSTRUCTED BANK
NOTES: ��°�� c- o ° o
O �O / OOO / OOO GO
START BY INSTALLING STONE / SOIL MIXTURE. O ° O 0° O
FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM BED
MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS AND OBTAIN FINAL 10 % NATIVE SOIL
GRADE. ENSURE THAT THE MIXTURE IS WELL 2' MIN.
PACKED TO MINIMIZE WATER PIPING. BOTH SECTION A -A' (CROSS-SECTION VIEW) 30% CLASS A STONE
SIDES 60% CLASS B STONE
WRAP AND STAKE COIR MATTING UNDER (WASH IN NATURAL STONE AND
CONSTRUCTED BANK THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SOIL MATERIAL TO FILL IN VOIDS)
LENGTH OF RIFFLE SECTIONS. NOTE:
SEE CROSS-SECTION SHEET FOR EXACT PER DESIGNER'S DIRECTION,
DIMENSIONS. INTERSPERSE VMTH WOODY
DEBRIS THAT EXTENDS INTO
BOULDER
LOGS S POOL TO ENHANCE HABITAT.
r A
00' ooFLOW oO o 0 00' 0 00' ooo 0 00' oo' oo
Boao voo° off. e 'O �'o. a c'a 0 0o FLOwoo'
0.
O o
BOTTOM OF BANK
LL—,— —n� ��1z—-s-o°�--�� v_G— —_—_—
. TOP OF BANK
(BANKFULL)
A VARIES -
f
PLAN VIEW
CASCADE STRUCTURE
SCALE: NTS
u 0 L
Z U N
z W U1 Q
V UJ ¢ J
00
K Q
W W U
Z U
Z0
d LLO
W OCD
W ¢J
Z W LL¢
w c�
DETAILS

-4' -2' 0' 4' 8'
REACH: T1 - STATION 100+00 TO 103+97
REACH: T2 - STATION 200+00 TO 203+11
"C4" STREAM TYPE
"C4" STREAM TYPE
XS GRAPHIC SCALE
ICA,J��''�•
•�''`�k
SEE PLAN SHEETS
SHEETS
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
FOR FLOODPLAIN
EXTENTS
6.4'
SEAL
21' 1.3' 1.3' 2.1' 1
1 2' 1.2' 12' 2' 1
_
��� �� -
`
z
rr
W
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
I r
rry,f �f
0 =THALWEG LOCATION
Q =THALWEG LOCATION
wEl 1 : ti �,''•y
10 -28 -2020
SEE PLAN SHEETS
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
FOR FLOODPLAIN
EXTENTS
EXTENTS-
9.fi'
/'.OPC
3:6.2' 34'
` '
5.8' 3.2'
3:
`
p
PT
y �'
♦ \ 2¢ TYPICAL RIFFLE WIDTH
TYPICAL \ (SEE SHEET 5)
$
POOL WIDTH \
(SEE SHEET 5) \
R
\ 2�ti �FF�N
zLD
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
�
START TO TAPER T \ ♦
OA \
'-'�
��
INTO WIDER PCOL ♦
WIDTH O bPC
OZ
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
p \
92 \
Q
EXTENTS
EXTENTS
PT
NOTE: O
dQ
r t 9.61 1
r t 1
GRADING TRANSITIONS FROM THE SMALLER --
MU
OUP
3.4 6.2
3.2' 5.8'
RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION WIDTH TO THE WIDER
zg
3-�
POOL CROSS-SECTION WIDTH SHALL START
- - - - - -
- - r - - -
APPDX, MATLY I/4 OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF
-
-
THE RIFFLE AT THE INNER BENDS. TYPICAL
POOL WIDTH
_
1
(SEE SHEET 5)
2
y
-1
o
-y
U
� �rn
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL RIFFLE -POOL TRANSITION GUIDANCE
~ W NQ
U
NOT TO SCALE
a Q
a¢
ti W W U
Z w~
RHB-REACH 1 - STATION 10+00 TO 17+26
RHB-REACH 2 - STATION 17+26 TO 23+48
RHB-REACH 3 - STATION 23+48 TO 26+32
"C4" STREAM TYPE
"C4" STREAM TYPE
"C4" STREAM TYPE
a LL�
0Z
af ��
LU
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN
Z LL.
EXTENTS
EXTENTS
EXTENTS
Z
11.4'
11.8'
W c
2.9' 2' 2' 2.9'
7 1 3.2' 2.5 2.5' 3.2' 1
1 3.4' 2.5' 1 2.5' 3.4' 1
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
Q
z
Q =THALWEG LOCATION
Q =THALWEG LOCATION
Q =THALWEG LOCATION
J
2 O
LLI
SEE PLAN SHEETS
SEE PLAN SHEETS
SEE PLAN SHEETS
�..� Q
FOR FLOODPLAIN
FOR FLOODPLAIN
FOR FLOODPLAIN
z (�
EXTENTS
13.8'
EXTENTS
16'
EXTENTS
16.6'
Q _
4.9'
10.3' 5.7'
3-���
10.T 5.9' 1
�� 1 3-���
M z
W
-I
------1-
-- - - - --
O z
i
�Q
2 z
2.8
3.3
3.4' 1
Q O 0
z U
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
W m
O
U
z
SEE PLAN SHEETS
SEE PLAN SHEETS
SEE PLAN SHEETS
D
FOR FLOODPLAIN
FOR FLOODPLAIN
FOR FLOODPLAIN
00
EXTENTS
EXTENTS
EXTENTS
13.8'
i i
16'
i i
i i
f
4.9' 8.9'
- - - - - - - -
f
5.7' 10.3'
- - - - - - - - - -
f
5.9' 107
- - - - - - - - - - -
I-
-
DATE. OCTOBER 2020
SCALE. SEE SHEET
TYPICAL
26'
3.3'
3.4'
CROSS -
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
SECTIONS
SHEET 5 OF 19

Nll
NC GR
Nao '83
—40' —20' 040' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
ES cORD
BRIDE
BEGIN
TRIBUTAR
100 oo
/
PROPOSED PLUNGE POOL.
/ // --' } —,
EXISTING 18" CMP
COORDINATE WITH DESIGN
CULVERT TO BE / /! '•
REPRESENTATIVE TO INSTALL
OVER -WIDENED BANKS IN THIS
REMOVED // /// / — !�/ \\
AREA.
STABILIZE INCOMING DRAINAGE WITH
/I / I / I !lI / ►sc0
I ROCK OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
EXISTING TREES % \\�0�;, \\ \
TO REMAIN. '
TYPICAL ALL "•" / ' I
/
EXISTING
•`\ \
; 1NETLAND'W4'
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE
CONTROL' /'ROCK FORD'.
SEE DETAIL SHEET. •��
— O
• \.
•`
PROPOSED 'LIVE LIFT'., ' ' ' — /! / 2
— _ _ `
SEE DETAIL SHEET. ' / ' ' ' ' _ _ — / / / / t� %.,
/ / i'
����—�I I C�—�\�--.��� .�:�' ���'' ��' /' ' �'� � ---� / i I I'/ �F• �
BEGINHHB
•� O I I it 1
_, EXISTING
/ ,,_
HOUSE
__—,-__ -,. _�___---- ,'/
/l Vl-
♦I
\ = _—\ J-�_`_-----' i� ' :�,��'i _ "4 `' XO • •`il "�` INSTALL CLASS 1 /B
\`�\ `,\ —_ `� _ —_� _
/ •`, / ' / �,- ��°
\ \
HOUSE
STONE MIXTURE
_ — _
\
CULVERT PROTECTION
/ \ \ �: _ . •' l r _
— — z EL ACCESS
ON SE VATI
ON EASC&4
ENT
SHED \ \ \ \
\�` \` \`
\ `
PROPOSED 'STEP POOL'. \ \\ EXISTING CHICKEN
'•
COOPS TO BE MOVED
SEE DETAIL SHEET. RE
��\
I
BARN
PROPOSED'CASCADE RIFFLE'.
0
SEE DETAIL SHEET. \
INSTALL (2) 24" DIA. x 24'
// /! \\N
PROPOSED'RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT'. HDPE FLOODPLAIN CULVERT/'
/ \\
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
EXISTING PLUNGE POOL
I ' \\ \\
BANKS TO REMAIN AS -IS
j
z \
11 11
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
` ►
(TYPICAL ALL HATCHING)
9
'?per
1 \
Il m
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
\ \I \ \ \ ►\\ \\ \\
GRADING EXTENTS
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'.
' o )c `
\
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 7
CAF?()
f
:Q4 9�•�
SEAL -
040899 -
Gf Nx
E'
10 -28 -2020
¢
z
J
= O
U
W ¢
z tz U
Q H
z
m Z
J_ H
_ of Z
Z 0 O
LU
Q O
U
z
m
SITE
PLAN

NA '83
-40'-20'JAo 040' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 6
EXISTING TREES \ TO REMAIN. PROPOSED PLUNGE POOL.
\
j Y \ TYPICAL ALL "e" COORDINATE WITH DESIGN
1 �\ REPRESENTATIVE TO INSTALL
\ \ OVER -WIDENED BANKS IN THIS
AREA.
PROPOSED'STEP POOL'. / \ \ \ 2
SEE DETAIL SHEET. \ / el N \\
PROPOSED'LIVE LIFT.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
\, BEGIN
PROPOSED'RIFFLEENHANCEMENT. �, \ �1 vN j �` /' TRIBUTARY
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
PROPOSED'CASCADERIFFLE'. J\1\ \ O� O�
SEE DETAIL SHEET. �; // ¢
EXISTING
WETLAND'W3'
EXISTING
WETLAND'W2'
1 ��` / �•/ I 1 I I
I I I
Op
PROPOSED'RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL'.
SEE DETAIL SHEET.
%
\\ \ 1\\\ \\\1 I 1 \ \ 1 I X\
\\�A
Q�
SHED TO BE \\\ \\ \\ •\ \ V
REMOVED
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL \\\\\\ ` \\` \ ` \ \\ \ I i • \ `
(TYPICAL ALL HATCHING)
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
GRADING EXTENTS
1 I, 1111 t I II I,/r
CA F?o
SEAL -_
040899
. .G {c, e1:1
E
10 -28 -2020
Q
z
J
2 O
w
U a
Z H U
U) H
Z
m _O z
J_ >
2 z
Z)
Z 0 0
W m
0 Of
d' O
U
z
D
00
N
z
0
V)
SITE
PLAN

REACH: RHB
RESTORATION
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
PROFILE
21 88
N
2184
r
L
4
Z
° -
0
�w
a¢¢
\"
N
o
> a�
z
+
N
z z
Q
2180N
a��o
0
w
-
2176
2172
z
z
>
->
W
W
w,
j
F-
z
z
'tom
ro
W
-.-
->-W?,
W.,-
a
>I?->--
--F�°r
F
°
�
To
Ai
ro
w
T
_
2168>'w>
11
2164
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
REACH: RHB
(CONTINUED)
PROPOSED
PROFILE
EXISTING
GRADE
2168
2164
°
K
o
-
o
o
i7
d -<'-
`
r'-
"z
2160
--mow
0
0
>w
__ �3a3�a
o
o',
_
- >
w>
> N
•y>lf
- -F-
Q
F Q
\
> w
> w
2156
2152
�
z
r
z
w
d
=
0
0
F
+
-
>
j
'w
w '- - _
w
s,
Zo,
i2
2148
>
a',
w
M
zM
>a
w
w
>
>'>
w
w
w;
4n
a',>a
F
w
2144
21+00
22+00
23+00
REACH: TRIBUTARY 1
RESTORATION
2180
2160 'f
14+00
EXISTING CULVERT 24+00 25+00
TO BE REMOVED
-- - -- EXISTINGEASEMENT
2176 °
o z+
w
d
N
m
GRADE
O
-
II
ra
w
'p.
-
- -,
>
>
O
'zo
2172U
wN
\ r
>
',u'>
w
w
uri-,
w
P
Z
Z
'-'-
-
--
-a
>w
-w
w-->a
�'v~i
'-u~i-w--ra---C
O
-\{/,-\
1
/_
'
-a
n
2168
>w,jw
-I-
o¢o
�
a�
2164 E
w
S->---o,
-
y �Q
o a
-
> H'�IQ
¢'�a
P�
Z
_
_
2160
a
1
w
>
w>
a'�
>r
�
>
2156
100+00
101+00
102+00 103+00
EASEMENT
LINE
,,�L11111 fJ Jf11
µ 55 RO '*,,f
E
SEAL -_
040899 N
z
r,',,1117E111t55�1�ti\
10 -28 -2020
>
w?\
. j-_,*
w
m
-
{{',-
a
u�
w
¢'-
�'
U --oz
z>
w
ti �u~i'
¢
¢ Z¢ z
N
�a
N
w�'
m
\ >
--
M
a -
Q.
Ow
>I'h'�\----'�-:-w>
>_
-
>w>
w>a>
-'a
za-z-
-wm
--
-,-
_
\,-1
-.:-�/
a
15+00
w w
-
Via;
oa'
o
>-
w>' w
-- --z
z --
-',-\/
OF
w
w
F,o
o
N m
z
s
m
zg
w
3
215
4
-
-
m
N
m
1 6+00
w
w
>d
>
oa
o
�
�
e
-
a-
,n
EASEMENT
>a-
>-,--
---,-r-
�r-'-
----
cov
LINE
>
�>
J
E
QN
G
No N
m
wo
17+00
18+00
>
�>
F,
o r o
- -
- - -
-
- - -
-�
¢ >
w
- -
o
¢
QZ
REACH: TRIBUTARY 2
w
aU O
�?
w
i
RESTORATION
EXIST
GRADE
NO
- [q
o a
� K
a
a
2172
w
w U
z
.
19+00
20+00
21 +00
a z
w
o-
-o-
- T
z'-
a
LL O
n
.�
w
w\a
N
¢',-
>
-
-'�
-h
M -
- •�
PROPOSED
PROFILE
af
tn=
O
2168
w
Q w
Z.
w
>'d
>�
¢
ox
m
-
a
r
a
o
21640
°
\,/
o
b
w
w w
r
a'
z+
4�
z
m
/
>w
w'
¢ono
>r
a
zoo
m
wN>
-a
�T
�°
2160�
FNzo
a
>w
>da
a
>
-
-
- -
-
- a-ww
->
'->
-''--1
�'--.
----�'-
- -
-�'
; -�--
w
�w m
zti
J
0
,w
>
--'�--
w
fL I -
oo
2156
-
> J a-
�
w
o
w
o
0
z
\>
LU
U
Q
26+00
ztl
N
--w>
' rn
-a yr
¢ -
Q/
w
w,
�w
�zaz
N w
In,
N
2152
200+00
> W
J'
w
cn ¢
61
N
NP
N
Nam
O
J
J
Z
_
>�
>
ZN
°.a
Z
F
W
N
z'
y
w�
°N
-O
0
J>
m
W
O
U
201+00
202+00
203+00
204+00
2 05+00
Z
m
F
PROFILES
w
104+00 105+00 106+00
SHEET 8 OF 19

PLANTING ZONE 1 = 1.49 ACRES
Iflrrr
12" 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
`��14111f
CA% rrrrr
-
968 STEMS/ACRE (9' X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
• C�?ir'
Q FSSJfl
�9� •�
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
=•Q¢� :9
w
HAZEL ALDER ALNUS SERRULATA OBL
10
144
SEAL
o
PAWPAW ASIMINA TRILOBA FAC
10
144
040899
w
YELLOW BIRCH BETULA ALLEGHANIENSIS FAG
10
144
z
AMERICAN HORNBEAM CARPINUS CAROLINIANA FAC
10
144
5
0
SUGARBERRY CELTIS LAEVIGATA FACW
10
144
SILKY DOGWOOD CORNUS AMOMUM FACW
10
144G
NE. `114��� �`
d
SPICEBUSH LINDERA BENZOIN FAC
10
144
rrr
BLACK GUM NYSSA SYLVATICA FAC
10
144
RD'
Tlfv ��`1
E.
r,Jf+fir
0
AMERICAN SYCAMORE PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS FACW
20
290
ESrArE
I 151 ''
I
1,442
OVE
10-28-2020
°
gR�OGEs
z
PLANTING ZONE 2 = 2.19 ACRES
z
3
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
d
w
968 STEMS/ACRE (9' X 5' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
o
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
YELLOW BUCKEYE AESCULUSFLAVA FACU
10
212
SWEET BIRCH BETULA LENTA FACU
10
212
BITTERNUT HICKORY CARYA CORDIFORMIS FACU
10
212
aw
PIGNUT HICKORY CARYA GLABRA FACU
10
212
a>
TULIP POPLAR LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA FACU
10
212GR
>
AMERICAN SYCAMORE PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS FACW
10
212
NC
'83
5;
WHITE OAK QUERCA ALBA FACU
10
212
0
2oz
SOUTHERN RED OAK QUERCUS FALCATA FACU
10
212
WETLAND 4
CHESTNUT OAK QUERCUS MONTANA UPL
10
212
-40' -20' 0' 40' 80'
NORTHERN RED OAK QUERCUS RUBRA FACU
10
212
v�
zg
2,120
GRAPHIC SCALE
EXACT SPECIES AND Ws OF BARE ROOTS WILL BE DEPENDANT ON
AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. NO SINGLE BARE ROOT
SPECIES SHALL COMPOSE MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF BARE ROOTS TO BE INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE
a
WITH DESIGNER BEFORE PLACING ORDERS.
Q
U)
L 9
^ Z
m N
�
LL W
U
wE5
UQ
0 0
rw
V
I,Iy/J W
Z
z
N U
� S
WETLAND 1
IL
z�
W o
0
w
�2
W
7�
i
��
pRIVE
ACCESS
GRAVEL
Q
z
J
2
W
0
Z H
U
STREAM ZONE
c
LIVE STAKES: 1.5' TO 2' LENGTHS, 1/2' TO 2" DIAMETER,
pip z
PLANT ONE ROW PER BANK AT 3SPACING, RANDOM
O
z
SPECIES PLACEMENT.
J
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
_ 0'
z
O
O
BLACK WILLOW SALIX NIGRA
z 1--
SILKY WILLOW SALIX SERICEA
W
m
SILKY DOGWOOD CORNUS AMOMUM
Q �O
ELDERBERRY SAMBUCUS CANADENSIS
Z
NINEBARK PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS
D
m
EXACT SPECIES AND Ws OF LIVE STAKES WILL BE DEPENDANT ON
AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. NO SINGLE LIVE STAKE
SPECIES SHALL COMPOSE MORE THAN 40% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
DATE. OCTOBER 2020
OF LIVE STAKES TO BE INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE
WITH DESIGNER BEFORE PLACING ORDERS.
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 10
—E. GRAPHIC
PLANTING
PLAN
SHEET 9 OF
is

PLANTING ZONE 1
PLANTING ZONE 2
STREAM ZONE
*NOTE: SEE SHEET 9 FOR PLANTING QUANTITIES
Y
z
¢
CL m
p
SQUAR
o Q
BUDS
(FACIN
� m
m o
LIVE Cl
(0.5" TC
LIVE STAKE
ANGLE
STREAM BAN!( CROSS-SECT/ON
PLANTING NOTES:
RIFFLES - 1 ROW OF LIVE STAKES ON BOTH SIDES OF C
POOLS - NO LIVE STAKES ON INNER BANKS, INSTALL S-
ON THE OUTER BANKS.
LIVE STAKES
SCALE: NTS
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET 9
�, 5511117J r1rr
r
Essro. �?r
oF
- SEAL -
0
040899 -
ti
z
O
S �
iD
a
>
ui
E.
10 -28 -2020
a
0
a
0
it,
v
am ft g�
Nc coz
Nno '83 'as O
aQ
u
-40' -20' 0' 40' 80' uE
GRAPHIC SCALE
z
= O
W
U ¢
Z tz U
< co
Z
m O O
2 Q z
Z o O
= W m
� o
U
z
7)
m
PLANTING
PLAN

NAD '83
-40' -20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
TIE NEW FENCE
INTO EXISTING FENCE
� G
X —*— x
/ J
7
9 J
TIE NEW FENCE
INTO EXISTING FENCE
EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING
THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY WILL BE MARKED
WITH METAL OR SALT TREATED WOOD POSTS
AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT SIGNS AT THE
CORNERS AND AT A MINIMUM OF 100' INTERVALS
ALONG THE BOUNDARY.
WHEN APPROPRIATE, PROVIDER SHALL MARK EXISTING TREES WITH CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SIGNS AND / OR BLAZE PROPERTY LINES AT APPROXIMATELY EYE LEVEL.
O 6-FOOT TALL DURABLE WITNESS POSTS AND 5/8"
REBAR 30" IN LENGTH WITH 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAPS
ON ALL EASEMENT CORNERS. CAPS SHALL MEET DMS
SPECIFICATIONS (BERNSTEN RBD5325 IMPRINTED WITH
NC STATE LOGO 4B90B7 OR EQUIVALENT). AFTER
INSTALLATION CAPS SHALL BE STAMPED WITH THE
CORRESPONDING NUMBER.
• 6-FOOT TALL DURABLE WITNESS POST ALONG BOUNDARY
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT. POSTS SHALL BE MADE
OF MATERIAL THAT WILL LAST A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS.
THE PROVIDER SHALL ATTACH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SIGN TO EACH WITNESS POST AND PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNS
AT NO MORE THAN 100-FOOT INTERVALS ON BOUNDARY LINES.
— X — INSTALL NEW WOVEN WIRE FENCE
- - - - - DO NOT INSTALL FENCE - CONSERVATION EASEMENT
O EXISTING CATTLE FENCE
© INSTALL ACCESS GATE
a
x
8�E5 CpV E
f \
\
x ,b
Q�
.y5yy51111+++,,
��4 F�ssraN��?p
EStArE RE :� 9C .
SEAL -
040899 - N
F z
E- > GTN
,,!STUN E . , �,? .
1++I lrrlyl'
10 -28 -2020
E I
xG� Q �
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 12
La
owo'
zu
o>
oz
aQ
u_f o
Z�
a
0
I --I ~ ° W �¢
U O Z
co Q O
Up 2 Q
W NU
Z
Q ZK
a LLO
O
2
Lu Z < Q
W aaf
Q
z
J
= O
U
W Q
z t U
U p:
mz
J 0 }z
_ X z
Z)
z 00 O
LU oD
i- O
U
z
7)
m
BOUNDARY
MARKING
PLAN

,11515111 t 4r+�+
51pozN"'
—
SEAL -_
NA ti'83
_
040899
�
O
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'G�E
1 �v �`�'Lu
GRAPHIC SCALE
r E.5115
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 11
10 -28 -2020
I
�
b
1 1
` `
1
` ' `
Q
I
a w
LD
\
�Q
0
0l--
O
QO
O
//
Up K
W
Ka
U
m
¢ Z
mw
W ~
/
/
a
20
v
z
O /
/
O
//
/
/
N
w1
W
2
w
wx
2
Q W
Na
v�
�//
TIE NEW FENCE \
EASEMENT BOUNDARY MARKING
INTO EXISTING FENCE
`\
THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY WILL BE MARKED
\
lip
Q
WITH METAL OR SALT TREATED WOOD POSTS
AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT SIGNS AT THE
`
z
CORNERS AND AT A MINIMUM OF 100' INTERVALS
\\
x
=
o
ALONG THE BOUNDARY.
WHEN APPROPRIATE, PROVIDER SHALL MARK EXISTING TREES WITH CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SIGNS AND / OR BLAZE PROPERTY LINES AT APPROXIMATELY EYE LEVEL.
\
Q co
Elf
Of
TALL DURABLE WITNESS POSTS AND
S-FOOT`
O
f
\
\
[T] Z
O
z
REBAR CA
ON ALL 30"EA IN LENGTH WITH S. CA ALUMINUM CAPS
ON ALL EASEMENT CORNERS. CAPS SHALL MEET DMS
SPECIFICATIONS (BERNSTEN RBD5325 IMPRINTED WITH
/B9087
\
J
NC STATE LOGO OR EQUIVALENT). AFTER
=
z
INSTALLATION, CAPS SHALL BE STAMPED WITH THE
CORRESPONDING NUMBER.
\
\
Q O
D
C1
• 6-FOOT TALL DURABLE WITNESS POST ALONG BOUNDARY
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT. POSTS SHALL BE MADE
`\
\
Z
LLI
U
IW
OF MATERIAL THAT WILL LAST A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS.
THE PROVIDER SHALL ATTACH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
\
O
m
SIGN TO EACH WITNESS POST AND PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNS
AT NO MORE THAN 100-FOOT INTERVALS ON BOUNDARY LINES.
YYL
\
Or-
O
U
— X — INSTALL NEW WOVEN WIRE FENCE
�
m
- - - - - DO NOT INSTALL FENCE - CONSERVATION EASEMENT
i
O EXISTING CATTLE FENCE
i
© INSTALL ACCESS GATE
O
DATE: OCTOBER 2020
/
SCA- GRAPHIC
O
TIE NEW FENCE
BOUNDARY
EXISTING FENCE
/o/INTO
MARKING
PLAN
SHEET 12 OF
19

SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. IT IS THE INTENT OF THESE PLANS THAT AS SOON AS AN AREA OF GRADING IS COMPLETE IT
SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES DESCRIBED
IN THESE PLANS.DUE TO THE ANTICIPATED DURATION AND SEQUENCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES, THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE AMOUNT
OF THE AREA THAT IS DISTURBED AT ONE TIME.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EVERY REASONABLE PRECAUTION THROUGHOUT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROJECT PLANS, NORTH CAROLINA SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL GUIDELINES AND AS
DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
3. IN THE EVENT OF A STORM, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OR
PROTECTION OF ANY EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, MATERIALS OR OTHER ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE
THE WORK THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY STORMWATER.
4. EACH SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE WILL BE REMOVED AFTER ALL WORK IN THE CORRESPONDING
CONSTRUCTION PHASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ADEQUATE PERMANENT GROUND COVER HAS
BEEN RE-ESTABLISHED ON THE DISTURBED AREAS, AS DETERMINED BY THE DESIGNER.
5. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS PROVIDE THE
ONLY ACCESS POINTS INTO THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. NO ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS SHALL
BE USED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNER.
6. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FOR
LATER USE AS FILL MATERIAL. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE LOW SIDE
OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SPOIL AND TOPSOIL PILES. THESE SPOIL PILES SHALL ALSO BE
SEEDED AND MULCHED FOR VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION WITHIN 7 DAYS THAT THEY ARE CREATED. ALL
SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL STAY ON THE SITE AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
WITHOUT DESIGNER APPROVAL.
7. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE CHECKED FOR STABILITY AND FUNCTIONAL
OPERATION FOLLOWING EVERY RUNOFF PRODUCING RAIN EVENT AND/OR AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK.
ANY NEEDED MAINTENANCE OR REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY TO MAINTAIN ALL MEASURES
AS DESIGNED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CONTROL MEASURES WHEN THEY
REACH APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THEIR FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY. THESE MEASURES SHALL BE REPAIRED
IF DISTURBED DURING MAINTENANCE. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED, RESEEDED AND
MULCHED, AS NECESSARY, TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION COVER.
8. THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND EROSION CONTROL CONTACT FOR THIS SITE IS TIM MORRIS.
OFFICE PHONE [phone] / CELL PHONE [phone].
9. ALL EXCESS WASTE MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT A PERMITTED FACILITY OR SITE.
(15A NCAC 04B .0110)
SEDIMENTATION &EROSION
CONTROL PLAN LEGEND
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE --------------------------------- -LOD
SEEDING AND PLANTING NOTES:
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE THE FOLLOWING SEED/FERTILIZER
MIX IN SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS:
SUMMER MIX (MAY 15 - AUGUST 15)
GERMAN MILLET - - - - - - SETARIA ITALICA - - - - - - - 20 LBS / ACRE
BROWNTOP MILLET.... UROCHLOA RAMOSA.... 20 LBS / ACRE
WINTER MIX (AUGUST 15 - MAY 15)
RYE GRAIN............ SECALE CEREALE........ 120 LBS / ACRE
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX
SUMMER MIX (MAY 15 -- AUGUST 15)
APPLICATION RATE (IN MIX)
SPECIES
% OF MIX
LBS/ACRE
VIRGINIA WILDRYE -- ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
15
4.6
BIG BLUESTEM - ANDROPOGON GERARDII
8
2.3
SWITCHGRASS - PANICUM VIRGATUM
11
3.3
AUTUMN BENTGRASS -- AGROSTIS PERENNANS
11
3.3
BLACK-EYED SUSAN -- RUDBECKIA HIRTA
8
2.3
LANCELEAF COREOPSIS -- COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA 8
2.3
SOFT RUSH -- JUNCUS EFFUSUS
4
1.1
LITTLE BLUESTEM -- SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM
4
1.1
INDIANGRASS-- SORGHASTRUMNUTANS
4
1.1
EASTERN GAMMA-TRIPSACUM DACTYLOIDES
4
1.1
BROWNTOP MILLET - UROCHLOA RAMOSA
7 r
TOTALS 100 30
WINTER MIX (AUGUST 15 - MAY 15)
APPLICATION RATE (IN MIX)
SPECIES % OF MIX
LBS/ACRE
VIRGINIA WILDRYE -- ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
15
4.6
BIG BLUESTEM-- ANDROPOGON GERARDII
8
2.3
SWITCHGRASS-PANICUMVIRGATUM
11
3.3
AUTUMNBENTGRASS-- AGROSTISPERENNANS
11
3.3
BLACK-EYED SUSAN - RUDBECKIA HIRTA
8
2.3
LANCELEAF COREOPSIS -- COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA
8
2.3
SOFT RUSH -- JUNCUS EFFUSUS
4
1.1
LITTLE BLUESTEM -- SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM
4
1.1
INDIAN GRASS--SORGHASTRUM NUTANS
4
1.1
EASTERN GAMMA--TRIPSACUM DACTYLOIDES
4
1.1
RYE GRAIN - SECALE CEREALE
25
7.5
TOTALS
100
30
FERTILIZER ...................................... 750 LBS / ACRE
LIMESTONE ...................................... 2000 LBS / ACRE
FERTILIZER SHALL BE 10-10-10 ANALYSIS. UPON SOIL ANALYSIS
A DIFFERENT RATIO OF FERTILIZER MAY BE USED.
SEEDBED PREPARATION
tttsttrrrrrrir�
C) �F sroO`4
Q¢ �f .
SEAL -
040899 - -
{�iaTfVE, r`r
i V�•AA ff•.... 'll �:
10 -28 -2020
0
0
N
uj
THE SEEDBED SHALL BE COMPRISED OF LOOSE SOIL AND NOT COMPACTED. THIS MAY
a
SILT FENCE
REQUIRE MECHANICAL LOOSENING OF THE SOIL. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHOULD FOLLOW
z
..................................................
SF
THE FERTILIZER AND LIMING DESCRIPTION IN THE ABOVE SECTIONS. FOLLOWING SEEDING,
MULCHING SHALL FOLLOW THE BELOW APPLICATION METHODS AND AMOUNTS. AREAS
= O
CONTAINING SEVERE SOIL COMPACTION WILL BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 8 INCHES.
LJJ
STRAW WADDLE ------------------------------------------
W
Z !zC)
MULCHING
Q u) _
SEEDED AREAS ARE TO BE PROTECTED BY SPREADING STRAW MULCH UNIFORMLY TO
af
TEMPORARY BRIDGE MAT STREAM CROSSING .....
FORM A CONTINUOUS BLANKET (75% COVERAGE = 2 TONS/ACRE).
Co Z
NOTE: FERTILIZER IS ONLY TO BE APPLIED ONCE. IF TEMPORARY SEED AND FERTILIZER IS
J
APPLIED PRIOR TO PERMANENT SEED, THEN FERTILIZER SHALL NOT BE APPLIED WITH THE
Q
=
STREAM TO BE FILLED ------------------------------------
PERMANENTSEED.
Q' z
0 O
Z
STAGING AREA ---------------------------------------------
----t
I
(n w
LLI m
�----I
O
STOCK PILE --------------------------------------------------
U
z
m
TEMPORARY CHANNEL DIVERSION --------------------
TCD
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING PRACTICES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NCGO1 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
Implementing the details and specifications on this plan sheet will result in the construction
activity being considered compliant with the Ground Stabilization and Materials Handling
sections of the NCGO1 Construction General Permit (Sections E and F, respectively). The
permittee shall comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control plan approved by the
delegated authority having jurisdiction. All details and specifications shown on this sheet
may not apply depending on site conditions and the delegated authority having jurisdiction.
SECTION E: GROUND STABILIZATION
Required Ground Stabilization Timeframes
Stabilize within this
Site Area Description
many calendar
Timeframe variations
days after ceasing
land disturbance
(a) Perimeter dikes,
swales, ditches, and
7
None
perimeter slopes
(b) High Quality Water
7
None
(HOW) Zones
(c) Slopes steeper than
If slopes are 10' or less in length and are
7
not steeper than 2:1, 14 days are
3:1
allowed
-7 days for slopes greater than SO' in
length and with slopes steeper than 4:1
(d) Slopes 3:1 to 4:1
14
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales,
ditches, perimeter slopes and HOW
Zones
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales,
(e) Areas with slopes
ditches, perimeter slopes and HOW Zones
flatter than 4:1
14
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed unless
there is zero slope
Note: After the permanent cessation of construction activities, any areas with temporary
ground stabilization shall be converted to permanent ground stabilization as soon as
practicable but in no case longer than 90 calendar days after the last land disturbing
activity. Temporary ground stabilization shall be maintained in a manner to render the
surface stable against accelerated erosion until permanent ground stabilization is achieved.
GROUND STABILIZATION SPECIFICATION
Stabilize the ground sufficiently so that rain will not dislodge the soil. Use one of the
techniques in the table below:
Temporary Stabilization
Permanent Stabilization
• Temporary grass seed covered with straw or
• Permanent grass seed covered with straw or
other mulches and tackifiers
other mulches and tackifiers
• Hydroseeding
• Geotextile fabrics such as permanent soil
• Rolled erosion control products with or
reinforcement matting
without temporary grass seed
• Hydroseeding
• Appropriately applied straw or other mulch
• Shrubs or other permanent plantings covered
• Plastic sheeting
with mulch
• Uniform and evenly distributed ground cover
sufficient to restrain erosion
• Structural methods such as concrete, asphalt or
retaining walls
• Rolled erosion control products with grass seed
:JUIPMENT AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
1. Maintain vehicles and equipment to prevent discharge of fluids.
2. Provide drip pans under any stored equipment.
3. Identify leaks and repair as soon as feasible, or remove leaking equipment from the
project.
4. Collect all spent fluids, store in separate containers and properly dispose as
hazardous waste (recycle when possible).
5. Remove leaking vehicles and construction equipment from service until the
problem has been corrected.
6. Bring used fuels, lubricants, coolants, hydraulic fluids and other petroleum products
to a recycling or disposal center that handles these materials.
TIER, BUILDING MATERIAL AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
1. Never bury or burn waste. Place litter and debris in approved waste containers.
2. Provide a sufficient number and size of waste containers (e.g dumpster, trash
receptacle) on site to contain construction and domestic wastes.
3. Locate waste containers at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface
waters unless no other alternatives are reasonably available.
4. Locate waste containers on areas that do not receive substantial amounts of runoff
from upland areas and does not drain directly to a storm drain, stream or wetland.
S. Cover waste containers at the end of each workday and before storm events or
provide secondary containment. Repair or replace damaged waste containers.
6. Anchor all lightweight items in waste containers during times of high winds.
7. Empty waste containers as needed to prevent overflow. Clean up immediately if
containers overflow.
8. Dispose waste off -site at an approved disposal facility.
9. On business days, clean up and dispose of waste in designated waste containers.
PAINT AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE
1. Do not dump paint and other liquid waste into storm drains, streams or wetlands.
2. Locate paint washouts at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface
waters unless no other alternatives are reasonably available.
3. Contain liquid wastes in a controlled area.
4. Containment must be labeled, sized and placed appropriately for the needs of site.
S. Prevent the discharge of soaps, solvents, detergents and other liquid wastes from
construction sites.
PORTABLE TOILETS
1. Install portable toilets on level ground, at least 50 feet away from storm drains,
streams or wetlands unless there is no alternative reasonably available. If 50 foot
offset is not attainable, provide relocation of portable toilet behind silt fence or place
on a gravel pad and surround with sand bags.
2. Provide staking or anchoring of portable toilets during periods of high winds or in
high foot traffic areas.
3. Monitor portable toilets for leaking and properly dispose of any leaked material.
Utilize a licensed sanitary waste hauler to remove leaking portable toilets and replace
with properly operating unit.
EARTHEN STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT
1. Show stockpile locations on plans. Locate earthen -material stockpile areas at least
50 feet away from storm drain inlets, sediment basins, perimeter sediment controls
and surface waters unless it can be shown no other alternatives are reasonably
available.
2. Protect stockpile with silt fence installed along toe of slope with a minimum offset of
five feet from the toe of stockpile.
3. Provide stable stone access point when feasible.
4. Stabilize stockpile within the timeframes provided on this sheet and in accordance
with the approved plan and any additional requirements. Soil stabilization is defined
as vegetative, physical or chemical coverage techniques that will restrain accelerated
erosion on disturbed soils for temporary or permanent control needs.
oNSITE CONCRETE WASHOUT
STRUCTURE WITH LINER
0
0 ITYCI
o
o R _ES
o
sL, EENEE
IL
ILI' EN =
HLEAILI
�HD IEVIIE ax 4�E-TED���Dti
P
DErEa��tiED �ti ��EED
El ID
ILI- E-IIIETE w�.HI1T IIESEITI-DDTIDD DENSE.
BELOW GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE �TIE IIALE
CONCRETE WASHOUTS
e ZLEIT"
au 4R��
00 00
'luP
0 o D SECTION a -a
e
oa s LEs.� L uEEDuwED w
�aD'EAOLE, IT THE/l
P D..aEEDD_ ,z
DENCE.
ABOVE GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE
1. Do not discharge concrete or cement slurry from the site.
2. Dispose of, or recycle settled, hardened concrete residue in accordance with local
and state solid waste regulations and at an approved facility.
3. Manage washout from mortar mixers in accordance with the above item and in
addition place the mixer and associated materials on impervious barrier and within
lot perimeter silt fence.
4. Install temporary concrete washouts per local requirements, where applicable. If an
alternate method or product is to be used, contact your approval authority for
review and approval. If local standard details are not available, use one of the two
types of temporary concrete washouts provided on this detail.
S. Do not use concrete washouts for dewatering or storing defective curb or sidewalk
sections. Stormwater accumulated within the washout may not be pumped into or
discharged to the storm drain system or receiving surface waters. Liquid waste must
be pumped out and removed from project.
6. Locate washouts at least 50 feet from storm drain inlets and surface waters unless it
can be shown that no other alternatives are reasonably available. At a minimum,
install protection of storm drain inlet(s) closest to the washout which could receive
spills or overflow.
7. Locate washouts in an easily accessible area, on level ground and install a stone
entrance pad in front of the washout. Additional controls may be required by the
approving authority.
8. Install at least one sign directing concrete trucks to the washout within the project
limits. Post signage on the washout itself to identify this location.
9. Remove leavings from the washout when at approximately 75% capacity to limit
overflow events. Replace the tarp, sand bags or other temporary structural
components when no longer functional. When utilizing alternative or proprietary
products, follow manufacturer's instructions.
10. At the completion of the concrete work, remove remaining leavings and dispose of
in an approved disposal facility. Fill pit, if applicable, and stabilize any disturbance
caused by removal of washout.
HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND RODENTICIDES
1. Store and apply herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in accordance with label
restrictions.
2. Store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in their original containers with the
label, which lists directions for use, ingredients and first aid steps in case of
accidental poisoning.
3. Do not store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in areas where flooding is
possible or where they may spill or leak into wells, stormwater drains, ground water
or surface water. If a spill occurs, clean area immediately.
4. Do not stockpile these materials onsite.
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
1. Create designated hazardous waste collection areas on -site.
2. Place hazardous waste containers under cover or in secondary containment.
3. Do not store hazardous chemicals, drums or bagged materials directly on the ground.
NCGOI GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING
EFFECTIVE: 04/01/19
J)
LU
w
U
X
w
a
af
af
W
6
W
W
U �
Q �
Z
mO
J Q
2 CC
pO
Z ~
W
O Of
LU
D_
a
z
J
O
a
U
H
O
Z
D
O
U
w
Co
O
U
Z
D
m
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

PART III PART III PART III
SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
SECTION A: SELF -INSPECTION
Self -inspections are required during normal business hours in accordance with the table
below. When adverse weather or site conditions would cause the safety of the inspection
personnel to be in jeopardy, the inspection may be delayed until the next business day on
which it is safe to perform the inspection. In addition, when a storm event of equal to or
greater than 1.0 inch occurs outside of normal business hours, the self -inspection shall be
performed upon the commencement of the next business day. Any time when inspections
were delayed shall be noted in the Inspection Record.
Frequency
Inspect
(during normal
Inspection records must include:
business hours)
(1) Rain gauge
Daily
Daily rainfall amounts.
maintained in
If no daily rain gauge observations are made during weekend or
good working
holiday periods, and no individual -day rainfall information is
order
available, record the cumulative rain measurement for those un-
attended days (and this will determine if a site inspection is
needed). Days on which no rainfall occurred shall be recorded as
"zero." The permittee may use another rain -monitoring device
approved by the Division.
(2) E&SC
At least once per
1. Identification ofthe measures inspected,
Measures
7 calendar days
2. Date and time ofthe inspection,
and within 24
3. Name ofthe person performing the inspection,
hours of a rain
4. Indication of whether the measures were operating
event > 1.0 inch in
properly,
24 hours
5. Description of maintenance needs forthe measure,
6. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actionstaken.
(3) Stormwater
At least once per
1. Identification ofthe discharge outfalls inspected,
discharge
7 calendar days
2. Date and time ofthe inspection,
outfalls (SDOs)
and within 24
3. Name ofthe person performing the inspection,
hours of a rain
4. Evidence of indicators of stormwater pollution such as oil
event > 1.0 inch in
sheen, floating or suspended solids or discoloration,
24 hours
5. Indication of visible sediment leaving the site,
6. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actions taken.
(4) Perimeter of
At least once per
If visible sedimentation is found outside site limits, then a record
site
7 calendar days
ofthe following shall be made:
and within 24
1. Actions taken to clean up or stabilize the sediment that has left
hours of a rain
the site limits,
event > 1.0 inch in
2. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actions taken, and
24 hours
3. An explanation as to the actions taken to control future
releases.
(5) Streams or
At least once per
If the stream or wetland has increased visible sedimentation or a
wetlands onsite
7 calendar days
stream has visible increased turbidity from the construction
or offsite
and within 24
activity, then a record ofthe following shall be made:
(where
hours of a rain
1. Description, evidence and date of corrective actions taken, and
accessible)
event > 1.0 inch in
2. Records ofthe required reports to the appropriate Division
24 hours
Regional Office per Part III, Section C, Item (2)(a) ofthis permit.
(6) Ground
After each phase
1. The phase of grading (installation of perimeter E&SC
stabilization
of grading
measures, clearing and grubbing, installation of storm
measures
drainage facilities, completion of all land -disturbing
activity, construction or redevelopment, permanent
ground cover).
2. Documentation that the required ground stabilization
measures have been provided within the required
timeframe or an assurance that they will be provided as
soon as possible.
NOTE: The rain inspection resets the required 7 calendar day inspection requirement.
SECTION B: RECORDKEEPING
1. E&SC Plan Documentation
The approved E&SC plan as well as any approved deviation shall be kept on the site. The
approved E&SC plan must be kept up-to-date throughout the coverage under this permit. The
following items pertaining to the E&SC plan shall be kept on site and available for inspection
at all times during normal business hours.
Item to Document
Documentation Requirements
(a) Each E&SC measure has been installed
Initial and date each E&SC measure on a copy
and does not significantly deviate from the
of the approved E&SC plan or complete, date
locations, dimensions and relative elevations
and sign an inspection report that lists each
shown on the approved E&SC plan.
E&SC measure shown on the approved E&SC
plan. This documentation is required upon the
initial installation of the E&SC measures or if
the E&SC measures are modified after initial
installation.
(b) A phase of grading has been completed.
Initial and date a copy of the approved E&SC
plan or complete, date and sign an inspection
report to indicate completion of the
construction phase.
(c) Ground cover is located and installed
Initial and date a copy of the approved E&SC
in accordance with the approved E&SC
plan or complete, date and sign an inspection
plan.
report to indicate compliance with approved
ground cover specifications.
(d) The maintenance and repair
Complete, date and sign an inspection report.
requirements for all E&SC measures
have been performed.
(e) Corrective actions have been taken
Initial and date a copy of the approved E&SC
to E&SC measures.
plan or complete, date and sign an inspection
report to indicate the completion of the
corrective action.
2. Additional Documentation to be Kept on Site
In addition to the E&SC plan documents above, the following items shall be kept on the
site and available for inspectors at all times during normal business hours, unless the
Division provides a site -specific exemption based on unique site conditions that make
this requirement not practical:
(a) This General Permit as well as the Certificate of Coverage, after it is received.
(b) Records of inspections made during the previous twelve months. The permittee shall
record the required observations on the Inspection Record Form provided by the
Division or a similar inspection form that includes all the required elements. Use of
electronically -available records in lieu of the required paper copies will be allowed if
shown to provide equal access and utility as the hard -copy records.
3. Documentation to be Retained for Three Years
All data used to complete the e-NOI and all inspection records shall be maintained for a period
of three years after project completion and made available upon request. [40 CFR 122.41]
SECTION C: REPORTING
1. Occurrences that Must be Reported
Permittees shall report the following occurrences:
(a) Visible sediment deposition in a stream or wetland.
(b) Oil spills if:
• They are 25 gallons or more,
• They are less than 25 gallons but cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours,
• They cause sheen on surface waters (regardless of volume), or
• They are within 100 feet of surface waters (regardless of volume).
(c) Releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities under Section
311 of the Clean Water Act (Ref: 40 CFR 110.3 and 40 CFR 117.3) or Section 102
of CERCLA (Ref: 40 CFR 302.4) or G.S. 143-215.85.
(d) Anticipated bypasses and unanticipated bypasses.
(e) Noncompliance with the conditions of this permit that may endanger health or the
environment.
2. Reporting Timeframes and Other Requirements
After a permittee becomes aware of an occurrence that must be reported, he shall contact
the appropriate Division regional office within the timeframes and in accordance with the
other requirements listed below. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be
reported to the Department's Environmental Emergency Center personnel at (800)
858-0368.
Occurrence
Reporting Timeframes (After Discovery) and Other Requirements
(a) Visible sediment
• Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification.
deposition in a
• Within 7 calendar days, a report that contains a description ofthe
stream or wetland
sediment and actions taken to address the cause of the deposition.
Division staff may waive the requirement for a written report on a
case -by -case basis.
• If the stream is named on the NC 303(d) list as impaired for sediment -
related causes, the permittee may be required to perform additional
monitoring, inspections or apply more stringent practices if staff
determine that additional requirements are needed to assure compliance
with the federal or state impaired -waters conditions.
(b) Oil spills and
• Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification. The notification
release of
shall include information about the date, time, nature, volume and
hazardous
location of the spill or release.
substances per Item
1(b)-(c) above
(c) Anticipated
• A report at least ten days before the date of the bypass, if possible.
bypasses [40 CFR
The report shall include an evaluation of the anticipated quality and
122.41(m)(3)]
effect of the bypass.
(d) Unanticipated
• Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification.
bypasses [40 CFR
• Within 7 calendar days, a report that includes an evaluation of the
122.41(m)(3)]
quality and effect of the bypass.
(e) Noncompliance
• Within 24 hours, an oral or electronic notification.
with the conditions
• Within 7 calendar days, a report that contains a description of the
of this permit that
noncompliance, and its causes; the period of noncompliance,
may endanger
including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not
health or the
been corrected, the anticipated time noncompliance is expected to
environment[40
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
CFR 122.41(1)(7)]
prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. [40 CFR 122.41(1)(6).
• Division staff may waive the requirement for a written report on a
case -by -case basis.
I NCGO1 SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING I EFFECTIVE: 04/01/191
Z
z
0
N
a W
N am
N ��
o tZ
z z
w rn
' ` o U Z
V ao
0
o 0 X¢
W N U
a z L�
W
J Z �
a w0
It
w
w aJ
z �¢
� w �
Q
Z
J
= O
W C)a
Z H U
< w H
m Z
J O }Z
_ fr Z
0
O W m
Of
U
Z
m
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED IN THE SPECIFIED MANNER UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED OR
APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, ALONG WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS
CONTAINED IN THE PLANS, CONSTITUTE THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
GENERAL SITE NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY CONDUCT STREAM WORK, INCLUDING ALL IN -STREAM STRUCTURES,
GRADING, STABILIZATION MEASURES, AND SEEDING, MULCHING, AND MATTING WORK, ON A SECTION OF
STREAM THAT SHALL BE ENTIRELY COMPLETED WITHIN A SINGLE DAY. EACH SECTION OF COMPLETED
STREAM MUST BE STABILIZED AND MATTED BEFORE FLOW CAN BE RETURNED INTO THE CHANNEL.
2. WHEN WORKING IN STREAMS WITH NO ACTIVE FLOW THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO HAVE
APPROPRIATELY SIZED PUMPS AND MATERIALS TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN A TEMPORARY STREAM
DIVERSION IN ANTICIPATION OF PENDING STORM EVENTS. WORKING IN A DRY CHANNEL DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE CONTRACTOR FROM HAVING TO COMPLY WITH NOTE 1 ABOVE.
3. UPON APPROVAL FROM THE DESIGNER, PHASES 2 THROUGH 5 MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN A DIFFERENT
SEQUENCE THAN INDICATED BELOW OR CONCURRENTLY.
4. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE DONE DURING PERIODS OF DRY WEATHER
5. ALL STREAWDITCH CROSSINGS WILL BE LOCATED IN AREAS OF THE STREAM WHERE LEFT AND RIGHT
BANK HEIGHTS ARE SIMILAR OR CAN BE GRADED TO PROVIDE A LEVEL, OR NEAR LEVEL, CROSSING
SURFACE. BRIDGE MATS CAN BE MADE OF WOOD OR STEEL, BUT MUST BE CAPABLE OFSUPPORTING THE
GROUND PRESSURE OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE UTILIZING THE CROSSING. UPON ENSURING A
LEVEL CROSSING SURFACE, THE BRIDGE MATS WILL BE LAID ACROSS THE CHANNEL IN A MANNER THAT
DOES NOT DISRUPT STREAM FLOW OR CAUSE EROSION IN THE CHANNEL. THIS IS TYPICALLY ACHIEVED
USING AN EXCAVATOR TO LIFT THE MATS ACROSS THE CHANNEL WITH CHAINS AND GUIDED AND SET BY
A GROUND CREW. THE MATS MUST BE CONTINUOUS ACROSS THE CHANNEL, WITH NO GAPS THAT COULD
ALLOW SEDIMENT TO ENTER THE STREAM. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT ON THE MATS WILL BE REMOVED
ON A FREQUENT BASIS TO MINIMIZE DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT TO THE STREAM DURING USE. AFTER
SETTING THE BRIDGE MATS, A CLASS 1 STONE APRON WILL BE APPLIED ON THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF
THE BRIDGE AS PER THE DETAIL IN THE PLANS. THIS APRON WILL BE MAINTAINED AND REPLACED AS
NEEDED TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT MOBILIZATION TO THE STREAM. PRIOR TO REMOVING THE CROSSINGS,
THE MATS SHOULD BE CLEANED OF SEDIMENT. SIMILAR TO INSTALLATION, THE MATS SHOULD BE
REMOVED USING AN EXCAVATOR AND CHAINS SO THEY CAN BE LIFTED UP AND OUT OF THE AREA
WITHOUT DAMAGING THE STREAM OR ENTERING THE STREAM FLOW.
6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE ANY LAND DISTURBING
ACTIVITIES OCCUR. A COPY OF THIS PERMIT AND A HARD COPY OF THE PLAN MUST BE KEPT ON SITE,
PREFERABLY IN A PERMITS BOX, AND ACCESSIBLE DURING INSPECTION.
7. SELF -INSPECTIONS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE PERFORMED
AT LEAST ONCE EVERY SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF EVERY RAIN EVENT OF
GREATER THAN 0.5 INCH. ANY NEEDED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY TO MAINTAIN MEASURES
AS DESIGNED. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.
8. AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED, REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND PROVIDE
PERMANENT SEEDING WHERE TEMPORARY MEASURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND GROUND COVER IS
NOT ADEQUATE.
9. PER NPDES REQUIREMENTS, A RAIN GAUGE, SELF -INSPECTIONS RECORDS, PERMIT, AND S&E PLAN
ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ON SITE AND ACCESSIBLE DURING INSPECTION. IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT THESE ITEMS BE PLACED IN A PERMITS BOX AT THE BEGINNING OR ENTRANCE OF PROJECT.
10. CONTACT THE DEMLR RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE
LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY 336-776-9800.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHASE 1: INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
A. IDENTIFY PROJECT BOUNDARY, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, SENSITIVE AREAS, STAGING AREAS,
STABILIZED ENTRANCES, TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS WITH THE DESIGNER.
B. CONSTRUCT ENTRANCE AND STAGING AREAS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL DEVICES IN A MANNER TO SUPPORT EXECUTION OF THE RESTORATION IN PHASES AS
INDICATED IN THE PLANS AND AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
PHASE 2: TRIBUTARY RHB - STA. 10+00 TO 26+32
COMPLETE CHANNEL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES:
A. INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ALONG EXISTING CHANNEL AS DEPICTED ON
THE PLANS.
B. ESTABLISH AN ISOLATED WORK AREA BY INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND TEMPORARY CHANNEL
DIVERSION AND DIVERT FLOWS AROUND THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA (LENGTH OF ISOLATED WORK
AREA IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR).
C. COMPLETE CHANNEL GRADING AS DIRECTED IN THE PLANS. INSTALL ANY BANK STABILIZATION
TREATMENTS AND IN -STREAM STRUCTURES.
D. SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORK AREAS ALONG COMPLETED STREAM BANKS.
PHASE 3: TRIBUTARY 1 - STA. 100+00 TO 103+97
COMPLETE CHANNEL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES:
A. INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ALONG EXISTING CHANNEL AS DEPICTED ON
THE PLANS.
B. ESTABLISH AN ISOLATED WORK AREA BY INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND TEMPORARY CHANNEL
DIVERSION AND DIVERT FLOWS AROUND THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA (LENGTH OF ISOLATED WORK
AREA IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR).
C. COMPLETE CHANNEL GRADING AS DIRECTED IN THE PLANS. INSTALL ANY BANK STABILIZATION
TREATMENTS AND IN -STREAM STRUCTURES.
D. SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORK AREAS ALONG COMPLETED STREAM BANKS.
PHASE 4: TRIBUTARY 3 - STA. 200+00 TO 203+11
COMPLETE CHANNEL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES:
A. INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ALONG EXISTING CHANNEL AS DEPICTED ON
THE PLANS.
B. ESTABLISH AN ISOLATED WORK AREA BY INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND TEMPORARY CHANNEL
DIVERSION AND DIVERT FLOWS AROUND THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA (LENGTH OF ISOLATED WORK
AREA IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR).
C. COMPLETE CHANNEL GRADING AS DIRECTED IN THE PLANS. INSTALL ANY BANK STABILIZATION
TREATMENTS AND IN -STREAM STRUCTURES.
D. SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORK AREAS ALONG COMPLETED STREAM BANKS
PHASE 5: TREE PLANTING
A. PLANTS SHOULD BE PLANTED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (NOVEMBER 17 - MARCH 17).
B. PREPARE AND PLANT TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING PLAN AND AS DIRECTED BY THE
DESIGNER.
PHASE 6: COMPLETION OF PROJECT SITE
A. PHASE 6 CAN BE INITIATED AFTER THE STREAM GRADING WORK IS COMPLETED AND AFTER THE SITE
IS STABILIZED WITH REQUIRED VEGETATIVE COVER.
B. REMOVE ALL REMAINING WASTE MATERIALS, AND THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND RESTORE
THE REMAINING STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES TO THEIR PRIOR
CONDITION. SEED AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS UTILIZING THE SEED/MULCH MIXES SPECIFIED IN
THE PLANS.
`<<51:If 171ff,,
��R�F S ��L,y"9 .
SEAL -
040899 _
GTN ?�
i sr1.�
r•,"i� N 1V Pi Iil55���,,`
10 -28 -2020
w
z
0
tN
W
e�
am
wo
7 N
U)Q
Z
00
w
U U
w_
w�
zc
LL c
az
�x
JW
l¢i
c
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

UTILIZE A STABILIZED OUTLET FOR
THE DISCHARGE OF CLEAN WATER
(SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET).
NOTE: DISCHARGE MAY OCCUR IN
BEDROCK LOCATIONS OR DEEP
POOLS IF BED DISTURBANCE CAN
BE ELIMINATED.
I
0 I SILT BAG WITH
ROCK PAD
(SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)
I1 DEWATERING
IMPERVIOUS DIKE I 1
' PUMP
IEXISTING
I
I
TEMPORARY
CHANNEL
I
FLEXIBLE HOSE I I
f
I ,
I 1
CONTRACTOR
SHALL UTILIZE
SANDBAGS WITH POLYPROPYLENE
OR OTHER IMPERVIOUS FABRIC.
I \
I
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)
'
EARTH MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE
USED TO CONSTRUCT THE
,
\
IMPERVIOUS DIKES.
INLET FOR CLEAN
I \
WATER TO BE RAISED
OFF OF STREAM
BOTTOM. THIS MAY
`
PLACEMENT
\`
\
`
OF GRAVEL
INTAKE EL UNDER
INTAKE.
PUMP -AROUND
PUMP
SEQUENCE OF DEWATERING OPERATIONS
'ANY DEVIATION FROM ABOVE DEWATERING PLAN
WILL REQUIRE DESIGNER APPROVAL.
1. INSTALL SILT BAGS(S) AND ROCK PAD(S) AND STABILIZED OUTLET.
2. INSTALL UPSTREAM PUMP AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE.
3. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
4. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING
APPARATUS. DEWATER ENTRAPPED AREA.
5. PERFORM REPAIR WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS.
6. EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS DIKES. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS
DIKES, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE
(DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKES FIRST).
7. REMOVE SILT BAG(S) AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA WITH
SEED AND MULCH.
EXAMPLE OF PUMP -AROUND OPERATION
SCALE: NTS
STILLING BASIN MAINTENANCE:
1. SEDIMENT BAGS SHALL BE REPLACED AND DISPOSED OF WHEN IT
IS THREE-QUARTERS FULL OF SEDIMENT OR WHEN IT IS IMPRACTICAL
FOR THE BAG TO FILTER THE SEDIMENT OUT AT A REASONABLE
FLOW RATE.
2. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF IN A DESIGNATED
DISPOSAL AREA.
3. SPENT BAGS SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND NOT BURIED.
4. GRAVEL PADS SHOULD BE CHECKED DAILY DURING USE TO ENSURE THAT
GRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN WASHED AWAY OR BEEN CHOKED BY EXCESSIVE
SEDIMENTATION.
5. REPLACE PAD WITH CLEAN GRAVEL, AS NEEDED.
NOTE: PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLET DOWN BANK TO STREAM
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN (SILT BAG) WITH ROCK PAD
SCALE: NTS
A]
D
3
m
D T
Z
IMPERVIOUS
SHEETING
SANDBAGS
AJ
PLAN
SAND IMPERVIOUS
BAGS G SHEETING
FLOW
STREAMBED
WRAP SHEETING
UNDER DIKE MATERIAL
SECTION AA
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
DIKE MATERIAL SHALL BE LARGE SANDBAGS.
WATERBAGS MAY BE USED UPON APPROVAL
OF THE DESIGNER.
DIKE MATERIAL MAY NOT BE EARTH OR DIRT
DIKE MATERIAL MUST CONFORM TO THE SHAPE
OF THE STREAM CHANNEL AND MUST BE HIGH
ENOUGH IN THE CHANNEL TO NOT ALLOW
FLOW TO OVERTOP THE DIKE.
IMPERVIOUS SHEETING SHOULD BE PLASTIC OR
RUBBER SHEETING THICK ENOUGH TO NOT BE
EASILY PUNCTURED GIVEN THE CONDITIONS OF
THE CHANNEL.
ROCKS, SANDBAGS, OR OTHER WEIGHTS (NOT
DIRT OR EARTH) MAY BE USED TO WEIGH DOWN
THE SHEETING TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS PROPER
CONTACT BETWEEN THE SHEETING AND THE BANKS
AND BED OF THE CHANNEL.
IMPERVIOUS DIKE DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
,5I5151t1+J r+,,
o
-_ SEAL -
040899 -
- F -
GifVE, 'r,- -
•'r�'+f E1515115��tti
10 -28 -2020
a
Z
J
= O
W
U a
Z H U
w
m Z
J _O z
2 � z
Z)
Z 0 O
W0 Of
m
O O
U
Z
m
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN
z
0
1n

921�fi`
u�xa/
STOCKPILED
/�} `/ EARTHx y /
Xv/hx�,��-
Ti / /' X-`r-����
\/i��XV 3F / i� / SY SILT FENCE OR
STRAWWATTLE
SF
_-_--.190----- _ _ _
NOTES
TEMPORARY SEEDING MUST BE APPLIED TO STOCKPILES IF NOT
RELOCATED WITHIN 7 DAYS.
ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED DOWN GRADIENT OF ALL STOCKPILES
STOCKPILE LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON SITE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE AREA THAT IS BEING
WORKED UPON. EXACT LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF STOCKPILES WALL
BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
I�T�I%T�I%ITI�TI�I�TI�Ti �IIi�T�Ii�T�I%IIi�IT�Ii�T�Ii�Ii�II III�IT�Ii�Ti�Ii�Ii�IT�I 11I�IT�T�I�T�IidI
II II
I I FILTER FABRIC I I
�I �I
SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE
1. INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES WEEKLY
AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT.
2. SHOULD FABRIC TEAR. DECOMPOSE, OR IN
ANY WAY BECOME INEFFECTIVE.. REPLACE
IT IMMEDIATELY.
3. REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS PROMPTLY TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE
NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE
FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING
FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
4. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND
UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AFTER THE
CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN
PROPERLY STABILIZED. INSPECTED AND
APPROVED. BRING THE DISTURBED AREA TO
GRADE AND STABILIZE AS SHOWN IN THE
VEGETATION PLAN.
SILT FENCE DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
(OVER FILTER FABRIC)
`5, 51lll if Jrf,,
CARo',,,
P.oA
o
-_
EpAAL -_
4S
-
WOODEN STAKE 12"STRAW
'x2"
"0`99
Z
O
I &'xl WATTLE
nIVTNS
E-FLOW DIRECTION
p�
_ [r
SOW 3" TRENCH OR
•2i�,rl JV.
BACKFILL UPSTREAM
SIDE WITH MULCH
J+ J f l l l 51 5 5 5
NOTES:
10 -Z 8 -2 020
WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURERS
SPECIFICATIONS.
ALL WATTLE JUNCTIONS SHALL BE OVERLAPPED AND STAKED TO ENSURE
CONTINUOUS PROTECTION.
STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG WATTLES AT 5 FEET SPACING.
STRAW WATTLE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE
TRUCKS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
2. ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED TO PROVIDE FOR UTILIZATION
BY ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC
TOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
UP IMMEDIATELY.
5. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL
POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE
MUST BE PROVIDED.
61ABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
A] STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE:
1. INSPECT TEMPORARY CROSSING
AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT FOR
ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS.
BLOCKAGE, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS LL
BRIDGE MAT
AND OVERFLOW AREAS, CHANNEL
(SOLID DECK)
SCOUR. RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT; OR I
rF�
PIPING ALONG CULVERTS. SFf
_
2. REMOVE DEBRIS, REPAIR AND
REINFORCE DAMAGED AREAS
IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER
DAM AGE TO THE INSTALLATION. STEAM
FOOW
_sFlI�SF�
EXISTING
CHANNEL
/ DITCH FILTER FABRIC
FOR DRAINAGE
CLASS "1" STONE
SECTION AA q
FOR APPROACH
NOT TO SCALE
STABILIZATION
PLAN
1. BRIDGE LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON SITE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE AREA THAT IS BEING
WORKED UPON. EXACT LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF STOCK PILES
WILL BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
2. WIDTH OF EACH MAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT
MEANT TO CROSS IT.
3. APPROACH STABILIZATION, COMPOSED OF CLASS 1 STONE, WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR EACH SECTION OF THE BRIDGE.
4. BRIDGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A SOLID DECK.
TEMPORARY BRIDGE MAT CROSSING
¢
Z
J
2 0
U
LU ¢
Z H U
c
Of
on z Df
J _O z
J_ 1-- >
2 z
Z)
Z 0 O
LI m
0 Of
O O
U
Z
D
m
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

N/F
OWNER: /
BARBARA C HAGUE /
PIN:879074282200000 /
DB J404 PG 23
PB 88 PG 728
r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SHEET 19 N/F /
I OWNER:
WA YNE A HAGUE
& BARBARA C HAGUE
PIN. 879005337400000 /
DB 1828 PG 475 '
I % I
SITE ACCESS 2 N/F
AT EXISTING GATE oNlf
MER
ROBERT D RUSSELL JR. /
STABILIZED PIN: 879004049600000
CONSTRUCTION DB 5470 PG 7532
ENTRANCE PB 724 PG 22 /
/ N/F
OWNER.
TEMPORARY
RALPH E HOLLANO
STAGING AREA PIN: 878093882700000
-------------------------------------1-------------- DB 5357 PG 1530
STABILIZED
-------- --- PB 85 PG 150
II ,\ I �
CONSTRUCTION /
ENTRANCES (2)
SITE ACCESS 1 �I j
,1 I
j EXISTING ; /
/ GRAVEL DRIVE
N/F
II OWNER:
MARK ✓ULIAN CARVER I
PINDB 2280 PG 687
N
OWNER: I PB 746 PG 755
l BRIDES c'' \\ l li, BEL VA
PIN878094 MARL 20 0000 i
j' DB 1929 PG 452 SHEET 18
— — N/F l N/F
OWNER: OWNER.
ERIC HUMES l LARRY M COLLINS
PIN: 878085744300000 & PATRICIA G COLLINS
DB 5428 PG 937 /PIN. 878094080400000
PB 156 PG 33 DB 5368 PG 7303
PB 777 PG 180
NIF
JOHN D PLEMMONS
PIN 879012474400000
DB 5055 PG 1217
N/F
OWNER:
ANN SLACK GOLD
& ALLAN N GOLD
PIN 879003013600000
DB 4761 PG 615
—120'-60' 0' 120' 240'
GRAPHIC SCALE
I%,II;IfII f+f7,
CA RO rrrr
C r
SEAL -
040899 -
- F —
GTNE, ,Z+�
rrr•��+�+e �IfiS�t�t���
10 -28 -2020
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 4.47 ACRES
= (GREY AREA)
U
z
Q
00
J
J_
2
0
z
O
LLI
H
z
_O
H
Q
Of
O
U)
LLI
Q
z
J
O
U
O
}z
Z
O
U
W
m
2
O
U
z
M
on
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN
-OVERVIEW-
N
0
tN

Nc e
Nao '83
—40' —20' 040' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
EXISTING CULVERT �S� E RD.
24' CMP GAVE
gR
TRIBUTIva
BEGIN
A _ _
,/ 100400
STABILIZE INCOMING DRAINAGE WITH
A x0 I ROCK OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SHEET.
1�0A �\ J r�
EXISTING
WETLAND'W4'
`� O l Ib—
OO 1
1, FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
- _ - - - (TYPICAL ALL HATCHING)
BEGIN
RHB
7-1
O I I 1
WETLAND'W1'.
rr /r' r' / // Lou r / I I
/rrr\ \ \ \\\ — _ = —_ _ — —_---- r/ r / O" LO \ HOUSE
'ram\ 1\\\`—" — ---�-- — / ' 7�r -I. r / // D (_I \ I\ I\ \ \
\\\ i _ i' —J f .' ' /r HOUSE
EXISTING CULVERT
� 60" CMP
— \ • `IO \ _ - \\\\ \ �� L ACCESS
lOp `\ \ _ / \\ GRAVE
too
LOD
TEMPORARY STOCK PILE; TYP. g00
EXACT LOCATION AND QUANTITY
TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN `; BARN
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
(SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 16)
EXAMPLE OF PUMP AROUND OPERATION r „
EXACT LOCATION AND SETUP WILL BE \ \
TCD DETERMINED BY HOW MUCH WORK THE r 1
CONTRACTOR PLANS TO COMPLETE AT STABILIZED r
1
THE TIME. TYPICAL ALL EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION o
PLAN SHEETS. (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 15). ENTRANCES (2)
I I I \ \ 1 1
TEMPORARY 9
STAGING AREA QO 1 1 \
TEMPORARY BRIDGE MAT STREAM CROSSING.
EXACT LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF \ \ \ \
CROSSINGS WILL BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN ; O \
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 19
'�<<5151flrlrr111
14
- SEAL -
= 04089E _
1
GT IN •Z• �
fit'j
'rI111�+V r Ef si
10 -28 -2020
1
a
z
J
= O
U w
Z tz U
Q w H
co
coz O z
J_ H
_ < Z
Z 0 O
W m
O
U
z
D
m
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN

-40' -20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18
\ \ \ \ \ EXISTING CULVERT
O 11 II 1 1\ 1 I \\ \` 36" CMP
\ � \ 4 I I I\ 1 I\ \ \
TEMPORARY STOCK PILE; TYP.
EXACT LOCATION AND QUANTITY
TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
(SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 16) \\ \ \\ \ \ \\
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 2
I FILL EXISTING CHANNEL ; \\\ 1
(TYPICAL ALL HATCHING) i \\ \\\ \\ �oo
EXISTING
WETLAND'W3'
EXISTING
WETLAND'W2' \ - i%/ / // STABILIZED
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
ILO D
m
\\\ \\\\ \11\ \111 \ 11
\\ \\ \ \\ \ \ '2.5+oo\ \
TEMPORARY BRIDGE AT
STREAM CROSSING. EXACT \ \ 6
LOCATION AND QUANTITYOF CROSSINGS W LL BE
DETERMINED BYDESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE \\\\ \\\\ \\\ \ \ \
FIELD. \ \\ \ \ \ I \ \
,{�{11111 tJ+++.
CAR�Lr'',
SEAL -
040899 -
E.
�GTN�Cfi .
10 -28 -2020
Q
Z
J
= O
W <
U Q
Z tz U
H
m Z
J O z
2 Q z
Z 0 O
W m
(If O
U
Z
m
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN
Z
0
LA
ww

2. Data Analysis/Supplemental Information and Maps
Existing Conditions Cross -Sections
Pebble Counts and Bulk Sampling
Stream Morphological Tables
Estimated Nutrient and Bacterial Reductions
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSA Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.46
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
IT. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2181.42
8.70
2180.77
13.47
2179.97
18.59
2178.14
22.28
2177.70
25.02
2177.77
29.48
2177.58
32.72
2177.69
33.61
2177.70
34.82
2177.07
34.99
2175.96
35.48
2175.91
36.04
2175.97
36.85
2175.99
37.67
2176.24
38.80
2176.39
39.24
2176.35
40.58
2179.65
41.35
9180.29
41.83
2180.67
43.20
2180.74
48.03
2180.92
58.40
2180.98
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2177.30
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.4
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2178.7
Flood Prone Width:
23.1
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
5.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.3
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHB-XSA Riffle
2182
2181
2180
2179
-------------------- .------------------------------------------------
° 2178
o�
---------------------------------------------------------------------
W 2177
2176
w •"
2175
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
Site Assessment - - - - Bankfull - - - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSB Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.48
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2176.11
5.71
2175.50
9.16
2175.07
15.49
2175.26
21.65
2175.42
29.07
2175.88
34.05
2175.94
35.84
2175.82
36.67
2175.19
36.79
2173.57
37.71
2173.60
38.60
2173.67
39.65
2173.76
40.13
2175.06
41.45
2175.48
42.13
2175.59
43.71
2175.54
45.74
2176.00
47.31
2176.83
49.91
2177.05
55.01
2177.28
61.69
2177.42
64.03
2177.65
66.08
2178.62
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2175.48
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.2
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2177.4
Flood Prone Width:
60.6
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
4.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.7
Bank Hei ht Ratio:
1.1
2179
2178
2177
2176
0
2175
W
2174
2173
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHB-XSB Riffle
I
----------------------------------------------------- - -----------
-------------------- ------------ ------L----------------------
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
Site Assessment - - - - Bankfull - - - - Floodprone Area

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSC Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.48
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
IT. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2175.21
10.16
2174.51
13.88
2174.11
17.72
2173.90
21.66
2174.16
25.37
2174.44
26.22
2174.35
28.01
2174.16
28.71
2171.81
29.16
2171.58
29.61
2171.49
30.40
2171.73
30.90
2171.75
31.18
2171.93
32.05
2172.23
32.57
2172.19
33.46
2172.36
34.74
2172.72
36.00
2173.62
36.41
2173.51
37.79
2173.58
39.59
2173.89
41.79
2174.14
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2173.00
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.0
Bankfull Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2174.5
Flood Prone Width:
31.8
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1 1.3
2176
2175
2172
2171 +
0
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHBASC Riffle
------------------------------------ ------------------------
�y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
- Bankfull
20 Station (feet)
Flood Prone Area
30 40
Site Assessment

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSD Riffle reference
Drainage Area (sq mi :
0.48
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2169.42
4.04
2169.22
5.93
2168.91
7.80
2168.52
11.92
2168.16
14.08
2167.82
15.84
2167.47
16.63
2167.30
17.02
2167.02
17.43
2166.93
17.76
2166.11
18.30
2166.11
18.74
2166.10
19.56
2166.09
20.21
2166.09
20.87
2166.21
21.94
2166.37
22.35
2166.46
23.24
2166.66
23.55
2167.93
25.30
2168.07
27.09
2168.86
29.12
2169.45
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2167.30
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.3
Bankfull Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2168.5
Flood Prone Width:
18.4
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
7.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHB-XSD Riffle (reference)
2170
2169
t
t7�
2168
---------------------------------------- -----------------------------
W
2167
2166
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
Site Assessment - - - - Banktull Floodprone Area

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSE Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.62
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew: ME
IT. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2163.81
10.73
2163.07
18.48
2161.89
20.90
2161.26
25.40
2160.32
28.54
2160.19
29.63
2158.52
31.04
2158.19
32.75
2158.04
33.21
2157.97
34.13
2158.09
35.00
2158.22
35.93
2158.18
37.56
2162.93
38.89
2163.19
43.68
2163.45
52.55
2163.75
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2159.52
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.2
Bankfull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
2165
2164
2163
2162
m
2161
0
2160
W
2159
2158
2157
0
10
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHBASE Pool
20 30
Station (feet)
40 50
Site Assessment - - - - Bankfull

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSF Riffle (reference)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.63
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2158.20
3.99
2157.78
6.94
2157.09
8.64
2156.69
11.09
2156.57
14.30
2156.63
16.51
2156.61
17.42
2156.62
17.76
2156.45
18.05
2155.10
19.24
2154.89
20.39
2154.87
21.11
2154.88
21.84
2155.06
22.26
2155.06
22.41
2156.02
23.13
2156.51
24.16
2156.54
26.28
2156.52
31.10
2156.55
35.07
2156.89
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2156.51
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.1
Bankfull Width:
5.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2158.2
Flood Prone Width:
34.7
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
4.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHB-XSF Riffle (reference)
2159
2158
2157
2156
W
2155�
.i
,
2154
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
Site Assessment - - - - Bankf all - - - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
RHB-XSG Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.73
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
IT. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2157.39
4.57
2156.93
6.46
2155.32
8.51
2154.00
11.35
2153.91
14.02
2153.94
16.38
2153.76
17.35
2152.91
18.40
2152.66
19.47
2152.20
20.17
2152.23
20.99
2151.90
21.75
2151.81
21.76
2152.52
22.76
2152.50
21.78
2154.95
21.94
2155.33
23.51
2155.31
28.92
2155.27
32.95
2155.57
37.56
2156.71
41.00
2157.05
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2153.94
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2156.1
Flood Prone Width:
29.4
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
7.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
2158
2157
2156
2155
0
2154
W 2153
2152
2151
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, RHB-XSG Riffle
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
T Site Assessment----Bankfull ----Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
T1-XSA Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.11
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
IT. Seelin er, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2174.46
5.99
2174.40
7.69
2174.23
9.71
2172.06
10.81
2172.04
11.28
2171.97
12.50
2171.17
12.90
2171.10
13.82
2170.03
14.39
2169.91
15.10
2169.85
16.31
2169.81
17.06
2169.89
17.77
2169.96
18.43
2170.07
18.93
2171.55
19.69
2171.60
20.94
2171.81
23.17
2171.80
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2171.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.2
Bankfull Width:
5.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, T1 ASA Pool
2175
2174
2173
m
2172
0
o
-
W2171-----------------------------------
-----------------------------
2170
2169
0 10 Station (feet) 20
Site Assessment - - - - Bankfull

y.
d:
�.
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, Tl-XSB Riffle (reference)
2174
2173
2172
0
2171 ----
1---
-
W--------------------------------
----- - -
----------------
2170
2169
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
T
Site Assessment
----Bankfull
---�FloodproneArea
River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
T1-XSB Riffle (reference)
Drainage Area s mi :
0.11
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2170.81
4.04
2170.75
7.79
2170.74
11.98
2170.79
14.73
2170.75
15.76
2170.78
16.56
2170.52
17.10
2169.81
17.76
2169.70
18.68
2169.74
19.25
2169.78
20.04
2170.62
22.18
2170.45
25.30
2170.64
28.19
2171.18
32.60
2173.09
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2170.62
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.5
Bankfull Width:
3.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2171.5
Flood Prone Width:
29.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
5.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
French Broad
Watershed:
Round Hill Branch
XS ID
T1-XSC Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi :
0.12
Date:
7/2/2019
Field Crew:
T. Seelinger, A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2168.28
4.99
2167.84
8.34
2167.37
10.21
2166.91
12.49
2166.71
13.76
2166.08
14.51
2165.76
15.18
2165.45
15.79
2165.18
16.02
2164.81
16.38
2165.00
16.87
2165.05
18.16
2165.06
18.21
2166.45
17.08
2166.44
17.55
2167.51
18.80
2167.84
21.28
2168.04
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2165.95
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
4.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2167.1
Flood Prone Width:
7.9
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
5.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.7
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, Tl-XSC Riffle
2169
2168
2167
-----------------------------------------------------------
m
0
1�2166
_____________________________________________________________
W
2165
2164
0
10 20
Station (feet)
T Site Assessment - - - - Bankfull - - - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin:
Watershed:
Branch
XS ID
EFrenchad
ffle
Draina a Areas mi :
Date:
Field Crew:
T. Seel,A. Gutierrez
Station
Elevation
0.00
2165.97
4.23
2164.50
8.03
2163.48
11.23
2163.08
15.23
2162.37
17.98
2161.71
18.82
2161.04
20.60
2160.81
22.84
2160.82
24.36
2160.40
25.04
2160.30
26.36
2160.55
27.06
2160.53
27.40
2160.15
27.90
2160.25
28.07
2160.61
29.01
2160.98
29.59
2162.35
30.57
2162.62
31.36
2163.25
32.66
2163.67
36.91
2165.26
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2160.98
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2161.81
Flood Prone Width:
11.8
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
28.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
French Broad River Basin, Round Hill Branch, T2-XSA Riffle
2166
,
2165
2164
m
2163
0
2162
W-------------------------------
----------------------------------
2161
2160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)
T Site Assessment - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Area

Cross
-Section
A Riffle - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsA Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 -.25
A
Medium
.25 - .50
N
1
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
1
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
17
Very Fine
2-4
8
4
70%
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
1
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
2
60%
50%
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
5
40%
sA
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
8
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
17
w
30°io
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
13
0
Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
6
20%
10%
•�
Very Coarse
45 - 64
6
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
8
Small
90 - 128
O
2
Large
128 - 180
B
2
Large
180 - 256
L
1
Small
256 - 362
B
1
Size (nun)
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
1.8
12
19
27
68
240
Size Distribution
mean 11.1
dispersion 7.1
skewness -0.19
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
18%
64%
10%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Ve Lr
1024 - 204
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
4
Total
103
Note:

Cross
-Section B
Riffle - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsB Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
5
Medium
.25 - .50
N
17
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
3
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
16
2
70%
Very Fine
2-4
13
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
1
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
4
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
7
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
2
w
30°io
SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
4
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
4
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
6
Very Coarse
45 - 64
4
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
3
Small
90 - 128
O
9
Large
128 - 180
B
2
Large
180 - 256
L
1
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 0.39 mean 4.8 silt/clay
D35 1.6 dispersion 13.0 sand
D50 3.3 skewness 0.11 gravel
D65 11 cobble
D84 58 boulder
D95 120 bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
41%
45%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
101
Note:

Cross
-Section C
Riffle - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsC Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
1
Medium
.25 - .50
N
3
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
2
80%
Coarse
1-2
S
4
—Very
Very Fine
2-4
7
70%
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
2
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
1
60°�°
50%
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
4
40%
_
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
1
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
9
w
30°io
SA
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
10
0
32 - 45
S
18
20°i°
10%
—VeryCoarse
Coarse
45 - 64
17
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
—Very
Small
64 - 90
C
11
Small
90 - 128
O
8
Large
128 - 180
B
10
Large
180 - 256
L
2
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
D16 4.5
D35 26
D50 39
D65 55
D84 100
D95 160
Size Distribution
21.2
TEon 5.6
ss -0.23
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
9%
63%
28%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - VeryLr
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
110
Note:

Cross
-Section D (ref)
Riffle SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsD (ref) Reference Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
2
Medium
.25 - .50
N
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
2
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
4
0W
70%
Very Fine
2-4
3
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
1
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
1
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
5
w
30°io
SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
7
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
15
0%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
26
VeryCoarse
45 - 64
13
1o°io
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
13
Small
90 - 128
O
5
Large
128 - 180
B
5
Large
180 - 256
L
Small
256 - 362
B
1
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 14
D35 29
D50 37
D65 47
D84 80
D95 140
mean 33.5
dispersion 2.4
skewness -0.05
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
8%
68%
22%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - VeryLr
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
1
Total
104
Note:

Cross
-Section E
Pool - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsE Pool
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
8
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
6
Fine
.125 - .25
A
3
Medium
.25 - .50
N
5
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
1
80%
r
Very Coarse
1-2
S
8
0W
0%
70%
Very Fine
2-4
10
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
1
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
2
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
3
so%
40%
—'�
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
6
w
3o°io
T SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
12
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
15
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
8
Coarse
45 - 64
4
10% •�
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
—Very
Small
64 - 90
C
5
Small
90 - 128
O
2
Large
128 - 180
B
1
Large
180 - 256
L
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
D16 0.21
D35 2.7
D50 14
D65 22
D84 39
D95 84
Size Distribution
mean 2.9
dispersion 34.7
skewness -0.46
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
8%
23%
60%
8%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Small
362 - 512
L
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
1
Total
101
Note:

Cross
-Section F
(ret) - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsF (ref) Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
Medium
.25 - .50
N
5
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
8
�
70%
Very Fine
2-4
4
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
1
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
3
w
3o°io
_ sa
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
17
0
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
13
•� �. ..-•��
Very Coarse
45 - 64
23
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
16
Small
90 - 128
O
10
Large
128 - 180
B
2
Large
180 - 256
L
3
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 10 mean 29.2 silt/clay
D35 29 dispersion 3.1 sand
D50 43 skewness -0.18 gravel
D65 57 cobble
D84 85 boulder
I D95 130 bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
12%
60%
28%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
111
Note:

Cross
-Section G
Riffle SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
RHB-xsG Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
8
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
2
Fine
.125 - 25
A
1
Medium
25 - .50
N
24
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
16
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
22
2
70%
Very Fine
2-4
12
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
6
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
2
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
7
w
3o°io
- sa
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
8
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
5
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
5
Very Coarse
45 - 64
2
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
1
Small
90 - 128
O
Large
128 - 180
B
Large
180 - 256
L
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 0.32
D35 0.69
D50 1.3
D65 2.8
D84 17
D95 37
mean 2.3
dispersion 8.6
skewness 0.19
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
7%
54%
39%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - VeryLr
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
121
Note:

Cross
-Section Tl-A
Pool - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
Tl-xsA Pool
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
10
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
80
Fine
.125 - .25
A
Medium
.25 - .50
N
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
;
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
70%
Very Fine
2-4
2
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
4
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
5
w
30%
SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
1
Coarse
45 - 64
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
—Very
Small
64 - 90
C
Small
90 - 128
O
1
Large
128 - 180
B
Large
180 - 256
L
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 0.066
D35 0.078
D50 0.089
D65 0.1
D84 0.12
D95 13
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.3
skewness 0.00
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
10%
78%
12%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
103
Note:

Cross -Section
Tl-B
(ref) Riffle -
SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
Tl-xsB (ref) Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
1
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
1
Fine
.125 - .25
A
Medium
.25 - .50
N
2
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
;
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
70%
Very Fine
2-4
6
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
1
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
4
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
11
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
14
w
30%
SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
23
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
27
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
8
Very Coarse
45 - 64
4
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
3
Small
90 - 128
O
Large
128 - 180
B
Large
180 - 256
L
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 8.6
D35 15
D50 19
D65 24
D84 31
D95 53
mean 16.3
dispersion 1.9
skewness -0.09
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
1%
3%
93%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
104
Note:

Cross
-Section TI-C
Riffle - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
Tl-xsC Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
2
Medium
.25 - .50
N
10
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
11
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
11
0W
70%
Very Fine
2-4
4
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
5
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
5
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
11
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
16
w
30°io
SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
10
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
3
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
6
Very Coarse
45 - 64
5
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
3
Small
90 - 128
O
3
Large
128 - 180
B
Large
180 - 256
L
1
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 0.68 mean 4.8 silt/clay
D35 3.4 dispersion 8.6 sand
D50 9.2 skewness -0.22 gravel
D65 14 cobble
D84 34 boulder
D95 78 bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
32%
61%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
00/-
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
Inc,
Note:

Cross
-Section T2
Riffle - SA
100%
90%
Particle Size Distribution
Round Hill Branch
T2 Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
.062 - .125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
Medium
.25 - .50
N
Coarse
.50 - 1
D
;
80%
Very Coarse
1-2
S
70%
Very Fine
2-4
Fine
4 - 5.7
G
60%
Fine
5.7 - 8
R
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
so%
40%
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
w
3o°io
SA
Coarse
16 - 22.6
E
Coarse
22.6 - 32
L
20%
—Very Coarse
32 - 45
S
Very Coarse
45 - 64
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
64 - 90
C
Small
90 - 128
O
Large
128 - 180
B
Large
180 - 256
L
Small
256 - 362
B
Size (nun)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362 - 512
L
D16 0.062
D35 0.062
D50 0.062
D65 0.062
D84 0.062
D95 0.062
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness ---
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Point / Side BAR -BULK MATERIALS SAMPLE DATA: Size Distribution Analysis 11 Party: A. French, J. Sullivan
S
U
Location: Round Hill Branch- XS F-Ref
Date: 7/2/2019 Notes: bulk sample taken at riffle
BC
S
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
Sieve Size (mm)
A
M
>1
i
IL
P
Tare Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
are Weight (kg)
L
—
E
0 88
S
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Sample Weights
Total
Net
Total
Net
Total Net
Total
Net
Total
Net
11 Total
Net
Total
Net
I Total
I Net
Total
Net
Total
I Net
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.4
2.8
II II I I I .I36.8% I0.0%h0.0
Grot
05
hhh�
kccurn. 10.7%C188%C2hh1000% 1000% I 1000%4 1
01
NOTES
7.7
SURFACE
MATERIALS
DATA
( Two Largest Particles)
Dia. I WT.
Bucket
+ Materials
Weight
Bucket
Tare
Weight
Materials
Weight
(Materials less than:
mm.)
Be Sure to Add
Separate Material
Weights to Grand
Total
GRAND TOTAL
SAMPLE WEIGHT

Watershed:
Location:
Note:
Pavement Sample Sieve Analysis
100%
Sands
Gravels
Cobbles
Boulders
Bedrock
90%
80%
70%
t
60%
50%
ii
40%
a�
2
30%
a�
tl
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
t Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
D16
D35
I D50 I
D84
D95
silt/clay
I sand
I gravel
I cobble
boulder
I bedrock
q 1)1R
Q
I qR R I
7R 1
1 Rd 1
no/
1 110/
I rqoA
I q7oA I
___
I ___

Round Hill Branch MorDholoaical Criteria
Existing Conditions
Stable Design Ratios
Proposed Conditions
RHB-1
xsA - xs-D
RHB-2
RHB-xsE - xsF
RHB-3
RHB-xsG
T1
xsA - xs
RHB-1
RHB-2
RHB-3
T1
T2
Stream Type (Rosgen)
F4
F4
F4
F4
G4
B4
B4c
C4
C4/134c
C4/134c
C4/134c
C4/134c
C4b
Drainage Area (mi)
0.44, 0.46, 0.46, 0.48
0.62, 0.63
0.74
0.11, 0.11, 0.12
0.11
-
-
-
0.48
0.63
0.74
0.12
0.11
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)
5.2, 5.2, 6.8, 6.8
5.5
7.5
3.8, 4.1
9.7
-
-
-
9.8
11.4
11.8
6.8
6.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (D,kf) (ft)
1.0, 1.2, 0.9, 0.9
1.3
1.0
0.7, 0.7
0.3
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft)
5.4, 6.2, 6.0, 6.3
7.1
8.0
2.5, 2.9
3.3
-
-
-
7.6
10.2
11.2
3.7
3.1
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/ Dbkf)
5.1, 4.3, 7.6, 7.3
4.2
7.5
5.8, 5.9
28.1
12 -- 18
12 -- 18
10 -- 15
12.6
12.8
12.5
12.7
13.2
Maximum Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.4, 1.9, 1.5, 1.2
1.6
2.1
0.9, 1.1
0.8
-
-
-
1.25
1.4
1.5
0.9
0.8
Width of Flood Prone Area (Wf,a) (ft)
23.1, 61+, 32+, 18.5
35+
29.4
30+, 7.9
11.8
-
-
-
40--52
44--65
38--55
35-45
27--34
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
4.4, 11.7+, 4.7+, 2.7
6.4+
3.8
7.9+, 1.9
1.2
1.4 -- 2.2
>2.2
>2.2
4.1--5.3
3.9--5.7
3.2-4.7
5.1--6.6
4.2--5.3
Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) (I)
1.07
1.05
1.12
1.10
1.06
1.1 --1.2
1.1 --1.3
1.2 -- 1.4
1.10
1 1.20
1.10
1.13
1 1.13
Pool Mean Depth (ft)
*
1.2
*
1.1
*
-
-
-
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.1
1.0
Riffle Mean Depth (ft) (Dbkf)
1.0, 1.2, 0.9, 0.9
1.3
1.0
0.7, 0.7
0.3
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
Pool Width (ft)
*
7.4
*
5.9
*
-
-
-
13.8
16.0
16.6
9.6
9.0
Riffle Width (ft)
5.2, 5.2, 6.8, 6.8
5.5
7.5
3.8, 4.1
9.7
-
-
-
9.8
11.4
11.8
6.8
6.4
o
Pool XS Area (sf)
*
9.2
*
6.2
*
-
-
-
21.6
27.0
30.0
10.4
8.7
Riffle XS Area (sf)
5.4, 6.2, 6.0, 6.3
7.1
8.0
1 2.512.9
3.3
-
-
-
7.6
10.2
11.2
3.7
1 3.1
O
Pool Width / Riffle Width
*
1.3
*
1.4-1.6
*
1.1 -- 1.5
1.1 -- 1.5
1.2 -- 1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Pool Max Depth / Dbkf
1.2
*
1.9
*
2.0 -- 3.5
2.0 -- 3.5
1.5 -- 3.5
3.3
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.3, 1.1, 1.3, 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0, 1.7
1.0
1.0 -- 1.1
1.0 -- 1.1
1.0 -- 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (V) (fps)
5.2, 4.2, 4.9, 4.4
5.0
5.5
4.0, 3.5
3.1
4.0 -- 6.0
4.0 -- 6.0
3.5 -- 5.0
4.5
4.1
4.4
3.4
3.9
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs)
27.6, 26.4, 29.5, 27.9
35.5
44.1
10.0, 10.0
10.3
-
-
-
34.3
41.6
48.6
12.4
12.2
Radius of Curvature (Rc) (ft)
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
20--30
23--34
29--35
14--20
13--19
Belt Width (Wblt) (ft)
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
30--38
38-48
37-55
21--36
14--23
Meander Length (Lm) (ft)
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
89--99
1 106--119
130--134
58--87
71--78
Radius of Curvature / Bankfull Width
*
*
*
*
*
n/a
n/a
2 -- 3
2.0-3.1
2.0--3.0
2.5--3.0
2.1--2.9
2.0--3.0
Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/ Wbkf)
*
*
*
*
*
n/a
n/a
3.5 -- 8
3.1-3.9
3.5-4.2
3.1-4.6
3.5--5.6
2.2--3.6
Meander Length / Bankfull Width
*
*
*
*
*
n/a
n/a
7 -- 14
9.1-10.1
9.2--10.4
11.0--11.4
8.5-- 12.8
11.1--12.2
Valley slope
0.024
0.020
0.010
0.024
0.036
0.020 -- 0.030
0.005 -- 0.015
0.005 -- 0.015
0.023
0.017
0.018
0.021
0.035
Average water surface slope
0.022
0.017
0.015
1 0.020
0.033
-
-
-
0.021
0.014
0.017
0.019
0.031
Riffle slope
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
0.020-0.035
0.021-0.035
0.021-0.022
0.015-0.033
0.033-0.035
Pool slope
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
o
Pool to pool spacing
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
47--53
52--68
68--70
31--53
37-47
Pool length
*
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
17--28
14--32
17--23
11--24
8--17
Riffle Slope / Avg. Water Surface Slope
*
*
*
*
*
1.1 -- 1.8
1.1 -- 1.8
1.2 -- 1.5
0.9 -- 1.6
1.5--2.5
1.2--1.3
0.8--1.8
1.1
Pool Slope / Avg. Water Surface Slope
*
*
*
*
*
0 -- 0.4
0 -- 0.4
0 -- 0.2
0
0
0
0
0
Pool to Pool Spacing / Bankfull Width
*
*
*
*
*
0.5 -- 5.0
1.5 -- 6.0
3.5 -- 7
4.8 -- 5.4
4.6--6.0
5.8--5.9
4.6--7.8
5.8--7.3
* : no data shown for pools, radius of curvature or meanders in existing stream do to nature of channel

Estimated Reduction in Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
Cattle Exclusion (Grazing Pasture)
TN reduction (Ibs/yr) = 51.04 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (Ibs/yr) = 4.23 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Reduction (Ibs/ac/year)
Acres
Total Reduction (Ibs/year)
TN
51.04
1.582736
81
TP
4.23
1.582736
7
Nutrient Reduction from Buffer Adjacent to Agricultural Fields
TN reduction (Ibs/yr) = 75.77 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (Ibs/yr) = 4.88 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Reduction (Ibs/ac/year)
Acres
Total Reduction (Ibs/year)
TN
75.77
2.2
169
TP
4.88
2.2
11
Total Estimated Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reduction from Exclusion and Buffer
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer
ITotal Reduction (Ibs/year)
TN
1 81
169
1 250
TP
7
11
1 18

Estimate of the Amount of Fecal Coliform Prevented from Entering Stream due to Livestock Exclusion
1. Fecal from direct input
2. Fecal from buffer filtering
# animals
Average Weight
Total Weight
AU=total/1000
horses
3
1000
3,000
3
goats
20
100
2,000
2
An animal unit AU is one
thousand pounds of livestock.
Assume avg cow weighs 1500 lb.
-
1,500
-
-
Fecal Coliform Reduction from Direct Input (col) = 2.2 x 1011(col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Total (year-round
Fecal (col/AU/day)
AU
Percent
Total (col/day)
Total(col/year)
grazing)
2.200E+11
5
0.085
9.350E+10
3.413E+13
1.706E+13
Weighted Curve Number
Land Use / Hydrologic Soil
CN
Acres
Weighted CN
Group
Pasture (Poor) / C
86
0.197487
80.7
Pasture (Fair) / C
79
0.618928
Runoff - Q (inches)
P (annual rainfall in inches)
Weighted CN
S (inches)
la (inches)
Q (inches)
44
80.7
2.39
0.48
41.3
Fecal Coliform Reduction from Buffer Filtration (col) = Runoff's fecal coliform concentration (col/gal) x Runoff volume (Gal) x 0.85
Fecal reduction
Common Fecal Coliform
Fecal conc (col/gal)
Q (in)
Total acres
Volume (in-ac)
Vol (gal)
(col/year)
Pastures under Continually
Grazing Year-round
1,894,000
41.3
0.816415
33.7
914,557
1.472E+11
Pastures Grazed for Half of
Year
329,500
Pastures Grazed for Two
Months of Year
340,900
Total Coliform Reducation
Direct Input Reduction
1.706E+13
Buffer Filtration
1.472E+11
Total (col/year)
1.721E+13

3. Site Protection Instrument
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

2o3/r53
'� ', IIIIIII Illllllllll IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIII II II IIIIIII III
Doc ID: 032968790001 Type: CRP
Recorded: 11/15/2019 at 08:32:50 AM
1 Fee Amt: $21.00 Page i of 1
1 ` Workflow# 0000562003-0001
Buncombe county, NO
Drew Reisinger Register of Deeds
BK203 PG153
N1
OWNER; �
JULIAN D CARVER
& PEGGY G CARVER
� PIN: 878096990940000
t DB 3959 PG 602
N/F PB 88 PG 1211
OWNER:
\ PENNY E
PIN: 87809594170041700000
DB 5540 PG 1781
PB189 PC14
N/F pH�r RIr I N/F
OWNER: ONV! OWNER:
WILLIE LEWIS WAYNE A HAGUE
PIN: 878085955100000 QH+I f - '� & BARBARA C HAGUE
DB 5541 PG 1851 W f _ .= PIN: 879005331400000
PB 172 PG 106 0 �;� N \ DB 1828 PG 475
110
26� 3 s #3
�T Pz:
GE# � r yr, i
2 STORY
N/F FRAMED j
OWNER: DWELL€NG
ER€C HUMES
PIN: 8780857443130000
DB 5428 PG 937,
PB 156 PG 33� POB CONSERVATION
EASEMENT #3
1 ` 20' PRIVATE R/W
!� (PER P9 64 PG 75) AR
CE#15
11 9
y;
CE#14
rb
1s w4
_ 1 L5 CE#13
N/F
OWNER:
LARRY M COLLINS
& PATRICIA G COLLINS
PIN: 878O94n80400000 R ` F02.
,�'
DB 5368 PG 1303 � y E Nit..
PB 111 PG 180 1} 1 CE 1 $�=
CE#14 CONSERVATION r 1 •`:
1 EASEMENT #2`j sv
NCGS MONUMENT 54003 5Q.FT. rR
S0417H TURKEY' 1 1.24 ACRE
NAD 63 (2011XCRID) CE#8
M•707427.61' h
E 895026,13' i 1 a
€ 1 POB CONSERVATION
1 EASEMENT #2
1 N25'50'45'w CE#7 R V
AxFY
1 20.00 (TIE) `
N/F $ CE#3
1 OWNER: 1
BELVA MARLER
! PIN: 878094183200000
DB 1929 PG 452 1 Ln
! 4&g� 1 CE#2?
STONE CORNER POC
N:704452.17'
E:589298.50'
ELEV:2212.34' 1 CE 1; a4, £ c
I N/F (NAD 83/2d1i)1 s�..
OWNER:
I MARK JULIAN CARVER 5`
PIN: 878094036800000 �2
POB CONSERVATION
DB 2280 PG 687 1J;
PB 146 PG 155 EASEMENT #1
1 ,
I !
J N/F
J OWNER:
JOSHUA D LYNCH
j DEANNA M LYNCH
if( PIN: 878094014900000
❑B 5348 PG 1351125
PB 125 PG 41
J PB 146 PG 155
I
Re istered this the... . . day off
20 Aat :57- A,M.Rdcordedin
Plat Book ZDI Page
Register of Deeds
10.92 (TIE)
CE#23_ _
<�1
I
IN
CE#35
N82'24' � F'
CE#24
T67.43
t� N/F
0 OWNER:
C 19 &OKATHLEEN C RUSSELL
PIN: 879004049600000
$470 PC
LcE#20 0 PB 124 PG 1222
„Q CE#4
CE#6
N/F
OWNER:
RALPH E HOLLAND
PIN: 87809388210000
OB 5357 PG 1530
PB 85 PG 150
CE#5
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT #1
33381 SA.FT,
0.77 ACRE
N73
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT #3
97110 SQ.FT.
2.23 ACRE
LEGEND
�,1� 11fi
LINE TABLE
LINE #
DIRECTION
LENGTH
L1
S55' 33' 16"E
71.58
L2
N64' 09' 15"E
94.00
L3
N 80' 16' 54" W
87.87
L4
N16' 45' 30"W
86.93
L5
S87' 31' 21 "E
94.60
L6
N47' 20' 03"E
97.40
L7
N60' 25' 24"E
94.78
L8
S31' 25' 52"E
27.85
L9
N59' 15' 09"E
46.39
L10
S12' 47' 56"E
44.54
L11
S64' 09' 15"W
94.00
L12
N77' 37' 17"E
21.53
L13
N11' 56' 42"W
43.36
L14
N76' 09' 54"E
78.92
L15
N78' 54' 29"E
55.91
L16
S70' 06' 53"W
88.30
L17
N29' 49' 20"W
69.63
0
• EXISTING PK NAIL
© EXISTING IRON
® 30"*5/8" REBAR SET W/ 3.25" ALUMINUM
CAP WITH STATE SEAL
NEW CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING WETLANDS
CE# CORNER EASEMENT NUMBER
` \ EXISTING DITCH
BOUNDARY LINE SURVEYED
---- -- - LINE NOT SURVEYED
EIHW OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
� \
\
REVIEW OFFICER CERTIFICATE \
STATE EF NORTH CAROLI}NA, COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE EXEMPTION STATEMENT
I, �ii Ir I CLYA Ph' A REVIEW OFFICER STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE \
OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP EXEMPT FROM THE NCOMBE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
OR PLAT WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED AND T6PMI0 ION 0 INANCE. \
MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR \
RECORDING.
REVIEW OFFICER, � 1 I PLANNER DATE
DATE C
BY: TITLE: VI a
1
t
N/F
CE#31 OWNER:
HAR13ARA C HAGUE
PIN:879014282200000
\\ DB 3404 PG 23
PB 88 PG 128
POINT TABLE
POINT # NORTHING EASTING
1 704411.6951 889357.8621
2 704551,7654 889409.6930
3 704664.2342 889415.0931
4 704705.2135 889499.6904
5 704594.9038 889523.6647
6 704342.0885 889459.3467
7 704682.2336 889406.3741
8 704780,2571 889386.2678
9 704934,9537 889412.7745
10 704824.8713 889268.7527
11 704839.7045 889182.1426
12 704922.9391 889157.0786
13 704918,8494 889251.5931
14 704984.8588 889323.2122
15 705031.6426 889405.6443
16 705007,8813 889420.1661
17 705031.6007 889460.0385
18 704936.1644 889514.7446
19 704766,6419 889481.1054
20 704723.2129 889490.9714
21 705052.3050 889517.3288
22 705056.9197 889538.3550
23 705099.3435 889529.3801
24 705126.3420 .889732.0852
25 705174.3301 889893.5057
26 70526D_0463 889766.4818
27 705278.9172 889843.1079
28 705289.6736 559897.9747
29 705164.2532 890025.1083
30 705263.6030 890237.3124
31 705184.8765 890283,2827
32 705032.3703 890010.5829
33 705065.6504 889898.8276
34 705035.6163 889815.7929
35 704991.8937 889551.9579
EXISTING IRON
N: 704865.77'
E: 890469.62'
(NAD 8312011)
o�
s�
�n
�Cr9'y C�,cy �Y
9[jp c,o
O��fiN �A1ZfY 4so� o�,o�
RD �\
<Y7
VICINITY MAP
NOTES SCALE: 1" = 1 mile
1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE
PARENT TRACT. THE PARENT TRACT BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO
THIS EASEMENT ARE NOT CHANGED BY THIS PLAT, BOUNDARY
INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS DERIVED FROM DEEDS AND MAPS
OF RECORD IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY AND MONUMENTATION FOUND IN
THE FIELD.
2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S.
SURVEY FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREA COMPUTED BY COORDINATE METHOD.
4. THE BASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS PLAT IS
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH
AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83), BASED ON DIFFERENTIAL GPS
OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 2018.
5. DEED REFERENCES: AS SHOWN HEREON.
6. SUBJECT PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARCEL NUMBER: 879004049600000.
7. SUBJECT EASEMENT LIES WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE
"X", BASED ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
37008780000J AND 3700879000J, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010.
8. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING PERFORMED DURING THE
COURSE OF THIS SURVEY.
9. THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT WERE
DETERMINED USING REAL TIME KINEMATIC GPS OBSERVATIONS (VRS)
TAKEN IN OCTOBER 2018 BASED ON THE CORDS ID "NCBT" IN
BUNCOMBE COUNTY.
OWNER CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN
AND DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF
BUNCO AND THAT I EBY ADOPT THIS PLAN WITH MY FREE
CONSEN .
r
ROBER D ELL JR. 1
SURVEYOR CERTIFICATION
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER
MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION (DEED DESCRIPTION RECORDED IN BOOK 663, PAGE 619);
THAT THE BOUNDARIES SURVEYED AND NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY
INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION FOUND IN REFERENCES SHOWN
HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION OR POSITIONAL ACCURACY AS
CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT THE SURVEY IS OF
ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING
PARCELS, A COURT -ORDERED SURVEY, OR OTHER EXEMPTION OR
EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION; THAT What 44T WAS
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS ,� ` �0, �S MY
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION LICENSE, NUIZQ d�- ,LG�TIf+,
2 Y OF OCTOBER, A. 2 � Sso *
CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBER L ' 3 o 0- a:
M. GELLENTHIN
V �
A4i G!4
ooll
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
PROJECT NAME: ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE
DIVIS PROJECT* 100066
SPO FILE NO. 11-DK
LEICESTER TOWNSHIP, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: SCALE: SHEET:
nf'T DQ Q I i" - inn' I i np, i
GRAPHIC SCALE
too 0 50 100 200
KCI
1 INCH = 100 FEET ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA
C-0764
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
4505 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, FLOOR 4
RALEIGH, NC 27607
PHONE [phone] * FAX [phone]
Book: 203 Page: 153 Page 1 of 1
REVIEW OFFICER CERTIFICATE \
STATE EF NORTH CAROLI}NA, COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE EXEMPTION STATEMENT
I, �ii Ir I CLYA Ph' A REVIEW OFFICER STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE \
OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP EXEMPT FROM THE NCOMBE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
OR PLAT WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED AND T6PMI0 ION 0 INANCE. \
MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR \
RECORDING.
REVIEW OFFICER, � 1 I PLANNER DATE
DATE C
BY: TITLE: VI a
1
t
N/F
CE#31 OWNER:
HAR13ARA C HAGUE
PIN:879014282200000
\\ DB 3404 PG 23
PB 88 PG 128
POINT TABLE
POINT # NORTHING EASTING
1 704411.6951 889357.8621
2 704551,7654 889409.6930
3 704664.2342 889415.0931
4 704705.2135 889499.6904
5 704594.9038 889523.6647
6 704342.0885 889459.3467
7 704682.2336 889406.3741
8 704780,2571 889386.2678
9 704934,9537 889412.7745
10 704824.8713 889268.7527
11 704839.7045 889182.1426
12 704922.9391 889157.0786
13 704918,8494 889251.5931
14 704984.8588 889323.2122
15 705031.6426 889405.6443
16 705007,8813 889420.1661
17 705031.6007 889460.0385
18 704936.1644 889514.7446
19 704766,6419 889481.1054
20 704723.2129 889490.9714
21 705052.3050 889517.3288
22 705056.9197 889538.3550
23 705099.3435 889529.3801
24 705126.3420 .889732.0852
25 705174.3301 889893.5057
26 70526D_0463 889766.4818
27 705278.9172 889843.1079
28 705289.6736 559897.9747
29 705164.2532 890025.1083
30 705263.6030 890237.3124
31 705184.8765 890283,2827
32 705032.3703 890010.5829
33 705065.6504 889898.8276
34 705035.6163 889815.7929
35 704991.8937 889551.9579
EXISTING IRON
N: 704865.77'
E: 890469.62'
(NAD 8312011)
o�
s�
�n
�Cr9'y C�,cy �Y
9[jp c,o
O��fiN �A1ZfY 4so� o�,o�
RD �\
<Y7
VICINITY MAP
NOTES SCALE: 1" = 1 mile
1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE
PARENT TRACT. THE PARENT TRACT BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO
THIS EASEMENT ARE NOT CHANGED BY THIS PLAT, BOUNDARY
INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS DERIVED FROM DEEDS AND MAPS
OF RECORD IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY AND MONUMENTATION FOUND IN
THE FIELD.
2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S.
SURVEY FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREA COMPUTED BY COORDINATE METHOD.
4. THE BASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS PLAT IS
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH
AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83), BASED ON DIFFERENTIAL GPS
OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 2018.
5. DEED REFERENCES: AS SHOWN HEREON.
6. SUBJECT PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARCEL NUMBER: 879004049600000.
7. SUBJECT EASEMENT LIES WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE
"X", BASED ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
37008780000J AND 3700879000J, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010.
8. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING PERFORMED DURING THE
COURSE OF THIS SURVEY.
9. THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT WERE
DETERMINED USING REAL TIME KINEMATIC GPS OBSERVATIONS (VRS)
TAKEN IN OCTOBER 2018 BASED ON THE CORDS ID "NCBT" IN
BUNCOMBE COUNTY.
OWNER CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN
AND DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF
BUNCO AND THAT I EBY ADOPT THIS PLAN WITH MY FREE
CONSEN .
r
ROBER D ELL JR. 1
SURVEYOR CERTIFICATION
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER
MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION (DEED DESCRIPTION RECORDED IN BOOK 663, PAGE 619);
THAT THE BOUNDARIES SURVEYED AND NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY
INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION FOUND IN REFERENCES SHOWN
HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION OR POSITIONAL ACCURACY AS
CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT THE SURVEY IS OF
ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING
PARCELS, A COURT -ORDERED SURVEY, OR OTHER EXEMPTION OR
EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION; THAT What 44T WAS
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS ,� ` �0, �S MY
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION LICENSE, NUIZQ d�- ,LG�TIf+,
2 Y OF OCTOBER, A. 2 � Sso *
CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBER L ' 3 o 0- a:
M. GELLENTHIN
V �
A4i G!4
ooll
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
PROJECT NAME: ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE
DIVIS PROJECT* 100066
SPO FILE NO. 11-DK
LEICESTER TOWNSHIP, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: SCALE: SHEET:
nf'T DQ Q I i" - inn' I i np, i
GRAPHIC SCALE
too 0 50 100 200
KCI
1 INCH = 100 FEET ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA
C-0764
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
4505 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, FLOOR 4
RALEIGH, NC 27607
PHONE [phone] * FAX [phone]
Book: 203 Page: 153 Page 1 of 1
EXISTING IRON
N: 704865.77'
E: 890469.62'
(NAD 8312011)
o�
s�
�n
�Cr9'y C�,cy �Y
9[jp c,o
O��fiN �A1ZfY 4so� o�,o�
RD �\
<Y7
VICINITY MAP
NOTES SCALE: 1" = 1 mile
1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE
PARENT TRACT. THE PARENT TRACT BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO
THIS EASEMENT ARE NOT CHANGED BY THIS PLAT, BOUNDARY
INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS DERIVED FROM DEEDS AND MAPS
OF RECORD IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY AND MONUMENTATION FOUND IN
THE FIELD.
2. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S.
SURVEY FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREA COMPUTED BY COORDINATE METHOD.
4. THE BASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS PLAT IS
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH
AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83), BASED ON DIFFERENTIAL GPS
OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 2018.
5. DEED REFERENCES: AS SHOWN HEREON.
6. SUBJECT PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARCEL NUMBER: 879004049600000.
7. SUBJECT EASEMENT LIES WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE
"X", BASED ON FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
37008780000J AND 3700879000J, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010.
8. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING PERFORMED DURING THE
COURSE OF THIS SURVEY.
9. THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT WERE
DETERMINED USING REAL TIME KINEMATIC GPS OBSERVATIONS (VRS)
TAKEN IN OCTOBER 2018 BASED ON THE CORDS ID "NCBT" IN
BUNCOMBE COUNTY.
OWNER CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN
AND DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF
BUNCO AND THAT I EBY ADOPT THIS PLAN WITH MY FREE
CONSEN .
r
ROBER D ELL JR. 1
SURVEYOR CERTIFICATION
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER
MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION (DEED DESCRIPTION RECORDED IN BOOK 663, PAGE 619);
THAT THE BOUNDARIES SURVEYED AND NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY
INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION FOUND IN REFERENCES SHOWN
HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION OR POSITIONAL ACCURACY AS
CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT THE SURVEY IS OF
ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING
PARCELS, A COURT -ORDERED SURVEY, OR OTHER EXEMPTION OR
EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION; THAT What 44T WAS
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS ,� ` �0, �S MY
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION LICENSE, NUIZQ d�- ,LG�TIf+,
2 Y OF OCTOBER, A. 2 � Sso *
CAROLINA REGISTRATION NUMBER L ' 3 o 0- a:
M. GELLENTHIN
V �
A4i G!4
ooll
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
PROJECT NAME: ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE
DIVIS PROJECT* 100066
SPO FILE NO. 11-DK
LEICESTER TOWNSHIP, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: SCALE: SHEET:
nf'T DQ Q I i" - inn' I i np, i
GRAPHIC SCALE
too 0 50 100 200
KCI
1 INCH = 100 FEET ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA
C-0764
KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
4505 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, FLOOR 4
RALEIGH, NC 27607
PHONE [phone] * FAX [phone]
Book: 203 Page: 153 Page 1 of 1

Mitigation Plan May Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
19, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

4. Credit Release Schedule
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the final design plans unless
otherwise documented and provided to the Interagency Review Team following construction. Under no
circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA authorization has been
received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the
project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The
DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have
been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the
case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the
criteria described as follows:
Stream Credit Release Schedule — 7 year Timeframe
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
standards are being met
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
65% (75%*)
standards are being met
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
75% (85%*)
standards are being met
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
80% (90%*)
standards are being met
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
10%
90% (100%*)
being met, and project has received close-out approval from IRT
*See Subsequent Credit Releases description below
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCDMS
upon approval by the DE following satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCDMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built
report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit
issuance is not required.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream project with a 7-year
monitoring period, a reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull
events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period,
release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones
associated with credit release, the NCDMS will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with
documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation
will be included with the annual monitoring report.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

S. Financial Assurance
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service's In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly NCDENR) has
provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects
to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

6. Maintenance Plan
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

The site will be monitored on a regular basis, with a physical inspection of the site conducted a minimum
of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and
may include the following. Maintenance needs or actions will be recorded in the annual monitoring
reports. See the Appendix 9 for more information on invasive species.
Planned Maintenance
Component/Feature
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
Stream
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel (such as the
proposed water quality treatment areas) may also require maintenance to prevent bank
failures, knick points, and erosion.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
Vegetation
community. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site Boundary
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis up until the project is closed out.
The site will be monitored for the presence of beaver. Adaptive management approaches
Beaver Control
will be used to evaluate whether or not beaver or their structures should be controlled at
the site.
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Stream and Wetland Delineation (Incl. Stream Identification Forms)
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Round Hill Branch
Date: 1/23/2018
Project/Site: Round Hill Branch
Latitude: 35.6291
Evaluator: J. Sullivan
county: Buncombe
Longitude: _82.7381
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 35
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
,a- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
20
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
r-2-1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
LLJ
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
M
3
9. Grade control
0
rM
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Les = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 7.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
t 1.5 j
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
L 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1 2 1
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2 1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5[Other =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Many right snails one caddisfly, one dragonfly
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
T1 Above Spring
Date:1/23/18
Project/Site: Round Hill Branch
Latitude: 35.6293
Evaluator: J. Sullivan
county: Buncombe
Longitude:-82.7388
Total Points:
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 25.5
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
,a- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
1 2 1
t 2 1
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
0
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1 1 1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 7.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 1
1
1
1.5
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5 1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
F es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1 2 j
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
1
3
1.5
22. Fish
0
0.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5[Other =
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 1 Right Snail
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
T2
Date: 1/23/18
Project/Site: Round Hill Branch
Latitude: 35.6304
Evaluator: J. Sullivan
County: Buncombe
Longitude:-82.7368
Total Points:
22.5
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =10.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
,a- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1 1 1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
L 2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
L 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 7 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 1
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3_'T
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 ther = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ManV midges
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Round Hill Branch City/County: Buncombe Sampling Date: 1/18/19
%cCI State: NC Sampling Applicant/Owner: Point: W1 Wet
Investigator(s): J. Sullivan Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): N-1 3nR Lat: 35.6288 Long:-82.7381 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Tate loam NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Wetland is located in a cattle pasture
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
X High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W1 wet
Entire
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
2
1. None
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
5
Percent of Dominant Species
67%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Entire )
FACW species x 2 =
,.-None
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
= Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Entire
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Juncus
60 X FACW
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. effusus
2. Carex sp.
20 X FAC
3. Schedonorus arundinaceus
20 X FA
'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 It (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
100 = Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
50% of total cover: 50
20% of total cover: 20
Entire
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
height.
1. None
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Yes X No
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W1 we
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-1
10YR 5/2
100
L
1-5
10YR 5/2
90
7.5 YR 4/6 10 C PL
CL
5-13
10YR 4/1
95
7.5 YR 5/6 5 C M PL
C
13-18+
10YR 3/1
100
C
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Round Hill Branch City/County: Buncombe Sampling Date: 1/1 8/19
Applicant/Owner: KCI State: NC Sampling Point: W1 Up
Investigator(s): J. Sullivan Section, Township, Range:
Hlllsl0 a Local relief concave, convex, none): None Sloe % 5%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): p ( ) p ( ):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): N-1 30B Lat: 35.6290 Long:-82.7386 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Tate loam NWI classification: -
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Now
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches): -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Located in cattle pasture
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W1 up
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. None That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 5' )
,.-None
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
W
(A)
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
- 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
- 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1. Schedonorus arundinaceus 90 X FACU - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. Plantage major 10 FACU
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50 20% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. None
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 It (1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
heiaht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation X
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W1 Up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-18+ 7.5YR 5/8 100 C
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Round Hill Branch Restoration Site 2. Date of evaluation: 1/23/2018
3. Applicant/owner name: KCI 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Sullivan / KCI
5. County: Buncombe 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Round hill Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.6290 /-82.7381
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Round Hill Branch
9. Site number (show on attached map): Top 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A B
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 miz) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] ortoo much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
®F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, U)
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:9 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y tC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
V 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
® ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
® ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
®E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ®B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
®D ®D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Round Hill Branch Date of Assessment 1/23/2018
Restoration Site
Stream Category Mb2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Round Hill Branch Restoration Site 2. Date of evaluation: 1/23/2018
3. Applicant/owner name: KCI 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Sullivan / KCI
5. County: Buncombe 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Round hill Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.6301 /-82.7360
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Round Hill Branch
9. Site number (show on attached map): Lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A B
valley shape (skip for ®
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 miz) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] ortoo much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, U)
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:9 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y tC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
V 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
® ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
® ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
® ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
®E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Round Hill Branch Date of Assessment
1/23/2018
Restoration Site
Stream Category Mb3 Assessor Name/Organization
J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Round Hill Branch Restoration Site 2. Date of evaluation: 1/23/2018
3. Applicant/owner name: KCI 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Sullivan / KCI
5. County: Buncombe 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Round hill Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.6293 /-82.7388
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): T1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1.5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic El k, ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] ortoo much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, U)
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:9 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y tC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
V 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
® ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
®E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
®B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ®C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ®B Low stem density
®C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Round Hill Branch
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment 1/23/2018
Restoration Site
Stream Category Mb2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Round Hill Branch Restoration Site 2. Date of evaluation: 1/23/2018
3. Applicant/owner name: KCI 4. Assessor name/organization: J. Sullivan / KCI
5. County: Buncombe 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Round hill Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.6302 /-82.7365
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): T2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic El k, ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] ortoo much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, U)
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
:9 E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y tC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
V 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
®E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ❑C ®C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ®B Low stem density
®C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Round Hill Branch
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment 1/23/2018
Restoration Site
Stream Category Mb2 Assessor Name/Organization J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Date of Evaluation
1/18/2019
Applicant/Owner Name
KCI
Wetland Site Name
W1
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
J. Sullivan / KCI
Level III Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains
Nearest Named Water Body
Round Hill Branch
River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
06010105
County
Buncombe
NCDWR Region
Asheville
F— Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.6288 /-82.7381
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief —assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
®E ®E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration —assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
®F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
®A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
T
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
a,
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
s` ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Livestock have access to the wetland

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W1 Date of Assessment 1/18/2019
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Date of Evaluation
1/18/2019
Applicant/Owner Name
KCI
Wetland Site Name
W2 & W3
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
J. Sullivan / KCI
Level III Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains
Nearest Named Water Body
Round Hill Branch
River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
06010105
County
Buncombe
NCDWR Region
Asheville
F— Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.6288 /-82.7381
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief —assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
OF OF From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration —assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
®B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
®F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
®A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
T
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
a,
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
s` ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W2 & W3 Date of Assessment 1/18/2019
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Date of Evaluation
1/18/2019
Applicant/Owner Name
KCI
Wetland Site Name
W4
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
J. Sullivan / KCI
Level III Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains
Nearest Named Water Body
Round Hill Branch
River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
06010105
County
Buncombe
NCDWR Region
Asheville
F— Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.6288 /-82.7381
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief —assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
®H ®H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration —assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
®F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
®A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
T
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
a,
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
s` ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland has been ditched

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W4 Date of Assessment 1/18/2019
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Sullivan / KCI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

8. Approved Jurisdictional Determination
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2018-01168 County: Buncombe U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Leicester
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Owner: Robert D. Russell, Jr.
Address: 588 Green Vallev Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Size (acres) 3.55 acres Nearest Town Leicester
Nearest Waterway Newfound Creek River Basin French Broad -Holston
USGS HUC 06010105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.6305
Longitude:-82.7369
Location description: The site for the proposed Round Hill Branch Restoration/Mitigation Site is located at 588 Green Vallev
Road, in Leicester, NC.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 3/1/2019. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once

2018-01168
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Amanda Jones at 828-271-7980 ext. 4225 or
amanda. iones(dusace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 4/25/2019.
D. Remarks: Jurisdictional areas were verified through a site visit and this determination only applies to areas within
the proposed easement boundaries as noted in red on the attached Figure 3.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Digitally byFUEMMELER.AMAND FEMELERAMAN DAJON E5.12428
A.JONES.1242835090 35090
Date: 2019.04.26 07:57:03-04'00'
Date of JD: 4/25/2019 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

2018-01168
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
ht!p:Hco!psmgpu.usace.anny.mil/cm qpex/Vp=l36:4: 0
Copy furnished:
Agent:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Attn: Joe Sullivan
Address:
4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number:
919-278-2533
E-mail:
a oe.sullivan(dkci.com

NOTIFICATION OF44 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Robert D. Russell Jr., File Number: 2018-01168 Date:04/25/2019
Attached
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatorvProgramandPennits.asi)x
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Amanda Jones
CESAD-PDO
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Amanda Jones, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 04/25/2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Robert D. Russell, Jr. 588 Green Valley Road,
Leicester, NC 28748,
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Round Hill Branch
Restoration/Mitigation Site, 2018-01168
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The site for the proposed Round Hill Branch
Restoration/Mitigation Site is located at 588 Green Valley Road, in Leicester, NC.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Buncombe City: Leicester
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.6305 Longitude:-82.7369
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Newfound Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 02/25/19
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount of
Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
aquatic resources in
which the aquatic resource
Latitude (decimal
Longitude (decimal
resources (i.e.,
Site Number
review area (acreage
'may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees)
degrees)
wetland vs. non -
and linear feet, if
Section 404 or Section
wetland waters)
applicable
10/404)
Round Hill
35.6291
-82.7381
1567 If
Non wetland
Section 404
Branch
T1
35.6293
-82.7388
347 If
Non wetland
Section 404
T2
35.6304
-82.7368
281 If
Non wetland
Section 404
W1
35.6288
-82.7381
0.17 acre
Wetland
Section 404
W2
35.6299
-82.7364
0.06 acre
Wetland
Section 404
W3
35.6304
-82.7368
0.01 acre
Wetland
Section 404
W4
35.6294
-82.7387
<0.01 acre
Wetland
Section 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AID) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AID for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AID
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AID could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AID
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AID
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AID, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AID to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data rcvicwcd for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:

❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAVFIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corus and should not be relied uuon for later imisdictional determinations.
FUEMMELER.AM Digitally signed by
090LER.AMANDAJONE5.124
ANDA.JONES.1242g3
2835090 Date: 2019.04.26 07:57:35 -04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
4/25/2019
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) t
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

9. Invasive Species
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

The site will be monitored for the presence of invasive species during both the visual assessments and
vegetation plot monitoring events and will follow the guidance in the Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT 2016) regarding invasive species. A list of non-native
invasive species for North Carolina is found in the NC SAM User Manual Appendix I.
Per the NCIRT 2016 guidance, invasive species management should occur when the functional integrity of
the vegetative community is impacted. One or more invasive species may present a threat to the site, but
the desirable species may have the ability to survive or outcompete despite the competition. Once an
invasive species is identified as impairing the site, physical and/or chemical removal and treatment should
occur. Any control measures will be noted in the annual monitoring reports.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. Last accessed at: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-
Mitigation-Update.pdf
N.C. Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2016. N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) User Manual.
(https://ribits.usace.army.miI/ribits apex/f?p=107:150:16800695257725::NO::P150 DOCUMEN
T ID:36298 )
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

10. Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of
Mitigation Services Projects
Version 1.4
Norte: only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part
Project Name:
1: General Project Information
Round Hill Branch Stream Restoration Site
County Name:
Buncombe County, NC
DMS Number:
100066
Project Sponsor:
KCI Technolo ies, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Tim Morris
Project Contact Address:
4505 Falls of Neuse Road Suite 400 Raleigh NC 27609
Project Contact E-mail:
tim.morris kci.com
DMS Project Mana er:
Matthew Reid
Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed 13y:
Z e-
DatQ
DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
a
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

2: All Projects
Regulation/QuestionPart
p.
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
® No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
® Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
® N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
(By virtue of no -response)
❑ No
® N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by
the EBCI?
® No
2.
Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3.
Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1.
Will real estate be acquired?
® Yes
❑ No
2.
Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1.
Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
® Yes
water
body?
❑ No
2.
Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1.
Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® No
2.
Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1.
Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3.
Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
® N/A
4.
Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
5.
Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1.
Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1.
Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal
agency?
❑ No
® N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

11. Agency Correspondence
Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

Mitigation Plan Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
November 13, 2020 DMS Project Number 100066

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Date
ISO 9001:201 S CEIMFIED
EN GINEERS • PLANNERS • S CIENTI STS • C ONSTRUCTI ON MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
August 18, 2018
Attendees: Paul Wiesner, NC DMS
Matthew Reid, NC DMS
Periann Russell, NC DMS
Tim Baumgartner, NC DMS
Mac Haupt, NC DWR
Todd Tugwell, ACOE
Steve Kichefski, ACOE
Tim Morris, KCI
Charlie Morgan, KCI
Adam Spiller, KCI
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Round Hill Branch Restoration Site
Post Contract IRT Site Review Meeting
French Broad 05
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Contract No. #7528
DMS Project #100059
An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced project on August 2nd starting at
approximately 1pm. Weather was overcast with periods of rain. Approximately 0.22" of rainfall had
fallen earlier in the morning (Weather Underground Station KNCLEICEI8). Project tributaries were
flowing during the meeting with the exception of Tributary 2.
The comments follow the order of the site walk. There was overall agreement on the proposed levels of
intervention and the proposed credit strategy unless specified below.
A map depicting the crediting scenario is included as Figure 1.
Round Hill Branch - From Driveway Culvert to End of Project
No issues were raised regarding this channel other than the fact that it was hard to evaluate the
channel due to the thick vegetation. Evidence of erosion and channelization was evident
throughout this reach, although erosion areas were concentrated near the end of the reach.
The approach here would be full restoration of the planform and profile. Profile adjustments
would need to transition back down to the receiving stream elevation at the bottom of the
project. KCI would take advantage of the over -widened valley to integrate the PI-P2 transitions.
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
WWW.KCI.COM

T2
No issues were voiced for this reach other than to ensure that flow monitoring was conducted
on this channel as there was not strong evidence of flow in this channel during the site visit
T1 - From Driveway Upstream to Bridges Cover Estate Road
The IRT questioned the need for full scale restoration in this reach because many of the banks
appeared to be stable at the time of the site visit. Although KCI agreed that there were stable
elements of this reach, there were also areas (especially in the upstream reach) where the
channel was unstable due to the presence of a deteriorating culvert (to be removed) and the
thought was to do complete planform and profile work through this area. The E1 vs. R approach
for this reach will be re-evaluated during the Mitigation Plan stage, with thorough justification of
the mitigation approach at the request of the IRT.
Round Hill Branch from T1 Confluence Upstream to Property Line
- Similar to T1, this reach was heavily vegetated and much of the instability noted during previous
site reviews was difficult to see. The IRT suggested providing detailed justification (including
photo evidence) of the instability that led to the decision to consider restoration for this reach.
Meeting was adjourned at approximately 2pm.
If there are questions or concerns regarding the content in these minutes please call (919-278-2511) or
email me [e-mail].
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM u'WW. KCl. C0M

Monitor Flow on T2
Re-evaluate
approach for T1 in
Mitiaation Plan gNM__.WWW
Provide detailed
justification in MP
for Restoration call
on RHB from top of
project to driveway
culvert
4,
Project Easement (3.55 ac)
Project Parcels
Stream Restoration (2,190 If 2,130 Credits)
FIGURE 1. PROPOSED MITIGATION N
0 100 200 TYPE AND EXTENT n Source NC OneMap
Feet ROUND HILL BRANCH RESTORATION SITE N Orthotmagery, 2015.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC